# EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 8



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

Welcome to Part 8 of the never-ending Alt Fuel thread! Continued from Part 7

Please... continue.


----------



## BB (Jun 2, 2006)

Darell,

You are correct... This is a multi-variable problem. There are the energy losses (drag, friction, conversion losses-what gear you are in, fixed losses, etc.), losses that are variable (temperature related, altitude, weather, etc.), and efficiencies of fuel to work conversions (the engine's temp, rpm, moisture, type of fuel, torque vs rpm, parasitic loads--alt, pumps, etc.) that all go to create multiple local minimums and maximums (peaks and valleys in the fuel economy graph), and external traffic conditions (stop and go, speed limits, driving styles)--to solve this using engineering and math (or fully simulate in a computer) is not easy. Experimentation is what most of the rest of us will have to do (like you did).

Want to through something else into the economy mix... Wages for the driver, costs of capital, repairs, breaks, etc.--alll of those are also important too... (example, driving faster uses more fuel, but less wages and can transport more cargo for the same time, or for farther distances before manidtory breaks)... Hence folks willing to pay for airplane flights instead of taking the bus, and paying for next day air shippment for their packages.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

BB said:


> Wages for the driver, costs of capital, repairs, breaks, etc.--alll of those are also important too... (example, driving faster uses more fuel, but less wages and can transport more cargo for the same time, or for farther distances before manidtory breaks)... Hence folks willing to pay for airplane flights instead of taking the bus, and paying for next day air shippment for their packages.


Quite true. This is the "trucker paradox" as I call it. It is obviously more expensive for them to drive faster (higher fuel cost, more tire wear, more maintenance), but it nets them more money in the end.


----------



## cobb (Jun 2, 2006)

DUMB BLONDE MOMENT...

So, you put the egg between your foot and petal, not the petal and floor????? 

That makes more sense now. 

Yeah, we had an example about using linear equations to guestimate stuff and fuel economy was one of them. Cars have a sweep spot between the power band of the engine, gearing and aerodynamics. Mostly larger trucks need to go slower, smaller cars, faster. 

THat is interesting about the gun and run technique for the prius. Its my understanding the ice and electric motor work together with a mixer gearing, where the other hybrids use it as a helper motor. 

Yeah, the electric car is still on the back burner. I need to find out abut charging and make some money once I pay off the debt from getting my license before I can swing that. Thinking of getting an electric ford ranger online and buying a new set of batteries, having both shipped to work, putting it together there, charging it for a few days before driving.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 2, 2006)

Funny Darell! My RAM (if you take all hills etc. into consideration) likes 63 or so the best too. But if the road is flat and traffic will bear it, 35 works pretty good too!

This is a great thread!


----------



## winny (Jun 3, 2006)

Darell,

Yes, you are indeed correct but I would just like to add that fuel efficiency is not the only reason why you have a gearbox. Unless you have a massive amount of torque (read electric engine), you need a gearbox to _impedance match_ the engine against the load (friction to air, road and such). Our old Audi A4 had just about the same efficiency whether I did go in 4:th or 5:th gear in 70 km/h but the amount of power I had to play with at that speed almost doubled at 4:th gear. In 110 km/h, there was another issue where 5:th gear would save me 40% or so fuel.

Hmm, back to the impedance matching. Although I haven't read that comment here, I'd like to take the opportunity to straighten out the issue with electric cars and gearboxes once and for all. It's often said that due to the flat torque-rotation speed frequency curve of most electric engines they don't need gearboxes and that they will accelerate just as good without one. Not true, at least if we disregard the weight added by the gearbox itself. They will accelerate very good but they would have done better with a gearbox in most cases.

If we would have a fixed value of say x Nm or torque all over the rotation speed frequency range, the power will increase linear from standstill to max speed (blue curve) and as the power needed is increasing with speed to the power of three, the acceleration will be slower and slower. That's it. 
If you on the other hand would have a gearbox, you would be able to use peak power at n times during that acceleration (red curve), where n is the number or gears.

I'll draw a picture for you:






I have neglected any loss in the gearbox here and chosen a four-speed gearbox. It's only schematic.

Just in case anyone wonder...


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 3, 2006)

Ah, but the acceleration of electrics doesn't seem to suffer enough with a single gear to merit them ... unlike an internal combusion engine which cannot mange a car with a single gear. With an electric, you have the option of sacraficing efficiency by allowing the motor to draw absurd currents since motors have most torque when stalled.

Taking a look at the tZero brochure and FAQ it looks like it has a pack with 28 lead-acid batteries and can dump up to 580 amps into the motor. On the surface, that sounds like 28 x 12V x 580A, or just under 195kW. The tZero has a 4.6s 0-60 time. The Wrightspeed Xa manages a 3.0s 0-60 time; power consumption is unknown, but it has a 8.35:1 gear ratio.

I've seen ~1200W direct-drive vacuum motors bend and break stout screwdriver shafts or catch fire trying to (when they weren't popping breakers; don't remember many parallel circuits we ultimately had to use for that test) during locked-rotor tests. Scale that up by a factor of 30 or so with a reduction gear and a load that the motor can actually move and you'll get zippy acceleration. I suspect that a multiple-speed gearbox would be diminishing returns at best.


----------



## winny (Jun 3, 2006)

idleprocess,

Yes, but if you would have combined that overdrive with a gearbox, you could have been accelerating even faster if you could change gears in zero time.
The power consumption of the Wrightspeed should be about the same as the t-zero as they use the same propulsion system unless the li-ions can't deliver that power.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 3, 2006)

I believe that the X1 weighs signifigantly less than the tZero, so it shouldn't need to deliver as much power although the motor horsepower ratings are the same.

Some sort of CVT _might_ make sense for high-performance electrics; I'd think that a discrete multispeed gearbox would just introduce shifting delay. A 3.0 second 0-60 time is mightly close to what the best motorcycles can do. I can see an electric with 2 or 3 speeds if you're not happy with the ~112MPH top speed of the X1, but not for faster acceleration; you'll shift into 2nd as you near the motor redline long after you've traveled that first quarter mile.


----------



## winny (Jun 3, 2006)

I agree. With the high wind resistance of the Ariel Atom/Wrightspeed, you don't need that much higher top speed and a 0.4 sec gear change would kill off any time saved by higher power to the wheels during acceleration.

However, if I would have had a normal four seated electric car, I would like to have at least some gears to keep the noise down during normal cruising (although very little from an electric motor, lower frequencies are more pleasant) and the performance up when climbing hills at low speed or pulling a trailer from standstill.


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2006)

winny said:


> Darell,
> 
> Yes, you are indeed correct but I would just like to add that fuel efficiency is not the only reason why you have a gearbox. Unless you have a massive amount of torque (read electric engine), you need a gearbox to _impedance match_ the engine against the load


You'll certainly get no argument from me on that! I was only discussing the situation where fuel economy from an ICE vehicle with a gearbox is NOT going to necessarily correspond with speed in a logical way. Didn't mean to imply that the gearbox was there ONLY to screw with that graph. 



> Hmm, back to the impedance matching. Although I haven't read that comment here, I'd like to take the opportunity to straighten out the issue with electric cars and gearboxes once and for all. It's often said that due to the flat torque-rotation speed frequency curve of most electric engines they don't need gearboxes and that they will accelerate just as good without one. Not true, at least if we disregard the weight added by the gearbox itself. They will accelerate very good but they would have done better with a gearbox in most cases.


And you'll get no argument from me on this either (I must be getting soft, or you're making sense.  )It is the added drag, complexity, weight and expense that makes gearboxes on EVs a losing proposition (as Mr. Idle points out so well above). If a cheap, lightweight, lossless VARIABLE transmission were incorporated, EVs could have BETTER acceleration (up to the limits of traction!) and more efficient cruising all from the same battery/motor combination. Finding parity with these factors has not yet happened, and EV builders (even the guys who WANT to build EVs) typically skip the transmission. One important thing to note: Dr. Andy Frank at UCD, and made a 99%+ efficient constantly variable transmission that he's using on his plug-in hybrids to achieve astonishing torque gains from the E traction motors. If this thing gets into production we may see something spectacular. He says efficiency is so good that they typically safely ignore the transmission loss in their calculations. For my money, the constantly variable trans is the answer - not the antique "gear box" of yester year.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 3, 2006)

Regarding the "punch it and coast" technique in the Prius....

Many have reported great results with this technique, yet I find it difficult to do consistantly. It has a downside in that people behind you are not always happy when you coast below the speed limit. I do find myself coaxing the car into turning off the ICE (by letting off the gas for a second) if I know I'm approaching a downhill incline of a fraction of a degree. That's in city driving. Inertia, gravity and the electric motor maintain my speed. 

As for hills and the Prius? I find that simply driving normally with cruise on works quite well. No speed changes as you aproach nor as you climb the hill. The gas consumtion increases as you climb (like any car) but it levels off pretty quick and the ICE stays off as you go down the other side. I guess if the hill were only a hundred feet high you might see an advantage to speeding up on approach then coasting... Not a lot of those in my area. I'm thinking of hills as 600 foot climb in a mile or two.

On gears and electics:

The use of gearing allows some benefits with the electric motor. It can reduce the "cogging" effect. It can make accelleration even faster, or it can reduce the motor's RPM to a range that ensures long life. 


On speed and ICE efficiency:

Is it a coincidence that 100 kph is the limit in many countries and that Darell's Civic is most fuel efficient at 62 MPH? 100kph = 62 mph. I think not. That was one of the arguements against the national 55MPH speed limit. People argued that cars were designed to go 65 and therfore most efficient at that speed. Cars built in the 70's and 80s were designed to be most efficient at 55.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2006)

winny said:


> However, if I would have had a normal four seated electric car, I would like to have at least some gears to keep the noise down during normal cruising (although very little from an electric motor, lower frequencies are more pleasant) and the performance up when climbing hills at low speed or pulling a trailer from standstill.


Ah. I can tell from these comments that you have not yet had the pleasure of driving an EV???

The EV1 was a special case where you could hear the gears. The Rav4, for example is quieter than my bicycle - at any speed (ignoring wind noise at speed). There is NO sound from the motor or the grears that makes it into the passenger area. IF noise is your reason for gearing - forget it!

Climbing hills is better in even an under-powered EV than in a comperable ICE. Pulling a trailer? No problem for the same reason. Do the comparison at altitude, and the EV shines even brighter. A car like the E1 with only a ~100kW motor could smoke the tires from a standstill (no clutch, folks, just "roll-on" power) and will comfortably drive 80mph in that same gear. No, a gearbox is most definitely NOT needed. Yes, it has the potential of making the whole system more efficient, and could allow for the use of a smaller motor, and will allow for even MORE tire smoke... But again - not "needed" for any of the scenarios you mention.


----------



## cobb (Jun 3, 2006)

Excuse me guys, but all EVs have gears. They have around a 10 to one reduction in the final drive. Its my understanding any gearing takes at least 10% from the power in frictional losses. 

Ive used wheelchairs with worm, parallel gearing and direct drive brushless motors. Needless to say, the brushless motors were nothing but problems, over heat quicklyand did not give the performance vs efficiency they were suppsoed to. The worm reduction units gave great torque, but poor economy. THe best was the parallel gearing, both were at about 20-28 to one gearing. 

Further, when sucking the last bit out of a pack, over doing it can cause you to fall flat on your face. I recall in rehab the ramp to the dinning room was right at specs for ada, 12 degree grade. I could go all over the place at full throttle, but that ramp I had to limp up it or zap, it would suck my batteries down too low and had to just sit and wait for them to recharge or get a push up, then I was fine to run around the whole place. 

So, yeah, I would want gearing too, maybe a 2 or 3 speed box or some CV thing. Unless they make a dual or tripple winding motor or that brushless thing improves. 

Man, if I win the lottery, I am giving this my undivded attention.


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Regarding the "punch it and coast" technique in the Prius....
> 
> Many have reported great results with this technique, yet I find it difficult to do consistantly. It has a downside in that people behind you are not always happy when you coast below the speed limit.


No question that it has limited practicality in the real world. Was just pointing how how different driving techniques in different cars can give wildly different results. And it surprises most folks that the "pulse and glide" can work on just about ANY ICE to increase mileage if there were no real-world practical limits to doing so. It is just easier in the Prius since you can "turn it off" by just using your right foot.

I have found that there are many times when it is actually useful in the real world, however. When stop signs are spaced just right you can zip up to speed with the ICE, and let it "glide" to the next stop. Gives about twice the average mileage than accelerating gently with the ICE on the whole time. 

In the EV I find myself using very little gasoline power at all. 



> The use of gearing allows some benefits with the electric motor. It can reduce the "cogging" effect.


It can, yes. But that's a really poor use of it. The cogging can be totally eliminated through electronics, and the gearing can then be chosen for practicality, not the brute-force method of eliminating cogging.



> It can make accelleration even faster


Ha. Only up to the limits of traction  The X1 would accelerate no faster with more torque. It reaches the tire limits WAY before it runs out of torque. It would have better quarter mile time if it had a taller gear though. It reaches the 112 mph limiter well before the quater mile. 



> or it can reduce the motor's RPM to a range that ensures long life.


This one isn't even in the running. Electric motors last for freaking ever. I have yet to hear of a single failed AC motor in the production cars (at least not a failure caused simply by usage). The EV1 motors were tested well beyond 1,000,000 miles of sythesized driving. I wouldn't spend an extra penny in an attempt to prolong electric motor life. No return on that investment when they already outlast any resonable vehicle in which they'd be used.



> Is it a coincidence that 100 kph is the limit in many countries and that Darell's Civic is most fuel efficient at 62 MPH? 100kph = 62 mph. I think not. That was one of the arguements against the national 55MPH speed limit. People argued that cars were designed to go 65 and therfore most efficient at that speed. Cars built in the 70's and 80s were designed to be most efficient at 55.


Right on the money as far as I understand it.


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2006)

cobb said:


> Excuse me guys, but all EVs have gears.


I'm pretty sure that we were all talking about a changeable "gearbox" known as a traditional transmission. Certainly most EVs need to gear the output shaft to keep the motor in a prescribed safe RPM range. But this is fixed gearing - different than a standard/variable transmission.



> Its my understanding any gearing takes at least 10% from the power in frictional losses.


Certainly not. In smaller applications like circular saws, and maybe even wheel chairs, this might be the case. And that's probably pretty close to what happens in a traditional/variable transmission. Not the case for a well-designed full-size EV with single-ratio gearing, however. There are losses in the gearing, of course, but nothing like 10%.



> Needless to say, the brushless motors were nothing but problems, over heat quicklyand did not give the performance vs efficiency they were suppsoed to.
> ....
> or that brushless thing improves.


?? You realize that all the production EVs have brushless AC motors, yes? Super efficient and drop-dead reliable. That they're expensive is really the only draw-back.



> Man, if I win the lottery, I am giving this my undivded attention.


Attention is cheap! I sure haven't won the lotter, and this stuff is about all *I* think about (maybe that was obvious?)


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 3, 2006)

> Quote:
> or it can reduce the motor's RPM to a range that ensures long life.
> 
> This one isn't even in the running. Electric motors last for freaking ever. I have yet to hear of a single failed AC motor in the production cars (at least not a failure caused simply by usage). The EV1 motors were tested well beyond 1,000,000 miles of sythesized driving. I wouldn't spend an extra penny in an attempt to prolong electric motor life. No return on that investment when they already outlast any resonable vehicle in which they'd be used.




I was probably not clear. It's possible for spinning parts to be over stressed when they spin too fast. Windings de-laminate, bearings overheat, etc. Gearing allows parts to spin faster or slower than the motor.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> I was probably not clear. It's possible for spinning parts to be over stressed when they spin too fast. Windings de-laminate, bearings overheat, etc. Gearing allows parts to spin faster or slower than the motor.
> 
> Daniel


Ah! In that case then gearing is of course MANDATORY! 

For whatever reasons, the EV1 motor spun almost twice the RPM as the Rav4 motor. The high-rev EV1 motor definitely made for a louder situation. But I liked it - was like driving a space-ship. You could always tell by the pitch of the gear whine how fast you were going, and all small speed changes were audible.

Man, if I'd known we could have had some new, interesting discussion by just starting a new thread, I would have done it months ago! I think it is still wise to keep them down to just a few hundred posts each. Many folks are scared to peek in when the thing gets so long that it would take a year just to catch up!


----------



## cobb (Jun 3, 2006)

Sorry Darell, I was referring to brush and gear less. In the wheelchair world, if a motor was brushless it was also gearless, dont know why, maybe it was designed for lower rpm operation?

"Opinion 1: Horsepower loss through drive train is a constant percentage based on the type of transmission you have. A manual transmission loses around 15%-17% of engine horsepower and an automatic transmission loses between 20%-25%. " http://www.superstang.com/horsepower.htm

Yes, you are on my list to hire if I do win the lottery. You, a few other guys here and the suck amps guy.

I am glad we like the gun and run method, I find it makes driving way easier and lessens my slippage problem or torque convert inconviently locking and unlocking. Shame I cant rig up a way to cut out the engine and put it in nutral at the same time to coast to the next stop light. at 35mph in the city I seem to roll on forever, going 45 or more, it seems to slow to 35 in a few seconds, then rolls. I have 6 lights in the 5 miles trip to go through and for the most part miss them all as I coast from one to the other only loosing or gaining 10mph between the two.


----------



## winny (Jun 3, 2006)

Darell,

Please forgive my lack of experience with EV here. I only wanted to straighten out the issue with what makes a car move forward and power. Although I'm confident what I said is correct in theory, you would need an underpowered EV to actualy see it in practice, just like you said.


Darell said:


> Yes, it has the potential of making the whole system more efficient, and could allow for the use of a smaller motor, and will allow for even MORE tire smoke... But...


There are not buts to more tire smoke...  

Anywho, I'm building a 0.5 kW electric bike with a friend of mine which should be ready within the next weeks. Would anyone be interested to see it?


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 3, 2006)

In my limited experiencewith vacuum motors, brushless motors were *way* more reliable and longer-lasting that brush motors. Instead of using limited-lifespan carbon brushes that wore every time the motor started up and ran, they had alternating magnetic poles and the necessary switching transistors / sensors to operate the motor. Cost more than twice as much as brush motors, but lasted more than five times as long. Since it cost almost as much to replace the entire motor as it did to replace the brushes (which required several hours of lower-RPM operation to "condition" new brushes), we just replaced motors >95% of the time. Because of the sophistocated drive electronics, there was the possibility of "performance shaping" if you wanted to have multiple drive levels. It also did not require external relays for control - that was built in; motor-rated solid-state relays cost nearly 50% of what a brush motor would run you.

A 50-100kW motor for a BEV might be expensive, but what does it cost relative to an ICE? Given the relative simplicity and very few moving parts _(usually 1!)_, I can't see them costing too terribly much if produced in quantity.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 5, 2006)

Have any of the new cars advertised using the new li-ion batteries with the 'nano enhanced' electrodes?

Toshiba was supposed to have them available by now.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jun 5, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Have any of the new cars advertised using the new li-ion batteries with the 'nano enhanced' electrodes?
> 
> Toshiba was supposed to have them available by now.
> 
> Daniel


Daniel -

The VERY first production car with Li-ion batteries will be... drum roll here, please... the Prius. Model year 2008 or 2009 depending on who you talk to. I have no details on just which battery they will be using, but once they're in production for the Prius, you can bet we'll see some good things happen in this area. I can't wait. It can only get better from here. And if the Toshibas pan out commercially, hang onto your hat.

I think we have too much EV love in here. We didn't scare off the "oil is god" contingent, did we?


----------



## Darell (Jun 5, 2006)

winny said:


> There are not buts to more tire smoke...


And the line I love to use on those who say EVs are underpowered:

Put your ICE in top gear - the one you use for freeway cruising, and try to chirp the drive tires from a stand-still. Oh, and don't use the clutch - that's cheating. OK, ok. Go ahead and use the clutch. Let me know how it goes 



> Anywho, I'm building a 0.5 kW electric bike with a friend of mine which should be ready within the next weeks. Would anyone be interested to see it?


Absolutely! Ready in a couple of weeks? Let's see pictures now!


----------



## winny (Jun 5, 2006)

Darell said:


> Put your ICE in top gear...



Björn, who I'm building with, is even more fascinated by this phenomenon than I am, and people accuse me for trying to convert too many things to run on electricity instead of gas, so I guess you can call him an EV nutcase...  




Darell said:


> Absolutely! Ready in a couple of weeks? Let's see pictures now!



Here are two teaser pictures...


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darell said:


> The VERY first production car with Li-ion batteries will be... drum roll here, please... the Prius.



I really want to see the nano textured li-ions in play. They are supposed to have stupendously long life and greater current limits when charging and discharging. We all know how much that will help in Plug-in HEV mode.

I only have 40K miles on my 2002, so I have plenty of room to wait for the 2008.

Sigh.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks for the pictures of the e-bike, Winny!



gadget_lover said:


> I only have 40K miles on my 2002, so I have plenty of room to wait for the 2008.


Yeah, plenty of room here too, at 2k miles on my 2006.  We're actually putting more miles on our *secondary* car these days than we normally do for various reasons. Still about half of what the Rav sees.

I'm just in a holding pattern for the first modern EV or true plug-in hybrid. It'll be odd though - when either of those come out, that will instantly be main-stream cars. Look me up in a few years and quote me.


----------



## Brock (Jun 6, 2006)

I am waiting...


----------



## turbodog (Jun 6, 2006)

Darell said:


> Daniel -
> 
> The VERY first production car with Li-ion batteries will be... drum roll here, please... the Prius. Model year 2008 or 2009 depending on who you talk to. I have no details on just which battery they will be using, but once they're in production for the Prius, you can bet we'll see some good things happen in this area. I can't wait. It can only get better from here. And if the Toshibas pan out commercially, hang onto your hat.
> 
> I think we have too much EV love in here. We didn't scare off the "oil is god" contingent, did we?



Naw. I'm still around, and dangerously close to buying my 64 Cobra. But currently, does my 27 HP v-twin lawnmower count for anything?


----------



## Darell (Jun 6, 2006)

turbodog said:


> Naw. I'm still around, and dangerously close to buying my 64 Cobra. But currently, does my 27 HP v-twin lawnmower count for anything?


Hey, Dog. Welcome back! Yeah, I think we have room for your tractor here. You burn ethanol in it, right?


----------



## ikendu (Jun 7, 2006)

Darell said:


> ...You burn ethanol in it, right?



Ethanol? Heh! Ethanol is sooooo old school.

http://www.butanol.com/


----------



## Darell (Jun 9, 2006)

Oh, hey. Mr. Turbodog... I found the car that I... er *you* want:
http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/Weineck/2006/Cobra_780_cui_Limited_Edition/

No turbo. Just good old fashion displacement.
*Shudder*


----------



## Darell (Jun 9, 2006)

OK.... but back on topic (sort of). A Rav4EV-driving friend just recieved this in the mail:

Dear Mark:

Want some relief from today's skyrocketing gasoline prices? How about $500 worth of gas on us?

Just take your RAV 4 EV into your dealership, spend at least $59.95 for service, and you'll automatically be entered into a drawing for a Fill It Up Gas Card worth $500.® The card is good anywhere in the country, at any service station that accepts the American Express® Card. It's our way of saying thank you for being a MyToyota member.

Your RAV 4 EV has been designed and engineered to maximize fuel efficiency.
And regular tune-ups, air filter replacements, wheel alignments and other services can help you optimize your all-important gas mileage. Best of all, your dealership service department can keep your RAV 4 EV running efficiently with factory-trained technicians and Genuine Toyota Parts.

So don't spend a nickel more on gas than you have to! Click here to find your dealer and schedule your service appointment online. It's that easy, and you could win $500 in gas.

Sincerely,

Toyota Owner Services Team

P.S. Your chance to win a Fill It Up® gas card worth $500 runs out June 30,
2006 so make your service appointment today!


----------



## turbodog (Jun 9, 2006)

It burns nitroglycerin. Here in MS you can buy it at wal-mart.

And I *just* finished with my custom fabricated roll bar for it. Expect pictures soon. It's made from 3x3 thick wall (3/16) tubing.




Darell said:


> Hey, Dog. Welcome back! Yeah, I think we have room for your tractor here. You burn ethanol in it, right?


----------



## Darell (Jun 9, 2006)

I've mentioned the coming movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" before, right?
There will be a PBS special on tonight that will introduce the movie and the director.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060806U.shtml


----------



## raggie33 (Jun 9, 2006)

i doubt pbs will run it down here i hope so though


----------



## Brock (Jun 9, 2006)

LOL Darell that note from the Toyota dealer was priceless. Have him bring it in and tell them the muffler seems kind of loud and walk away! LOL


----------



## cobb (Jun 10, 2006)

I watched the special on PBS. I hoped it was going to be some hard hitting evidence, turned out to be the usual stereotype stories about big oil keeping electric cars down. They fruther bashed hybrid cards since they had a tail pipe too. 

Basically it was an interview with a tree hugger and a class B Mike Moore style video and video clips.

As usual, the story didnt say anything about the pollution that would be used to recharge an electrical car at the power plant. They did say hydrogen production took several times the power to make than it would to recharge an electric car. They also failed to point out the ev1 was also a 2 seater, but nothing on the rav4 that was an suv. If hydrogen was made from water using solar, wave or some other free energy, it would be the best of all as clean air and water are the by products.

They went on to bash GM and that the ev1 was a success as it had 800 cars on lease. Clears throat, I think Toyota sells 30 thousand priuses a month over all, 800 on lease is a drop in the bucket. Many auto manufactures pull cars for lack of sales or demand, why should the evs be any different? Auto manufactures got to make money too. 

At one time detroit could sell anything they rolled off the assembly line, but that is not the case. Heck, Toyota is a Japanise company and they too made and quit the ev they had. 

So much for seeing patents by the big oil companies buying up ev car technology.


----------



## ikendu (Jun 10, 2006)

I think the GM killing of the EV1 is more about poor leadership than oil conspiracies. 

The EV1 threatened existing profit lines within GM. 
...no spark plugs
...low usage of brake pads 
...no muffler
...no engine
...no fuel pump, gas tank, fuel injectors, etc.
...no oil filters
...no transmission in the conventional sense
...very, very low wear and tear (few moving parts)
...very little need to buy new cars 'cause it wouldn't wear out so soon

All of the GM divisions that make those products wouldn't have been for the EV1. I can just imagine meetings in Detroit where various heads of various divisions simply second guessed the spending of the money on such an ambitious new program; a new program with few champions and lots of nay sayers. 

It is fun to think it is oil conspiracy. It think the reality is more mundane; no ability to see into the future and sacrifice existing profit lines for the future good of some one else's profit lines. Of course, now, that SUV sales are way down, I suppose GM might really wish it had vehicles that run on energy that costs the equivalent of 65 cents/gallon.

As a former GM engineer with 17 years of service, I really hate to see the slow death of a once mighty company. When I joined GM in 1968, they had 54% of the U.S. market. Now... 25%?


----------



## Darell (Jun 10, 2006)

Cobb - I'm not sure where to start. This was a piece about the director and content of the movie. It was not THE movie, of course.



cobb said:


> They went on to bash GM and that the ev1 was a success as it had 800 cars on lease. Clears throat, I think Toyota sells 30 thousand priuses a month over all, 800 on lease is a drop in the bucket. Many auto manufactures pull cars for lack of sales or demand, why should the evs be any different? Auto manufactures got to make money too.



You've got the attitude of the car makers, certainly. It wasn't that they could ONLY lease 800, it was that they only MADE 800, and they were all leased, and a waiting list of thousands was left behind. If you make a limited number of cars, and place every one of them, how could that part not be a success? And if there was a waiting list with more names than the number of cars... success or failure? The number that were leased is insignicant beyond that it ONLY describes how many were made. :sigh:

* No, it isn't all GM's fault. They just played the heavy-handed part. Pulled the trigger, if you will. And that they had the first EV that actually inspired the regulation makes it that much bigger of a story. Both Honda and Toyota were specifically mentioned has also having closed their EV programs even though they are widely considered more "green" car companies than GM.
* The Rav4EV is certainly shown, and mentioned as above.
* Hybrids are not bashed - it is mentioned that you shouldn't confuse a hybrid with a full electric car because it still has an engine and a tailpipe (something that many people still don't understand!) and requires oil to operate just like every other car on the road.
* And the source electricity for the batteries is not dwelled on because... well, the point of the movie is to find out why there are no more on the road.

Again -this is an interview with the director about the subject of the movie. It is not a documentary on EVs.

Did we watch the same show?


----------



## winny (Jun 11, 2006)

ikendu said:


> As a former GM engineer with 17 years of service, I really hate to see the slow death of a once mighty company.



Cool! Then you might be able to answer a question for me. If I would run a normal injection diesel engine on only rape seed oil, how long would the fuel system and engine last? Someone told me that the glycerin in all vegetable olis would ruin the fuel system... I can get rape seed oil for less than half the price of diesel here so even if the engine would only last haft as long, it would save me a lot of money.


----------



## cobb (Jun 11, 2006)

I think we watched the same show. I never watched that show before and had expected something like front line and would see patents that were filed by the oil giants on ev technology. Unless that happens, its still a conspiracy theory.

I also seriously doubt the 80o gm evs and others by other companies would end the world of auto repair. 

Not everyone is going to buy one and with synth oils, platnium plugs and foam air filters, cars are needing less and less service all the time. Toy and Honda has sold many hybrids and I seriously doubt you can prove that they have caused a decimal of a fractional precent less usage in fuel in the US. 

I guess its Mobile Oils fault VW canned the diesel dasher they made in 79 that got 49mpg and Exxon for GM canning the Geo Metro that got 50-60mpg too?


----------



## cobb (Jun 11, 2006)

I was looking at cars again and see gas powered cars are about beating the diesels. 

The yaris both manual or auto trans cars are est to get 40mpg, Carolla 41mpg and Nissan too claims to have cars with 40mpg. Last I looked at vw, they were advertising 38-42mpg. 

Why isnt diesel cars getting better fuel economy since they have more btus in the fuel and many of their cars are turbo charged and the gassers are not. Furthermore, what about a diesel hybrid?


----------



## Brock (Jun 12, 2006)

I don't know about a gasser beating a diesel any time soon or ever, that is given the same displacement and same vehicle. Like you said diesel has more BTU's to start with. I think a lot of the reasons they don't have the spread they once did has to do with current emissions regulations as well.

I think the wait on diesel hybrids is mainly for two reasons. First diesel engine makers are waiting for the low sulfur diesel to arrive in the US before they release a new engine. Secondly diesels don't gain a whole lot from being shut off all the time like gassers do. For example my VW TDI consumes .3L per hour sitting at idle. The same physical vehicle with the 2.0 gasser in it consumes 1.1L per hour at idle. So it makes since to shut down a gasser at idle, but the advantage isn't as big with diesel.

I do think once we finally do get the low sulfur diesel across the US you will see more diesel's introduced.


----------



## Darell (Jun 12, 2006)

cobb said:


> I think we watched the same show. I never watched that show before and had expected something like front line


Well, I have no intention of defending the show or the format, certainly. I' had never heard of "NOT" before this either. Take it for what it is: An interview with the director of a film. In 20 minutes you aren't going to cover every facet of any issue, that's for certain.


----------



## ikendu (Jun 13, 2006)

winny said:


> Cool! Then you might be able to answer a question for me. If I would run a normal injection diesel engine on only rape seed oil, how long would the fuel system and engine last? Someone told me that the glycerin in all vegetable olis would ruin the fuel system... I can get rape seed oil for less than half the price of diesel here so even if the engine would only last haft as long, it would save me a lot of money.



I use biodiesel.

I don't have any personal experience burning vegetable oil directly. See the "FryBrid" thread for more on this.


----------



## cobb (Jun 13, 2006)

Thanks, I was going to ask that at some point in time. Still, seems strange why many states do not allow truckers to idle their diesels to sleep comfortability, but its ok to use a gasser generator. 



Brock said:


> For example my VW TDI consumes .3L per hour sitting at idle. The same physical vehicle with the 2.0 gasser in it consumes 1.1L per hour at idle.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 13, 2006)

My understanding is that the gas generator may also be running the refrigeration unit on the trailer.

There's also a big difference between a large diesel truck at idle and a little 2 liter VW TDI.


BTW, I think we've hit a turning point. In the newspaper an advertisement proclaimed they had the Camry Hybrid, the Hilander Hybrid and the Prius. Note they did not have to say "hybrid" for all three. I think it's neat that we have so many choices now.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Jun 14, 2006)

I cant wait for the cheaper hybrids that you can plug in to extend your range. 

I was sitting next to a prius at a stop light today. I dont know if it was idling or me. The engine seemed fairly constant and sounded like a sewing machine. I was going to motion to roll down the winder and talk, but he had a kid with him in the front. 

Who knew a 12 liter 12 cylinder engine took more diesel to idle than a 4 cylinder diesel car? Just kidding, but it seems a diesel should be allowed to idle over a gasser cause of teh fuel difference.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 14, 2006)

In most cases, a Prius at a stop light does not run the engine if it's warmed up and teh batter is not depleted. The ICE stops as you slow down, cince you don't need power to coast up to a light.

My buddy rented a hybrid for a few days. They made a point of explaining that there is nothing wrong with the car when the engine stalls at every light. *LOL* I guess they had too many calls from concerned customers.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jun 14, 2006)

cobb said:


> I was sitting next to a prius at a stop light today. I dont know if it was idling or me. The engine seemed fairly constant and sounded like a sewing machine.


The Prius will idle at a stop under certain conditions. If there is a large demand for power (like AC or heat) and the battery is somewhat low, and/or the ICE still hasn't reached operating temperature. The engine does stop when the car stops about 90% of the time. Almost always when the car is at operational temp. The previos version tends to run more often since the heat pump was not as efficient.



> it seems a diesel should be allowed to idle over a gasser cause of teh fuel difference.


Idling a HUGE diesel can be a major difference in noise and pollution over a gasser running a generator at a more optimum RPM/load. What we really need is more batteries, and we wouldn't need any of this ICE crap when stopped.


----------



## ledlurker (Jun 15, 2006)

Darell said:


> The Prius will idle at a stop under certain conditions. If there is a large demand for power (like AC or heat) and the battery is somewhat low, and/or the ICE still hasn't reached operating temperature. The engine does stop when the car stops about 90% of the time. Almost always when the car is at operational temp. The previos version tends to run more often since the heat pump was not as efficient.
> 
> 
> Idling a HUGE diesel can be a major difference in noise and pollution over a gasser running a generator at a more optimum RPM/load. What we really need is more batteries, and we wouldn't need any of this ICE crap when stopped.




there are truck stops that have docking bays for truck drivers. they can park and attach an AC duct to their driver side window that can apply heating/cooling, DC and AC power, and high speed internet. Overall this service has been a big hit and cost less than idling


----------



## winny (Jun 15, 2006)

I wrote a paper once in school about LCA of busses, cars trams and trains when we tried to compare different ways of travelling. We, as well as several others who had done the same thing as us came to the conclution that shutting down a large diesel engine for somewhere 10-20 minutes IIRC does more harm to the enviorment than ideling because the catalytic converter would cool down and the short period after it had been turned on again would emite more bad things than the entire idle period.


----------



## cobb (Jun 15, 2006)

I wondered how the Prius delt with the AC. I love AC and would likely have it cool if I owned one or a non Hybrid car. Ive assumed it wouldnt be too hard to use a small electric motor to run the compressor and maybe the power steering pump too. I guess if they use a sealed water chiller, they could keep some cool fluid for a moment of time with the engine off for use at stop lights.


----------



## cobb (Jun 15, 2006)

I got the nerve to ask my apartment complex office about plugging in an electric car. I got tons of questions regarding kits, avaliability of them and plug in hybrids. I was rather shocked. The main concern of the complex waswho would pay for the electricity. I told them I had planned on to and just wanted to know where I could do it. They gave me the usual answer, they had to check with service, manager, local regulations, etc.


----------



## Darell (Jun 17, 2006)

Hybrids and EVs use electric motors to run just about everything. Far more efficient than belt-driving off the main shaft - and even more important - it still works when standing still! The heat pump in the Prius, and certainly in all EVs is electrically operated. Same with the steering pump, brake pump, etc. Can't use a belt/pulley or manifold vacuum to power anything when the engine is not running... or in the case of EVs... there IS no engine!


----------



## Darell (Jun 17, 2006)

Another review of Who Killed the Electric Car:
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1050

You guys have all called your local theaters to request that it be shown, right????


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 17, 2006)

The automakers have been talking about (and sort of planning on) going to 42V electrical systems for about 10 years. The primary advantage of a 42V system is that it eliminates the belt-driven subsystems and replaces them with electrically-actuated/driven systems. A/C, power steering, brakes, vaccum pumps, etc. I think that 42V systems would also eliminate the timing belt/chain and drive the valves electrically.

This would simply mirror a trend in industry where mechanically-driven subsystems are being driven electrically. I gather that equipment is typically more reliable and more versataile.


----------



## Darell (Jun 17, 2006)

It seems that if we just moved to hybrids/EVs, we could continue with 12V quite easily since that same "Aux" battery is not also asked to start the car. And any HV requirements can be handled directly off the HV traction battery. Yet another ICE problem solved by battery cars.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 17, 2006)

You have the traction battery pack for any power-hungry subsystems in BEVs. I'm not certain why they used a traditional 12V automotive battery for accessory power in some BEVs - I gather that it's somewhat troublesome. Isolation from the ~360V main pack?

Veering OT, check out the specs on this hybrid. 3280kWH battery pack!


----------



## Darell (Jun 17, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> You have the traction battery pack for any power-hungry subsystems in BEVs. I'm not certain why they used a traditional 12V automotive battery for accessory power in some BEVs - I gather that it's somewhat troublesome. Isolation from the ~360V main pack?


Pretty simple reason, me thinks. All subsystems are already 12V, so you need that 12V supply for wipers, horn, lights, windows, door locks - unless you want to redesign everything for a different voltage. And you wouldn't just want to use in inverter since you need that power on all the time to sit there waiting for the signal to open or start the car, etc. A small 12V "Aux" battery makes some pretty good sense. What DOESN'T make sense is how all cars sold today still allow that battery to rundown so easily. Could be fixed for about $1.

Leaving the inverter on would just throw traction power out the window a bit too fast.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 17, 2006)

If it runs off the traction pack, it would be a DC/DC converter, and so long as you make those switching converters, they can consume very little power when idle - as in below the self-discharge rate of the battery pack when idle.

But, given how conservative the auto industry is, I imagine that a 12V auxiliary system makes sense - probably charges from an alternator (the irony) so it stays electrically isolated. Nothing like the prospect of a few hundred volts' of DC going astray to focus one's attention.


----------



## Darell (Jun 17, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> If it runs off the traction pack, it would be a DC/DC converter, and so long as you make those switching converters, they can consume very little power when idle - as in below the self-discharge rate of the battery pack when idle.


Oops. Meant converter. As for power consumption, you've now gone over my head (that wasn't hard, was it?) Interestingly, only the guys doing conversions on the cheap go this way - no Aux battery, but live-all-the-time converter to supply the "Aux" power. For that reason alone, I figured it had to be a bad idea, or the guys doing it with an open checkbook (GM and Toyota at the time) would have gone the "best" way.



> But, given how conservative the auto industry is


Makes GWB look like a far-left liberal, eh? 



> I imagine that a 12V auxiliary system makes sense - probably charges from an alternator (the irony) so it stays electrically isolated. Nothing like the prospect of a few hundred volts' of DC going astray to focus one's attention.


No, no. The hybrids and EVs have no alternator. They're charged by a DC-DC converter - but only when "running" and charging.


----------



## cobb (Jun 27, 2006)

Received word from the apartment complex I live in that I can plug in a car. They suggested to use a regular industrial 3 pronge cable and those thingies to route the cable across the floor to keep folks from tripping over it and sidewalk. 

So, plug it in the apartment in an outlet, run the cord under the door, out the hallway, out second door, across sidewalk to car.

I dont know guys, I am still mixed on this as far as what car to get. I have a van, which is a gas hog, which someone suggested I get because I do not travel that far. I spend 130 dollars a month to travel 10 miles a day. I may get a second job requiring me to drive 3 times that daily. 

The other cars Ive considered the honda fit at 37mpg, scion xb at 35mpg, toyota yaris at 40mpg, honda insight at 57mpg and toyota prius at 47. 

Seems 40mpg is about the average. Of course I think the latest kit cars, 40is about average per charge.

My main hold back from buying a converter kit electric car is about keeping cool. Man, I love ac when I get home at the end of the day from the mildly climate controlled office and no ac in the van in humid virginia. 

Anyway suggestions? I ve been leaning towards the plentiful ford ranger converter evs out there. I just wouldnt feel safe in a nissian sentry, geo metro loaded full of batteries. Maybe a geo metro with one of those cheap kits that has a motor, on/off switch and uses 3 batteries for 35mph 35miles range per charge. 

THe plug in hybrid kits do interest me. Just think of getting 150+mpg.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 7, 2006)

Regarding Aux 12V battery



Darell said:


> No, no. The hybrids and EVs have no alternator. They're charged by a DC-DC converter - but only when "running" and charging.



Mine's a little different than most. The 12V battery is a weak point on the Prius, since it's pretty small. It's main job is to power the computer that handles the start-up of the DC-DC converter, the braking booster, etc. It also powers the alarm system and keyless entry system. It discharges in about 4 weeks if you don't drive the car at all. It runs down fast if you manage to leave the lights on (not easy) or the door ajar (dome light).

So mine's different. I've wired a 2 watt solar battery charger to the battery. It offsets the drain from the alarm and things, so the battery maintains it's charge for several months even if I were to be disabled and unable to drive. The charger sits on the back shelf, un-obtrusive and out of the way.

BTW, most modern cars will run down the battery if the car is not driven frequently. The clock, radio and alarm are some of the culprits. It's just a matter of how long it takes. My Ford F150, for instance, goes dead in about 2 months.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 7, 2006)

I think it may soon be time to get a new car. Mine was unique when I bought it, but yesterday I saw 5 of them (hybrids) in one parking lot. I seldom drive anywhere without seeing a several, most often over a dozen a day.

So what's the next new gadget in car form? Has to be very usable, practical and not too expensive.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jul 9, 2006)

4-wheel bicycle?


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 11, 2006)

If I weren't posting this message, I woudl not dignify that with a response. Bicycle? Hogwash!





Daniel


----------



## cobb (Jul 23, 2006)

Maybe he is referring to the zap electric petal bikes? 

I came into owning a 62hp mercedes 240 d 81 model which weighs 3700 lbs. I must say, 62 hp seems well short of the needed hp to make the car enjoyable to drive. Some grades in richmond I must use a lower gear and rev the engine or just go below the speed limit. The innerstate takes an exit before I am up to speed and in some cases its difficult to reach that in the right lane with traffic coming on and off the innerstate every exit. 

Wonder if there is any electric kits out for it?


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 23, 2006)

Speaking of electric bicycles, I stumbled across Clever Chimp a few days ago when I was searching for information on building NiMH battery packs. Were it not for the pedestrian-unfriendly streets around here _(and thus cycle-unfriendly)_ and lack of bicycle lockups most places, I would consider getting one of these.


----------



## HarryN (Jul 23, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> I think it may soon be time to get a new car. Mine was unique when I bought it, but yesterday I saw 5 of them (hybrids) in one parking lot. I seldom drive anywhere without seeing a several, most often over a dozen a day.
> 
> So what's the next new gadget in car form? Has to be very usable, practical and not too expensive.
> 
> Daniel



Daniel - how about a Dodge Sprinter ? :laughing:


----------



## Canuke (Jul 25, 2006)

Did a search, and I'm rather amazed that this hasn't made it onto this thread or seemingly anywhere on CPF yet.

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

"100% electric
0 to 60 in 4 seconds
250 miles per charge"

And available in September 2007. I wish them luck with that.

Although, if they did succeed on a large scale, I wonder what that would do to the maxed-out California electric grid....


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 25, 2006)

Canuke said:


> Did a search, and I'm rather amazed that this hasn't made it onto this thread or seemingly anywhere on CPF yet.
> 
> http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
> 
> ...



Tesla is big news in EV enthusiast circles, make no mistake.

Most EV charging happens at night when peaker plants are offline and plants that can't be idled are operating at reduced output. Otherwise, they typically consume about as much energy as an electric dryer or air conditioning compressor.

At around $100k apiece, I don't think you're going to see the Tesla roadster overwhelming the market anytime soon. Their sedan concept is several years away, dependent on the success of the roadster.

I'm not sure the battery technology is quite mature enough just yet, but since these are performance cars targeted at enthusiasts, maybe the time is right to build some momentum and take some risks with the technology.


----------



## cobb (Jul 25, 2006)

Any second opinions of how the use of evs would effect the grid in certain states about this time of year?


----------



## Brock (Jul 27, 2006)

None at all, as long as it is charged off peak, or heck even on peak if the charger is able to be on load shedding from the utility like our central AC is. If they get close to being at max capacity, they just shut off many non-essential loads, like our central AC. We get a credit of $4.50 a month for the 4 summer months up here. It’s a win-win for the utility and us.


----------



## Darell (Jul 27, 2006)

cobb said:


> Any second opinions of how the use of evs would effect the grid in certain states about this time of year?


Hi guys -

Yes, the entire EV community is following the Tesla closely of course. First "production" EV in far too many years. Expensive when compared to a Prius... cheap when compared to cars of similar performance.

Why do we always need to talk of "effect on the grid" of EVs when we don't seem to care about new construction with AC units, Pool pumps, etc.? That stuff uses more electricity than do EVs. In my neighborhood of dual AC units and swimming pools, my household uses less electricity than ANYBODY in my area... and my consumption includes charging our EV for 100+ miles/month (and I am ignoring the input from my solar array here, or there is nothing to even talk about). And that AC/pump stuff is what causes our peak problems, at least around here! EVs can easily be charged off peak since we're usually using them duing the peak periods... but I digress.... If, in a perfect world, we could replace a gasoline car with an EV, the net electrical consumption change would be very close to zero. Why? Because the the OTHER giant electricity consumption that we like to ignore: The amount of electricity that the oil industry consumes to make our gasoline.

We keep talking about our stressed grid. Why don't we do something about it, instead of putting all that bad news on the shoulders of future electric transportation? In fact, EVs *could* be used to shave peaks. They could be used for home generators when the grid goes down.

Sorry to sound like a broken record with this stuff. It is just that the question keeps sounding like a broken record to me! We don't seem to worry about how we are currently using energy in our transportation - we only seem to worry about changing that pattern to something that we aren't yet comfortable with - even if it might be quite a bit better on many levels.

Aloha.


----------



## cobb (Jul 27, 2006)

Being the devils advocate I cant help but ask those questions. You have been excellent at shooting down just about anything that comes up, however this still leaves a mystery. 

I just cant see that if a state has rolling blackouts from ac use, how can you charge up a 30k watt battery pack with no problems. 

Ive used electric wheelchairs and I know about power failures and problems getting a charge. You cant jump a wheelchair, it needs a good 8-12 hours in my experience. Even dragging the charger along to plug in anywhere doesnt quite give you the same charge and limits your mobility. 

Of course most common wheelchairs use two batteries of 1600 watts. My moms window ac unit is rated at 700 watts and my 540 sqft ac unit is on a single 120 circuit. I am sure it would be a long haul for an ev to use a single circuit if not a 220 one. 

Anyway, good job otherwise. I am on the fence myself about what to do car wise. I did get premission to plug in, but need the car and kit. I think the lack of ac in the ev is going to be the breaker for me. I have come across another geo metro xfi with manual tranny for grabs. I just would need to get the kit online for 2 grand, convert it and get it towed to my apartment.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 28, 2006)

Since I just spent days without power in a 110 degree hot spell, I am concerned about the grid. We realllllly need our power. 

But as others said, an EV can be plugged into a unit that listens for a signal from the power company that turns it off when the demand is heavy. In Calif, they are installing "smart meters", supposedly to save money.

I don't see how that saves money, since they are replacing a working unit (zero cost) with a more expensive one (cost of installation and the new meter is several hundred dollars) to offset a 2 minute visit from a meter reader every other month. That's a dollar a month if the meter reader is getting $30 an hour. At that rate it's a 25 yaer payback.

So I suspect it will make money by allowing them to force time of use rates as well as (maybe) selective shut-off.

Daniel


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jul 28, 2006)

The point is simple, oil has to go for multitudes of reasons be it environmental, cost or hazards. People don't need tons of metal to transport themselves, I ride my bike to work and have done so for over 5 years now. Have an electric scooter here at the house so my wife and kids will jump on that if they don't feel like pedaling or to pick up stuff. 

My electric scooter is a test bed of sorts. Three SVR AGM cells form a 36V 14AH pack driving a 738W/1000W peak brushless motor. Most of those parts will be transfered to a mountain bike running a 48V 40 amp brushless hub motor but will be downgraded to 36V 35 Amp. It will be good for 25 MPH with a 10 mile range. Once the C-LiFePO4 (safe) lithium-ion packs drop in price, I'll go for a 50V 40AH pack driving the motor at full power. Speed will be 35 MPH with a range of 30 miles. I'll have to get moped plates and upgrade the front suspension / front disc brakes but it will do 90% of what the car does. 

I find it pathetic that people will drive a 5,000 pound SUV one mile to a gym for a workout. Complain about getting fat and drive two blocks to a corner store for a loaf of bread and a carton of milk. Children expect a ride half a mile to a friends house... gee... wonder why Americans are fat? 

It is time to figure out what you NEED and not what you WANT. My older brother bought his first motorcycle in 23 years and marveled at getting 85 MPG on the Nighthawk 250. His corolla gets half the use it used to and he is strongly interested in the 35 MPH/30 mile range electric Mountain Bike.... it will be for his wife! He is planning for a fuel shortage if a hurricane hits the refineries, the oil pipeline heading north-east gets blown up, oil embargo (he remembers!) and various other things. 

We get power failures all the time in this country, all the time! We have flourescent emergency lights and multiple flashlights to take care of light. It is automatic and my family knows were the lights are. Researching our next laptop, it will have a 12 cell battery, play DVDs/music without booting up (conserves a ton of power) and will run 5 or 6 hours on a charge. The power fails, the flourescent lights turn on and the laptop keeps rolling. No problem! Heck, even the freezer has ice blocks in it to handle power failures and we have a fairly large canned food supply... cases of water etc. 

In another year I'll be back in the states for good. My family will have lived were stable power is not always stable, gas runs $7 a gallon and other things are not always available. It will take years to fix the problem but everyone has to pitch in, conserve energy/water etc and not wait around and complain until "somebody fixes it". I am eyeballing a diesel version of the Kawasaki KLR 650 dual-purpose bike... it will run on bio-diesel and gets 90 to 110 MPG and hits 90 MPH. 

I really want a little diesel station wagon when I return, drove them here and the mileage is awesome! (Ford Focus 1.6 litre turbo diesel) Combine that with my families bicycles (recumbents) a 35 MPH mountain bike with racks and saddlebags... gas/diesel can hit $7 a gallon and I'll be OK.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 28, 2006)

BentHeadTX said:


> The point is simple, oil has to go for multitudes of reasons be it environmental, cost or hazards. People don't need tons of metal to transport themselves, I ride my bike to work and have done so for over 5 years now.


Amen to that, especially the bike part. Sadly in the US especially bikes are an overlooked part of the transportation solution. Even cities lack secure bike parking which creates a deterrent to anyone wanting to use a bike for anything besides recreational riding. We need to make our towns and cities more bike friendly. For trips of 10 miles or less a bike is an ideal solution even compared to public transportation. It's often faster, uses no fuel, and gives the person much needed exercise.




> I find it pathetic that people will drive a 5,000 pound SUV one mile to a gym for a workout.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds things like that ridiculous. I remember one day when my local newspaper was conducting interviews regarding the subject of conservation. They talked to a guy who drove his SUV from Queens to Manhattan to work out at the gym. He had no real answer as to why he took it despite the fact that it was slower, more expensive, and more polluting than the public transportation which practically would have taken him from door to door. Well, he would have had to walk a few blocks on either end, but he was going to the gym to exercise, right? Would it have killed him to walk a few blocks? Many health experts say you should walk at least 10,000 steps per day (5 or 6 miles) anyway. In fact, chances are in Manhattan he had to park further from the gym than the nearest subway stop so even that excuse is partly moot.



> Complain about getting fat and drive two blocks to a corner store for a loaf of bread and a carton of milk. Children expect a ride half a mile to a friends house... gee... wonder why Americans are fat?


So true. I run errands almost every day on foot, often logging a couple of miles, if not more. Even if I had a car and license (neither of which I have or need), I wouldn't even consider driving unless the trip was over about 5 miles and wasn't accessible to public transportation. Even then, something like an electric scooter or a bicycle might make more sense unless I was carrying heavy loads.



> It is time to figure out what you NEED and not what you WANT.


And high fuel prices might finally force people to do just that. I'm hopeful that in addition to smaller cars and hybrids we'll finally see mass-produced electric cars, as well as more electric scooters. I also sincerely hope that after decades of downsizing our public transportation grid in favor of the auto we'll see a new wave of rail projects, both local and long distance. The US sorely needs a national high-speed rail system like that which exists in Europe and Japan, for example, to replace most domestic air travel.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jul 29, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> Amen to that, especially the bike part. Sadly in the US especially bikes are an overlooked part of the transportation solution. Even cities lack secure bike parking which creates a deterrent to anyone wanting to use a bike for anything besides recreational riding. We need to make our towns and cities more bike friendly. For trips of 10 miles or less a bike is an ideal solution even compared to public transportation. It's often faster, uses no fuel, and gives the person much needed exercise.
> 
> And high fuel prices might finally force people to do just that. I'm hopeful that in addition to smaller cars and hybrids we'll finally see mass-produced electric cars, as well as more electric scooters. I also sincerely hope that after decades of downsizing our public transportation grid in favor of the auto we'll see a new wave of rail projects, both local and long distance. The US sorely needs a national high-speed rail system like that which exists in Europe and Japan, for example, to replace most domestic air travel.



Very well put, the US is setup for cars and in doing so--makes any other form of transportation difficult. When I was in Germany, there were bike trails that would get you anywere you wanted to do. People actually use them! Jump on the trails and ride to the rail station and go anywere in the country you please. 

My hope is to build a 1 horsepower electric hub motor folding bike with small 16" wheels and full suspension. Maybe a 8 pound 36V 12 AH C-LiFePO4 battery pack on a brushless motor that will fold up with the bike to go on a train. If done with advanced materials, a 35 pound folder can be made and easily transported. It would have a 8 to 10 mile range, pack down small for the train/bus and slide under your desk at work for charging. Put a spot on it to hold a rain suit and attache' case and roll. 

Many good ideas were bantered about in the 70's and early 80's, this time I think the oil prices won't drop so solutions are coming. They have to this time.


----------



## Brock (Jul 29, 2006)

I am with you here.

I would like to hear more about a laptop that can play DVD's without booting up! That sounds like a great idea! I have been using our old laptop for the kids to watch DVD's when traveling but the battery is going and it only lasts about 30 minutes.

Daniel the deal with the meters is all about labor costs, the meter reader with a pension, the truck to drive around. You would be amazed how quickly that all adds up. It allows for an automated billing system also eliminating labor on that side as well.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 29, 2006)

Brock said:


> Daniel the deal with the meters is all about labor costs, the meter reader with a pension, the truck to drive around. You would be amazed how quickly that all adds up. It allows for an automated billing system also eliminating labor on that side as well.



That is exactly what PG&E (our power company) said to get permission to go to this program. However....

The billing is already automated. The only part that isn't is the meter reader keying the number into the device he/she carries.

It will take a man hour or so to stock, deliver track and install the meter. At a 2 minutes a month that will take 30 months to pay back.

You will need 100% replacement for a neighborhood before a meter reader can stop dropping by. The pension is already committed to. They only save future pension investments.

What does make sense is for PG&E to use the meters to enforce time of use penalties. They already have a 4 tier rate schedule so if you use a lot of energy you pay 38 cents per kwh (roughly 4 times the lowest price). I can imagine adding a surcharge for folks that use more than X kwh during heavy load periods. Doubling the cost of energy at certain times of day will pay back the meter upgrades within years.

Hmmmm. Since wmy wife and I hit that 4th tier last month, I wonder how long it would take to amortize the cost of a full solar (with battery bank and inverter) installation? 

Daniel


----------



## BB (Jul 29, 2006)

Regarding PG&E tier’ed rates... For $277 and a one year minimum sign-up, you can have a Time of Use meter installed which may help quite a bit when you install solar (you get paid back at the higher rates during the weekday afternoons).

PG&E Electric Rates

For example, I have the E-7 rate... Noon to Six PM, Mon-Fri, is peak rate, other is off-peak.

Standard E-1 Rate is around $0.114 per kWhr, year round. Tier 4-5 of E-1 is $0.30-$0.346/kWh.

E-7 off peak is around $0.086/kWh. Summer Peak is around $0.29/kWh. If you are in tier four or five, you are around $0.46-$0.51/kWh.

Unless you specifically need batteries (off-grid or for unreliable power), you probably would be much better off to just use on-grid power (batteries cost money, have to be replaced every 7-15+ years, need servicing, space, and are less efficient than pure grid-tied systems).

I have a 3.5 kW of solar panels (3kW peak system) and with slightly less than ideal conditions, am on-track to generate about 4,800 kWhrs at a 30 year cost ~$0.14-$0.17 per kWhr (with ~$3.50 CA solar credits--about 1/3 total system cost--for a commercially installed system). I would have liked a battery bank too... But, instead, just purchased a 2kW Honda eu2000i generator and store 20 gallons of gas (plus cars). In the end, much more cost effective (even if I never use it) than batteries for me (last power outage that lasted more than an couple of hours was in the late 1950's for my area).



For me, my electric bill is around $5.00 per month (minimum connection charge), and the utility is, more or less, giving me a huge battery system for the monthly minimum charge—if I generate more than I use, I get a credit, if I use more than I generate, I get a debit. At the end of 1 year, I pay any debt, or if credit—the account is “reset” back to zero balance. (Net metering over 1 year period).

If you are in the tier 3-4 range, a solar system is already on-par, if not slightly cheaper, than the PG&E power today.

However, my first suggestion is to *CONSERVE *as much as possible first. Both through new hi-eff products and simply turning stuff off (and sometimes unplugging) when not needed.

Cost of 100 watt load= 0.100 kWatt (one light) * 24hr/day * 365 day/year * $0.30/kWhr = $262.80 per year (or $21.9 per month)

If you get 5% on your savings, spending $262.80/0.05= $5,256 to save a 24 hour per day 100 watt load (or 0.1kW*24*30days/month=72 kWhrs per month at Tier 4 $0.30/kWhr rate) would "break even" using an interest only loan.

If you were at baseline rate, ($0.114/kWhr instead of $0.30), then you would spend:

Conservation 100w break even cost (5% interest) = $5,256 *0.114/0.30 = $1,997 per 100 watt load saved.

For my system (installed last year--without rebates for this calculation), $29,000 / 4,800 kWhr/year = $6.04 per "offset killowatt hour" for 1 year up front costs (hopefully no costs, or "free power" for next 25-30 years). Or, for the 100 watt light bulb example above:

Solar Cost to operate 100 watt 24 by 7:

cap cost = 0.1kw*24hr/d*365d/yr * $6.04 = $5,291 up front cost for solar to offset a 100 watt load running 24 hours per day for one year.

For me, with the CA rebate, the up front cost was about 1/3 less. so cap cost above would be about 1/3 less.

So, in summary, using my system numbers as a real world base point, basically if you spend ~$2,000-$5,000 to save a 100 watt load would be your break even point (assuming 5% cost of funds, $0.11-$0.30 per kWhour cost of electricity).

For solar, you would have to spend approximately $5,000 (list price, installed) to operate a 100 watt load 24 by 7. Of course, once you did this you would have no further costs (except for replacing any broken components--if they were to occur) for the next 25-30 years.

And your best bet is to do both (conserve and, if it makes sense for your home, install solar).

In your case, you may choose just to conserve and/or install enough solar power to offset your higher tier power rates over 130% of baseline ($0.11 vs $0.20-$0.34 per kWhr). To get the last ~300 kWhrs per month savings has much less return at only $0.11 per kWhr.

I hope all of the above makes sense and helps.

-Bill


----------



## James S (Jul 29, 2006)

> Since wmy wife and I hit that 4th tier last month, I wonder how long it would take to amortize the cost of a full solar (with battery bank and inverter) installation?



A lot longer than it would take you amortize the cost of an off peak ice storage system. If they peanalize you for using power for your AC during the day, you can get one of these things installed and run your AC all night and store the ice created, then use that to cool during the day without ever starting the compressor during the peak hours.

I suppose it even fits in with this thread and generator usage depending on your climate and cooling needs. It might be possible to have a smaller than needed compressor which runs off a small efficient generator and during the night makes enough ice to cool your house during the few hours a day that you'd need a much bigger system for...

type "off peak residential ice storage" or something similar into google for more than you'd ever want to know about it. If we ever go to a tiered pricing model here I'm investing in a system like this.


----------



## BB (Jul 29, 2006)

The Off-Peak Ice system would only make sense with Tiered pricing if it also used significantly less power.

Because of Tier+Baseline+Time of Use vs just Tier+Baseline, the Time of Use off-peak is about $0.30 per kWhr (at 300%+ baseline) vs E-1 (residential) which is ~$0.34 per kWhr... E-1 Residential vs E-7 Time of Use Residential off-peak does save a few cents per kWhr. But with a huge penalty for peak time use.

Time of Use makes sense of Solar, because about 1/2 of your power is generated during the afternoon—and if you system generates more than you use during this time period, you come out ahead.

And the other problem is that the way they do baseline pricing here, a customer in Tier 4 off-peak is also in Tier 4 peak (per Darell) which would be week day afternoon pricing at a killer $0.51 per kWhr (would probably be much cheaper to install a diesel generator and run it during the week under this rate plan).

Again, Solar is OK--but conservation is really the place to start.

-Bill

PS: There is one other big issue with PG&E for Time of use and Baseline... If, you generate a whole bunch of electricty during peak time--that is also counted against your "Baseline usage"... So, it pushes you into higher tiers for your off-peak use too... People (Darell knows) are fighting this policy (that generated power and consumed power both *take/deduct *from baseline usage instead of generated power either adding or being neutral to baseline usage billing).


----------



## cobb (Jul 31, 2006)

My power is the same rate day around. It just varies by season. Regardless the power is still used and if everyone uses it at night than the day, we are back to where we started.


----------



## Brock (Aug 1, 2006)

Cobb that would be true if we used as much at night as during the day, but that likely won't happen any time soon. We use about 30% less power at night and sometimes up to 50% like during these hot summer days. Most power generators are not efficient spooling up and down to match power loading so they often let them run flat out all night anyway and literally waste the power. Any power company will tell you power supply at night or off peak is not the problem, peak loading is. Adding any off peak charging is typically less then a whole house AC or electric dryer, again it’s not that big of a deal. 

Speaking of which they shut off my AC yesterday, of course I never run it on peak anyway, but the little led came on telling me it was shut off. We were 2 degrees warmer and had 5% more users than 2 years ago when it was this warm yet with load shedding they stayed at 95% of capacity vs. 98% 2 years ago. So it saved them for sure from having to do rolling blackouts, instead they choose to roll AC's off line. They basically shut some off for 30 minutes then others for the next 30 minutes and so on to ease up on loading. They could if they had to shut them all off. They have 400,000 customers and only about 18,000 participate in AC load shedding and that was enough to do the trick. Imagine if even ¼ of their customers participated, they could shut down a whole power plant.


----------



## cobb (Aug 1, 2006)

Cool.... I think that should be done without customer approval or premission. 

We had something like that on the hotwater heater when we use to live in the city, when it came time to replace the braker, the electrician just disconnected that wire and hooked it up directly.


----------



## Darell (Aug 2, 2006)

cobb said:


> I just cant see that if a state has rolling blackouts from ac use, how can you charge up a 30k watt battery pack with no problems.


Brock covered this pretty well. You charge off-peak. It isn't that hard - we've done it ever day for six years. I have charged during peak times (out of need) exactly twice during peak times in six years. And the real beauty that you can do with an EV that you CAN'T do with an AC unit or pool pump? You can actually feed energy back INTO the grid with an EV hooked up to it with V2G. I won't get into the argument of how likely that is to happen... just know that vehicles are currently being sold with that capability. And if I had one in my garage, I'd sure as hell use it for backup power if the grid goes down. Instant power with no liquid fuel storage needed... and no sound from this generator.

So the score is this: People think they "need"... and they sure as hell USE AC during peak times. That's what gives us our peak in the summer. An EV can easily be charge during off-peak times when we are not at our generation capacity... and an EV can even help keep AC units online by offering to shave the peak with battery power.

Saying that it doesn't matter when we use the power is WAY off base. Time of use is extremely important. The peaks are what kills us. Not the total consumption. If consumption were a flat line, electricity would be significantly cheaper to make.

and with that... I'm out of here again. I'll check back in after a couple of weeks!

Best,


----------



## Darell (Aug 2, 2006)

Oh hell. I almost forgot that I originally came here to post this. Watch the burnout movie in the upper right.
http://www.jouleinjected.com/

And notice the cop car (the cop asked to see a burnout from an electric car) as it smokes on by.


----------



## benighted (Aug 3, 2006)

Darell said:


> Oh hell. I almost forgot that I originally came here to post this. Watch the burnout movie in the upper right.
> http://www.jouleinjected.com/
> 
> And notice the cop car (the cop asked to see a burnout from an electric car) as it smokes on by.



Thats cool! I want one :rock:


----------



## BackBlast (Aug 16, 2006)

So, anyone know if any of the tax breaks for EVs are available to bicycle conversions? 

What if you register them as a motorcycle class vehicle?


----------



## cobb (Aug 25, 2006)

I think the tax break only applied to 4 wheeled vehicles.


----------



## Darell (Aug 29, 2006)

BackBlast said:


> So, anyone know if any of the tax breaks for EVs are available to bicycle conversions?
> 
> What if you register them as a motorcycle class vehicle?


As far as I know, the vehicle has to be "new" and freeway-capable. The main push behind the incentives is to replace a gasoline car. Of course I think bicyclists should be compensated, but then I'm biased.

How're ya all doin't here? I've been gone pretty much all summer, and am finally back. I just bought a new domain to separate my EV life from my personal life a bit more. From tomorrow on, I'll be hanging out at evnut.com (nope, not active quite yet!). I've just out-grown my darelldd.com domain. I'm getting almost 50gig of traffic a month on the EV site now. Crazy, but there you go.


----------



## Beamhead (Aug 29, 2006)

Darell said:


> How're ya all doin't here? I've been gone pretty much all summer, and am finally back. I just bought a new domain to separate my EV life from my personal life a bit more. From tomorrow on, I'll be hanging out at evnut.com (nope, not active quite yet!). I've just out-grown my darelldd.com domain. I'm getting almost 50gig of traffic a month on the EV site now. Crazy, but there you go.


 
I was wondering where you were.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 29, 2006)

Darell said:


> As far as I know, the vehicle has to be "new" and freeway-capable. The main push behind the incentives is to replace a gasoline car. Of course I think bicyclists should be compensated, but then I'm biased.


So if a bicycle conversion were capable of freeway speeds, then it would be technically eligible? Not that it would make sense or anything to do so. A regular bike with its poor aerodynamics would take at least 3 or 4 HP to do freeway speeds. It would make a lot more sense to convert a faired recumbent for such a task.

BTW, I made another convert. With the high gas prices and my brother's 15 mile daily commute in mostly stop and go traffic he is keen to the idea of EVs. He read the story of the EV1 on your site, and was quite sad that they are in the process of being crushed as it would have been an ideal vehicle for him. He's even talking of one day buying a Lincoln Mark VIII just like the one he's driving now and doing an EV conversion. I personally think the Mark VIII would make a good platform for such a conversion since it has very good aerodynamics. What are your thoughts on that, if any? And any idea when/if we'll finally be getting mass-produced EVs in the states? I think a few more years of these gas prices ought to do it.

BTW, nice to see you back!


----------



## EV_007 (Aug 29, 2006)

It may take a change of administration for EV vehicles to take hold here in the states? 


Still a waiting list for the Toyotas in some areas and that's with the 5K mark-up.


----------



## cobb (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, if I win the big lottery in VA, I will give it 110% and want yalls help with it. No luck so far.

Does look like volvo is working on hybrid large trucks, but thats not til 09.

We are seeing in the truck buz many folks looking for cab over vs conventional trucks as they get about twice the fuel economy, 8 vs 15mpg.

ev 007, last I checked a few months ago, the VA toy dealer for area code 23227 had them for sale, new and used. Anyway you can do a transfer? DO a google search for priority toyota richmond, va.

jtr, never mind the power necessary, Just imagine the handling at 65mph. I think making a motorcycle electric would be way better than a bike capable of highway speeds. 

SO, whats the verdict on driving a diesel with mechanical injection for optimun fuel economy? Shift early and stomp the throttle or that only works on the vws with their smoke map. I currently drive a diesel 240d mercedes and it will puff a grey cloud out at start up almost regardless of throttle position. Getting 31mpg with mainly highway use with speed all over the place and various styles of driving from light foot shifting early/late and heavy foot, shifting late and early in the rpm band.


----------



## Darell (Aug 29, 2006)

Beamhead said:


> I was wondering where you were.


Mentally I'm still in the same place I was last month. Cool! where'd you get the great dancing cow? Might have to swipe that one!


----------



## Darell (Aug 29, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> So if a bicycle conversion were capable of freeway speeds, then it would be technically eligible?


Doubtful. I honestly haven't been following the legislation since there's not much out there that meets ANY of the criteria at present. 



> BTW, nice to see you back!


What until you see my front!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Aug 29, 2006)

Cobb, I can't say for sure if stomp it at low revs is better or not.

I drive the Ram and pretty much everything else that I drive like there is an egg between my foot and the throttle as much as I possibly can.

I've had four consecutive fill ups at 20.5ish...


----------



## Darell (Aug 30, 2006)

Well, I see that I'm STILL not getting email notifications of subscribed threads. Grrr.

Anyway big news! http://EVnut.com is active! This will be the site that I'll keep up to date (and is currently an exact copy of the old one). If you have pointers to the old site, please update them. The old site will no longer be updated. Thanks!


----------



## cobb (Aug 30, 2006)

Considering you have an auto trans, I guess its kind of hard to lug the engine down and the egg technique works best. Although I think Darell said in the prius forums they could to gas it then let up at desired speed gives improved fuel economy vs the egg technique. I used the egg technique and gas and go, half throttle til reached desired speed limit on my van and the fuel economy seemed better with gas and go method. 

The car is a manual tranny, no od. I use to hold the petal to the floor and shift it close to red line in every gear and often used gear selction to regulate speed. 2nd for 25mph zone and 3rd for 35-45mph. I got 31mpg combined highway 8 miles a day, 2 miles city.

Since I adjusted the alada fuel regular, which gave the engine more torque, I give it half throttle and shift much earlier. Get 30mpg. Variety of driving on this tank and 2 passengers for 70 miles, plus a wheelchair.

Before the adjustment I had to floor it to go anywhere and was lucky to get to 55mph before the 3 exits I pass to get to work. Now I can easily reach 55mph before exiting in ramp to interstate and must lift frequently to keep from going over speed limit, Seems I may need to back off the adjustment, however seems to need 1/2 to 3/4 throttle to go 65mph. Before I was luck to get 65mph when allowed with petal to floor for a few miles. Any lifting or braking caused me to need a few miles to get back to 65.

One thing that makes me question is the fact I find for 35mph, I need half throttle in 3rd or 4th gear. In 3rd it sounds like its revving a bit, seems in 4th its border line lugging. So, which is more fuel efficient, 3rd or 4th for 35mph for example since I use same throttle position? I will go out on a limb and guess 4th since the injector dumps the same fuel, but engine seems to turn half rpms, so half as times amount fuel is put into engine. I guess for fuel injection its more efficient to lug, lug, lug where a carb type of system dumpd a constant flow of fuel in regardless to rpm, more so throttle position. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Darell (Sep 9, 2006)

Well, I'm happy to report that I'm no*W* commuting on my bicycle 3x week, 24 miles one way.

One less EV on the road. 

** edited: "Not" has become "now"


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 9, 2006)

Darell said:


> Well, I'm happy to report that I'm not commuting on my bicycle 3x week, 24 miles one way.
> 
> One less EV on the road.




Ummmmm. What's that mean? Did you retire?

Daniel


----------



## NewBie (Sep 9, 2006)

As I understand it, with Lithium cells for EV use, the chemistry chemicals in them constitute 80% of the cell cost. Besides subsidizing them even further for EV use, has any headway been made to reduce the raw chemical costs?

I know that Toxico is one of the few companies authorized to process the cells for recycling, and to turn a profit, they need to charge 1 dollar per battery pound. Then they need to sell the chemicals recovered (mainly colbalt, and Lithium) at going market rates. Last I heard the typical 100% EV Li-Ion pack weighed 800 lbs. There was talk of implementing a hiding of the fee, by charging it up front on top of the new battery costs. 

The solar part of this, which helps make the EV make sense, is also heavily government subsidized on taxpayers backs. As well as the other half, to subsidize the sell back of excess solar capacity to the electric companies. Is there a date when all these subsidies expire, or is this indefinte?

Whats the latest scoop on all this?


----------



## cobb (Sep 9, 2006)

Any opinons on the new civic hybrid? Looks like its similar to the only insight with a small engine and electric motor. 

I was thiniking, those cars with the CV tranny, if you could give it a false vacuum pressure or something to make it shift higher than programmed, it may help get you better economy.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 9, 2006)

The CV is already controlled by computer to keep the engine at it's optimum speed. Gotta keep in mind that you want to minimize polution while maximizing usability and milage. You doubt that you can have all three optomized all the time. I'd not want to try to second guess teh current tuning.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Sep 10, 2006)

I was also thinking if you can upshift it while braking and put that into the electric motor to rechage the battery, it would help to reclaim some motion to set the car rolling and help to slow it at the same time. 

Ive never driven or ridden in a cv style car, just automatics and stick shifts. I will upshift to help brake the car and give me better control, other times it helps to get a better feel of a turn to brake while entering. 

Just wondering out loud. i would like to entertain a hybrid when I go car shopping, but reading that others get much less than the epa stats make me wonder and how much of the driver is at fault for the fuel economy. My van I got 17 mpg on the highway, 8 in the city. THe mercedes 30-31 mpg on the highway.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 10, 2006)

Engine braking in a gasoline car is not efficient. While you're unlikely to damage the engine or accelerate wear _(if done at a reasonable RPM!)_, it does consume more gasoline than idling while braking.

I have some confidence in Honda engineers' ability to design their cars well. Given that the Civic hybrid's battery capacity is only a few hundred watt-hours with an operational capacity that is far less, I would think that optimizing its recharge on braking would be an exercise in diminishing returns.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 11, 2006)

Regarding the MPG numbers.....

My wife was apalled that I only have 30 MPG showing for the Prius with 8 miles on this tank. This was becuase it has only made 1 mile trips since filling it with the AC on full time. 

Then I pointed out that her Camry got only 17 MPG on the last tank. She drives me to the train station every morning and back, a 2.0 mile stop and go trip with a cold engine or idling with the AC on.

Even if a Prius gets 80% of the EPA numbers, chances are a conventional car would too. You can't compare the EPA estimated 27 MPG of a Camry against the measured real life 47 of a Prius.

If you get 31MPG in the mercedes you should see 50+ in the Prius.

Daniel
(BTW, the 27 MPG is a guestimate)


----------



## cobb (Sep 11, 2006)

I do roughly 300 miles on 10 gallons of diesel. This isnt in stone, but a good guestmate based on known distance traveled and tank capacity at fill up. 

From experience I sucked down 1/4 a tank doing 85 for 30 miles and again on the way back. So, no more going over 70 for fuel economy. 

Stop and go driving also kills the fuel economy in the benz. I equally sucked down 1/4 tank tryning to find the sams club on broad street. 

For the most part I drive 45-60 90% of the commute a day and 35mph for a mile each way, 10 in all. 

My dads diesel golf got 42-37 fairly constantly with highway and some city driving. 

I wouldnt mind filling up with ten gallons near the onramp to the interstate and head someone 150-300 miles one way or round trip and see if i can beat 32 mpg. 

Its been my folks general experience that diesels get over all better fuel economy in all types of driving, where with gas it varies from both ends of the scale. I think my dads gas vw rabbit got upwards to 30 and down to 9 if he opened up the secondary with hard accelerating. He ended up installing a vacuum meter to drive it better. The suzuki seems fairly consistant at 27 regardess of driving style. 

Man, tough decision, if you can afford it. I would low a diesel myself, the older one for the rock solid fuel economy performance. THe gassers seem to take less maintenance and economy bit less than epa and the hybrids seem to severly depend on the driving habits for fuel economy. I may avoid stop n go driving for lack of tollerance for it, but I love my AC, even in winter. Plus I like to tinker. I thought owning a hybrid may add something to driving by cheating the system using a 5th wheel with an alternator on it or recharging it at night. I did get the clearance to plug in where i live.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 12, 2006)

cobb said:


> THe gassers seem to take less maintenance and economy bit less than epa and the hybrids seem to severly depend on the driving habits for fuel economy.



I'm not sure where you get that last part. Certain habits will always co-incide with the design's sweat spots. Certain habits will bring out the worst in the design.

Here's a "for instance"; My wife's camry gets 1/2 the milage in short stop and go as she does on a 300 mile open highway. My Prius also suffers from such driving and gets 3/4 of it's normal milage. The biggest milage killer is when my wife waits in the car with the AC running while I shop. But that kills the MPG in almost any car, so you should probably ignore it.

On the other hand, the stop and go that kills milage in commute traffic barely fazes the Prius. I've suffered through stop and go traffic for an hour (10 miles in 45 minutes) and watched the MPG readings climb. Any other car and it would have plummeted.

Not sure where AC comes ino things. It's standard on all Prius models. It's available on most every car.


Daniel


----------



## HarryN (Sep 12, 2006)

I have seen some notes on European diesels (in particular the Sprinter) which has an optional switch setting to turn off the engine when the vehicle is stopped. While I have nightmares about all of these start / stop engine cycles, I guess this is becoming more common.

Not bashing hybrids, but it would be interesting to know if the complexity of a gasoline hybrid is dramatically better than a start / stop diesel. I guess there are lots of variables making a direct comparison difficult.


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Ummmmm. What's that mean? Did you retire?
> 
> Daniel


Crap. I've done this all my life. I hit the T when I want the W. Changes the intent quite a bit, doesn't it??? I meant NOW, not "not."


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2006)

cobb said:


> but reading that others get much less than the epa stats make me wonder and how much of the driver is at fault for the fuel economy.


Hybrids don't get any less than the EPA stats than the average gasoline car. Yes, in MPG it appears like a big difference. In percentage - which is all that really counts - it is the same. On average, every gasoline car in the US gets 25% less mileage than is on the sticker. The Prius is the same. It just turns out that even with this big discrepancy, you're "down to" 45mpg actual, if you drive it like you don't give a damn. Drive it like you DO give a damn and you can get the EPA numbers -just like with any car.

From my myths page:
The difference in Prius gas mileage (between EPA sticker and *average actual*) compared to the mileage difference in every other car on the road is the SAME percentage. Just because the Prius gets way better mileage to start with, that percentage difference translates into a larger mpg number than it would for a car with poor mileage. Example: If a Hummer is rated for 11mpg, the typical driver would be happy to achieve a bit over 8mpg, right? Well, that same percentage difference means that instead of the Prius seeing the EPA number of 60mpg, it achieves 45mpg on average. Does this mean that we're happier with the 25% difference in the Hummer mileage just because it translates into just 3mpg drop? :sigh:


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2006)

HarryN said:


> While I have nightmares about all of these start / stop engine cycles


What worries you about start/stop? The only part that is hammered in a "normal" car is the starter/solenoid. Doesn't happen like that in a hybrid. An engine that is stopped when not needed will last WAY longer than one that is just allowed to idle. The start/stop sequence doesn't add the wear that you seem to envision.

The Prius, for example, stores heated coolant that is first circulated in the engine, then the oil is pressurized, the ICE is spun up to speed and only then is spark added. Starting the ICE on the Prius is WAY the hell better for the ICE than any normal car. And as I said before, there is no traditional "starter" in a properly designed hybrid.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 16, 2006)

Gotta throw in 2 cents more....

The start/stop can be hard on a conventional lead acid battery since it's a large surge of current and may not have a chance to recharge between frequent stops. 

The cold start is the hardest on the car. The parts are not lubricated properly and there are problems with unburned gas. 

Starting a diesel is probably less transparent than starting a hybrid. I seem to recall it takes a some amount of time to get consistant combustion. It might be more polluting too.


There was an article in Pop Mechanics a few yaers back about going to 48 volt systems for cars. Higher volts means fewer amps for the same amount of energy. The idea was to make it OK to do stop at idle.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 19, 2006)

Have a look (quickly, it won't be here long) at the Australian take on EVs.
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/videoplayer.html?channel=This+Week


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 20, 2006)

OK, here's one that will shock everyone.

The trip computer on my Prius is currently showing 27.8 MPG since I filled the tank 30 miles ago.


How does this happen?

First, That's 3 weeks of driving.
Second, no trip has exeeded 1.5 miles
Third, the car was parked at least 6 hours after each 1.5 mile journey (except for twice)
Fourth, The car idled twice with the AC on for a total of 3/4 hour.
Fifth, There was no freeway driving


By far, the time that the car ran the AC without moving had the greatest impact. Thank goodness I'll be taking a 200 mile trip next week to bring this tank's milage back up to the mid 40s where it belongs. I usually get 50 - 51 MPG on that particular trip.

To put this in perspective, try running any other car for 27 miles, then idle for 3/4 hour with the AC running on only one gallon of gas and let me know how that works. EVs excluded. 


Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 20, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> To put this in perspective, try running any other car for 27 miles, then idle for 3/4 hour with the AC running on only one gallon of gas and let me know how that works. EVs excluded.


Ah, damn. This was gonna be fun, right up to that last sentence there. 

Seriously though, I don't think that the point can be made often enough that an EV never has to "warm up" to be efficient. It is just as efficient in the first mile of driving as in the 100th. And it doesn't pollute any more in that first mile.... and if I did take this 27 mile/AC/idle test with my current EV, I'd use up about 1/4 gallon of gasoline energy equivalent.

For around-town vehicle trips, there just isn't anything better than an EV.

That said... I hear complaints from Prius drivers all the time that they're only in the high 30's. Turns out they have cold commutes of just a few miles/day. My response is:

1. Ride a bike!
followed by:
2. If you'd used a traditional gasoline car, your mileage would have been half that, so where's the complaint?


----------



## cobb (Sep 24, 2006)

Its a free country, but seems bit of a waste to drive a hybrid 1.5 miles a day round trip. You may get better fuel economy with a regular car. 

I am still on the fence about an EV myself for my 16 mile round trip commute a day. 

Anyone see that bit on horse power today on the spike network power block about the engine that ran on evaporated gas that got 51 mpg. Some ignorant, illerate jack leg got into the auto industry and racing and they seemed to credit him with the turbo charger invention. He went a step further and used a gizmo to turn the fuel into air. 

I dont recall the car, but it looked like an eco box with rear engine. Maybe not that impossible for it to get 51mpg. My 79 dasher got 49.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 24, 2006)

1.5 miles = easy walking distance unless you're grossly out of shape or 90 years old. For me that's an easy 18 to 20 minute trip.

I won't even consider any other form of transport, including cycling, for trips under about 3 miles each way. My 67 year old mom walks 7 miles round trip to one of her doctors and she has had foot problems. If she can do it, almost anyone can.



Darell said:


> Well, I'm happy to report that I'm now commuting on my bicycle 3x week, 24 miles one way.


How long does that take you? For me in typical city traffic conditions with lights and occasional obstacles it would be about a 90 minute trip. In the country I could probably make it in maybe 70 to 75 minutes.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Sep 24, 2006)

I possibly could leave my truck at work and bicycle the approx. 6.75 miles.

But then I'd get a call about someone needing service first thing to the north of me.

And 5 miles of it is on 59 with a 70MPH limit and people doing 80+

Since I can milk 20 or so miles from a gallon of diesel, I don't sweat it TOO bad....


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> How long does that take you? For me in typical city traffic conditions with lights and occasional obstacles it would be about a 90 minute trip. In the country I could probably make it in maybe 70 to 75 minutes.


So far my best time is 75 minutes. Today was 90 minutes due to constant head-wind. I couldn't get up to 20mph which is where I usually cruise. I stop twice on the route to get blood back into my toes and hands, and to refuel. (interesting note to the "all that matters is what it costs" folks. It costs me FAR more to ride my bicycle than to drive my EV if you just count the cost of the "fuel" I use for both methods. The cost to ride is about equal to the cost of driving the gasoline Pius. Crazy huh?)

... this brings me back when several folks were talking about biking and speeds and all that. I kept hearing 30mph thrown about, and just stayed out of the conversation. I'm in pretty good shape. I ride at least short distances every day when it isn't raining or 110° out. I have a modern, relatively high-performance bicycle with 120psi tires, aerodynamic wheels and spokes... and my cruising speed is about 20 mph when I don't have a draft. With a draft I can cruise at 26-28mpg for extended times. So... I am curious - how are you guys who don't even ride regularly - managing 30mph? I need more tail wind!


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2006)

The ZEV Technology symposium in Sacramento begins in one hour and continues Tuesday and Wednesday. 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/symposium.htm

Agenda: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/agenda.pdf

Some presentations are available for viewing at: 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/presentations.htm

Webcast at:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/CentralVideo.asx

Audio only at:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/CentralAudio.asx

I'll be there tomorrow morning, so look for me in the cheap seats.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 25, 2006)

Darell said:


> So far my best time is 75 minutes. Today was 90 minutes due to constant head-wind. I couldn't get up to 20mph which is where I usually cruise. I stop twice on the route to get blood back into my toes and hands, and to refuel. (interesting note to the "all that matters is what it costs" folks. It costs me FAR more to ride my bicycle than to drive my EV if you just count the cost of the "fuel" I use for both methods. The cost to ride is about equal to the cost of driving the gasoline Pius. Crazy huh?)


75 minutes is about 19 mph average speed which is pretty damned good on a trip that long. On the "fuel" thing you need the fuel whether you ride or not, perhaps a bit more than usual if you ride 48 miles in one day. A bit more waste products as well, but at least they're biodegradable even if somewhat unpleasant. :sick2: 



> ... this brings me back when several folks were talking about biking and speeds and all that. I kept hearing 30mph thrown about, and just stayed out of the conversation. I'm in pretty good shape. I ride at least short distances every day when it isn't raining or 110° out. I have a modern, relatively high-performance bicycle with 120psi tires, aerodynamic wheels and spokes... and my cruising speed is about 20 mph when I don't have a draft. With a draft I can cruise at 26-28mpg for extended times. So... I am curious - how are you guys who don't even ride regularly - managing 30mph? I need more tail wind!


Easy-they're either lying or their speedometers are inaccurate (or they don't have speedometers and are "estimating" their speed). :devil: When I ride often enough to be conditioned, which sadly isn't as often as it used to be for weather or other reasons, my cruising speeds are in the 21 to 25 mph range, and I have an aero rear wheel but don't ride in an aero tuck. Counting slowdowns for traffic or lights and most trips I'm lucky to average 15 mph (still about as fast as a local subway train but without the waiting time). Even with an aero tuck, which kills my back in a short time, the best I can manage on level ground for any length of time is maybe in the high 20s. There's no way that occasional riders can ride 30 mph except maybe on a recumbent, or with a good hill or tailwind. In short, people like to exaggerate, especially online where you're not as likely to be found out.


----------



## Darell (Sep 26, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> Easy-they're either lying or their speedometers are inaccurate (or they don't have speedometers and are "estimating" their speed). :devil: When I ride often enough to be conditioned, which sadly isn't as often as it used to be for weather or other reasons, my cruising speeds are in the 21 to 25 mph range, and I have an aero rear wheel but don't ride in an aero tuck. Counting slowdowns for traffic or lights and most trips I'm lucky to average 15 mph


Whew. This makes me feel better.  My route is very country, and I rarely have to deal with traffic or stops. I do often overtake farm equipment moving in my lane. I do have to push all my own air - sucks. And like you, I can't tuck either. In fact, I have flat bars (with bar ends). Sometimes I wish I could get a bit lower, but I deal with it. For me, a good day is when I can maintain a steady 20mph. A great day is when I can maintain 25. My top speed ever is 55mph. Downhill, obviously.


----------



## Darell (Sep 26, 2006)

Daniel -

a V2G discussion will be up at 3:55 local time at the streaming link that I provided earlier. I'm listening to Tom Gage (ACP) bring it up right now.


----------



## mdvb747 (Sep 26, 2006)

Hey all. I stopped by the symposium around 5 today. I didn't actaully go in, just talked with a few of the people there. The people debuting the Phoenix motors were great. Very friendly, well actaully everyone was. It was a great time just talking about battery tech and such. Some pics are attached.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 28, 2006)

Darell said:


> Daniel -
> 
> a V2G discussion will be up at 3:55 local time at the streaming link that I provided earlier. I'm listening to Tom Gage (ACP) bring it up right now.




Thanks for the heads up, Darell. Too bad I've not been able to make time for little pleasure like CPF recently.

How was it?

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 29, 2006)

Well, in a word, it was awesome. We should have much of the audio archived here in a short while. I'll post it when it is up. You may even be able to relive my 6 seconds of fame where I was brought up in testimony as being responsible for working around several of the built-in deficiencies of the production EVs. But enough about me... 

The PHEV sections were of great interest to me. I learned boat-loads of stuff. V2G was equally enlightening. I thought it was a good deal before, and now am more convinced than ever. The support for it is there, and the power companies are just giddy about it. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) our version of the "tube" did a lengthy segment on how just they could provide "station" cars that were V2G capable - and because of the peak-shaving benefits alone - the charging would be offered for FREE to those using the service. IN effect, you could rent a station car, and never have to pay for fuel. This vehicle would get you from your home to the BART station and back home again for much less total operating cost than even the thriftiest gas car. The conclusion was that with the model suggested, everybody would come out ahead. Yup... BEVs can actually LOWER operating costs for a service that uses gobs of electricity. Neat, eh?

It was a great symposium! And not just because I got to consort with movie stars (crap - my server is dead, so no pictures!)


----------



## Darell (Oct 2, 2006)

Man, this is great. What if Detroit were to build a "better" light bulb?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53554


----------



## Darell (Oct 2, 2006)

The Smart EV is going to the UK. Would sure like to see it in the US!
link


----------



## Brock (Oct 2, 2006)

I am still waiting for a plug in hybrid I can buy... Or an EV I can buy...

Oh and it has to be able to seat 6


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 2, 2006)

Darell,
That Smart is really cool but maybe we can at least get the lightbulb!


----------



## Brock (Oct 2, 2006)

Ya, if they built the V6 light bulb they should at least us a CF light


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 2, 2006)

Brock said:


> I am still waiting for a plug in hybrid I can buy... Or an EV I can buy...
> 
> Oh and it has to be able to seat 6


You can buy this EV for only $1,576,475. It seats either 42 or 44, depending upon whether it has a cab end or not. And with standees it can hold well over 100 people. Plenty of room for all your friends! Best of all, it comes in a low-maintenance stainless steel finish.


----------



## Darell (Oct 3, 2006)

The presentations from the ZEV technology symposium in Sac that I attended last week are up on the ARB site now. No audio yet, but these are at least the slides they showed. Be sure to check out Tuesday's presentations from Wrightspeed, Tesla and ACP... and lots of other good stuff all over the place. link


----------



## ikendu (Oct 3, 2006)

Woo Hoo! Crude oil closed today at under $59 per barrel!

Man, now we can all afford to burn petroleum fuels until the cows come home!

Seriously, I'm happy that some economic pressure will be backed off from Americans, although as the price of oil drops, the interest in "ending our oil addiction" drops too.

Too bad. Over dependence on foreign oil is ruining our country's security, economy and the world's environment.


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 3, 2006)

I would be surprised if the price of gasoline stays this low for long.


----------



## Brock (Oct 3, 2006)

I was going to sarcastically say, don't worry the cost of fuel will go up  It's just a matter of time and if we want to be ready or react once it happens. Unfortunately my money is on reactionary rather then pre-emptive.


----------



## Gransee (Oct 4, 2006)

2 promising battery technologies I have been following for awhile:

Zinc Matrix
http://www.zmp.com/index.html
-2x runtime of lithium ion in same size
-over 2000 cycles
-no flamable or explosive materials
-hi peak energy
-funded by Intel, US Army

EEStor
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/eestor_ultracap.html
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/6/1799684.html
-ultra capacitor
-funded by same company that funded Google, Amazon.com, Netscape, AOL, etc (Kleiner Perkins)
-0.1% self discharge/month (much better than lithium, NiMH, etc)
-millions of cycles
-2x runtime over lithium
-no flamable or explosive materials
-costs less than lead acid
-production planned for 2007
-if the charger can provide the current, the battery can be charged in less than 5 minutes
- patent filings http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,033,406.PN.&OS=PN/7,033,406&RS=PN/7,033,406 http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_number=2434470&language=EN

BEV's have a PR problem right now, most people's idea of a battery powered vehicle is outdated. What the general public doesn't realize is that we are on the cuff of a energy system revolution. Early investors are savvy to this. 

Some other companies:
http://www.altairnano.com/
http://www.a123systems.com/html/news/articles/051102_news.html

Peter


----------



## mosport (Oct 4, 2006)

In today's Toronto Star there's an article about a Prius battery conversion system, allowing you to recharge using a standard wall plug. Costs $14,500 to retrofit the new battery and charging system, with a range of 55 kms on a 5 hour $2 charge.

Here's the company that does the conversion, Hymotion Canada and it looks like they have a package for the Ford Escape too. Up here Canadian Prius MSRP is $31,280 for a base model ($38,710 fully loaded) plus taxes and freight.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 5, 2006)

I always find the most telling parts of a new product announcement are the missing facts.

The Zinc Matrix sounds great, but it does not give as much information as Duracell does in their data sheets of a common D cell. 200 wh per kg, 500wh per liter BUT no information as to self discharge rates (just "very low") and no info on the draw (in amps) to get 200 wh per kg. There are, of course, many other technical specs that should have been listed.

It's worth keeping an eye on.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 5, 2006)

There was buzz some time ago about the EEStor capacitors. The company is quite tight-lipped and nothing official seems to have been released since. It would be a big leap if they solidified, but they're vapor for now. I seem to remember that someone from Tesla motors is sort of on record for saying "supercapacitors promise much but have delivered little to date." 

If they deliver, it will be revolutionary. I seem to recall that the specs were something like ~31F (big F, as in actual whole _farads_) @ ~3400V, which translates to around 50 kilowatt-hours. Weighing in at ~900 pounds, that's impressive and if the device can reliably dump current as fast as most capacitors, it's a sure winner in the field of energy storage. A pair of these devices could give an EV greater-than "gasoline car" range without the crippling weight of a 100kWH battery pack. The only challenge would be getting big enough cables (and chargers) to test that "5-minute charging" theory - it would take a continuous 600kW source to charge in 5 minutes assuming perfect efficiency (which never happens).

Now if only I could get people to understand that an electric car does not need to carry the energy equivalent of a tankful of gas since they are typically more than 4 times as efficient as the average gasoline car...

Drifting slightly off topic, I hear that it takes roughly 60 KWH to compress 1 kilogram of hydrogen to the 10,000 PSI required to get decent range from a fuel-cell or hydrogen ICE car. I would hope that the vehicle extracts some energy from decompressing the hydrogen (impeller on the feed line?) since the average EV can go nearly 300 miles on 60KWH of electricity. The Hy-wire fuel cell concept vehicle stored 2kg of hydrogen at 5000 PSI for roughly 80 miles' range. The Sequel has 8kg of hydrogen at 10,000 PSI for ~300 miles range.

I think that hydrogen has a ways to go, myself...


----------



## Steve K (Oct 5, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> Drifting slightly off topic, I hear that it takes roughly 60 KWH to compress 1 kilogram of hydrogen to the 10,000 PSI required to get decent range from a fuel-cell or hydrogen ICE car. I would hope that the vehicle extracts some energy from decompressing the hydrogen (impeller on the feed line?) since the average EV can go nearly 300 miles on 60KWH of electricity. The Hy-wire fuel cell concept vehicle stored 2kg of hydrogen at 5000 PSI for roughly 80 miles' range. The Sequel has 8kg of hydrogen at 10,000 PSI for ~300 miles range.
> 
> I think that hydrogen has a ways to go, myself...




I have to agree about the slow development of hydrogen powered cars too, and wonder if they can ever become commercially viable.

regarding the decompression of hydrogen: I spent some time working on a dual-fuel diesel engine a few years ago. It was fueled by a little bit of diesel, and mostly natural gas. The main advantage was that it was much cleaner than the current diesels, and a bit cheaper to run back when natural gas was cheaper.

anyway.... on the trucks that used compressed natural gas, there was a heat exchanger used for decompressing the gas. The decompression process itself absorbs heat, so the valve/nozzle where the decompression occurs gets very cold! It's possible that in colder climates, you might have to use some of the hydrogen just to warm up the decompressor. Or mount the decompressor near the electric motor or electronic power modules in order to use their waste heat. 

Wasn't there some work done on storing hydrogen in metal hydride tanks or such?? My vague recollection is that the hydrogen was not compressed. 

Steve K.


----------



## Brock (Oct 5, 2006)

Way back when I read they were thinking of storing the H2 at 10,000 psi I wondered what the energy of that same volume of air would have. For instance if you had even 10 cuft of space with air packed at 10,000 psi and just use that to drive the vehicle, how far would that get you? And of course the use of electricity to compares the H2 to 10,000 psi I am sure not an insignificant amount...


----------



## Bright Scouter (Oct 5, 2006)

Guys, I know this goes off topic a little, but I am going to ask anyway. If you do your own oil changes, what do you do with the used motor oil? I have always taken it to a recyling center. I don't suppose there is any economically and environmentally feasible way to filter, convert, strain, or otherwise adapt it to be able to be burned in a diesel engine is there?


----------



## Brock (Oct 5, 2006)

There are quite a few people on the TDI forums that do collect used oil and filter it down to like 1 micron then burn it in their diesel cars or trucks at low concentrations, like 1 or 2 quart to every 10 gallons. Others say this is crazy and they are going to ruin their engines. I personally just recycle it, I don't want to take the chance with my engine, but if I had an older big diesel I might burn it in smaller ratios.

Oh I should add synthetic oil burns at a much higher temperature and very few of they burn used synthetic.

I did run across a couple of people that add the used oil to their wood stoves/burners, just by pouring a few ounces on each piece of wood as they add it.


----------



## turbodog (Oct 5, 2006)

I hear (you know how that goes) that it's common practice to burn used oil in diesel engines. Try a google search maybe?

As far as used oil goes... I'm happy to report that I've risen above my background. Men in my family just poured it on the ground. Dad used to use it for preserving fenceposts and crossties.

I used to take it in a 5 gal jug to the local autozone/etc. They have a vat. I got tired of going all the time... my truck takes 2 gallons each change, and I drive a LOT.

I was able to find me a 35gal plastic drum. It's large enough to interest the local recycler. He will come pump it empty for free, saves me a trip and a strained back.






Bright Scouter said:


> Guys, I know this goes off topic a little, but I am going to ask anyway. If you do your own oil changes, what do you do with the used motor oil? I have always taken it to a recyling center. I don't suppose there is any economically and environmentally feasible way to filter, convert, strain, or otherwise adapt it to be able to be burned in a diesel engine is there?


----------



## Bright Scouter (Oct 5, 2006)

I've got a diesel tractor that I am seriously thinking about trying to burn some of it in. I've done a google search and most of what comes up is either sites talking about recycling it or burning biodiesel. Not much luck. I know there must be sites out there with info, but haven't hit the right search terms yet. I guess I just need to find someplace that I can get some 1 micron filters and give it a try.


----------



## Darell (Oct 6, 2006)

Nothing new... but a good recent article on plug-in hybrids.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061001/9hybrid.htm


----------



## Darell (Oct 6, 2006)

turbodog said:


> As far as used oil goes... I'm happy to report that I've risen above my background.


Yay! Hey... you're back from your big ride... and alive? I lost your link. Must go find it!


----------



## Darell (Oct 6, 2006)

Steve K said:


> Wasn't there some work done on storing hydrogen in metal hydride tanks or such?? My vague recollection is that the hydrogen was not compressed.


Yup. No compression if done this way. The stumbling block is that it has never worked out to store ENOUGH H2 this way for any sort of reasonable range. It has been suggested and theorized many times. Just nobody's been able to accomplish it. You need LOTS of that metal hydride to soak up the H2. Where do you carry all of it?


----------



## Darell (Oct 11, 2006)

Rarely is the press or public response in correct relation to the threat. Case in point.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-air11oct11,1,2742028.story?coll=la-headlines-california

"Figures compiled by the California Air Resources Board show 6,500 premature deaths annually from smog and soot-related exposure, 1.7 million cases of respiratory illness and 2.8 million lost work days, with an average 60% of those effects in the Los Angeles Basin."

"Speaking with obvious frustration, Wallerstein said, "I've been reading about E. coli and spinach. Certainly the loss of a couple people and a few hundred illnesses is of concern. But this is occurring each and every year in Southern California. If this isn't going to be a priority for us, I don't know what is."



And in the meantime, my emails to Marc are bouncing... What's up with that?


----------



## mahoney (Oct 11, 2006)

I have not heard much about burning used oil in diesel engines, but with a low enough viscosity oil in an old enough engine it should work. I have heard of folks filtering and burning used oil in oil fired furnaces mixed with the "fuel oil"


----------



## Darell (Oct 12, 2006)

Darell said:


> And in the meantime, my emails to Marc are bouncing... What's up with that?


Yup, I mean you, Marc. No host named "southskope.net"

(sorry for this commercial interruption).


----------



## Darell (Oct 30, 2006)

This thread needs some mojo. Here's what GM is doing today. The same company that laughed at Toyota and Honda hybrids just a few short years ago. "American's don't want to drive cars like that."

Detroit News article here: http://tinyurl.com/ygz84y

GM technology going 'green' to challenge Toyota

Automaker will make hydrogen-powered fuel cell and hybrid-electric vehicles in near future.

Jeff Green / Bloomberg News 

DETROIT -- General Motors Corp., losing sales to Toyota Motor Corp., will use some of the $9 billion in savings from cost cuts this year to make vehicles that match the Japanese automaker in technology and fuel efficiency, according to people familiar with the strategy.

GM's plans include a hybrid-electric vehicle with a battery that recharges at any outlet, improved gasoline engines, hybrid versions of its Silverado pickup trucks and hydrogen-powered fuel cell models that emit only water vapor, according to sources, who didn't want to be identified because the plan isn't public.

Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner will outline the strategy in a speech before year's end, one of the sources said.

"GM has to change the rules of the game through new technologies because they are simply fighting to not lose share now," said Pete Hastings, a fixed-income analyst at Morgan Keegan & Co. in Memphis, Tenn. "The first and best to market will be critical for future share dominance."

Wagoner, 53, is under pressure to return the world's largest automaker to profitability after he shunned an alliance with Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co.

GM reported a third-quarter loss of $115 million this week and said it was spending more cash on its automobile business than it was generating through vehicle sales. GM lost $1.66 billion in the year-earlier quarter.

The Detroit automaker has assigned a team of engineers to help develop plug-in hybrids, according to one of the sources. The project -- known internally as I-car, for Icon car -- is meant to be the centerpiece of the new strategy, the sources said. Plug-in hybrids recharge when the vehicle isn't in use and switch to the gasoline engine when the batteries are drained.

GM is playing catch-up in "green car" technology. Toyota sold 235,000 hybrids worldwide last year. GM's first true hybrid, the Saturn Vue Green Line, went on sale this month.

Demand for Toyota's hybrids has helped the Toyota City, Japan-based company boost U.S. sales 12.5 percent this year through September.

GM sales have dropped 11 percent.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Oct 30, 2006)

I still think my Cummins is the best thing to ever happen to me...

I was towing a lowboy 2 axle maybe 2000ish pounds empty back up here from Houston.

I had reset the average readout earlier, and left 45 south near the beltway at 15.1...

I hit the stop sign at the Hwy 150 exit at 21.8!!!

And I didn't seriously impeed ANYONES progress doing it!

Have I ever mentioned I LOVE this truck?


----------



## ikendu (Oct 31, 2006)

I interviewed a GM engineer the other day for my renewable energy book. I was asking about improving ethanol mileage on FlexFuel cars by upping the compression ratio. That would require the vehicles to be certified for premium gas...which GM doesn't want to do. It's pretty clear that they aren't thinking "class leading technology". I will be highly surprised if they ever market an actual plug-in hybrid.

Although, I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.


----------



## Darell (Nov 6, 2006)

Well, there's more on this. And the whole EV community is just abuzz with excitement. Here's what GM is saying today:

http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBFTtLsAG-rD9AbRcQ5AYXYAVar/auto38
(have to be a paid subscriber, sorry)

Lutz:
No way GM will kill the electric car
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner will reveal a new step in GM's 
alternative-fuel vehicle programs at the Los Angeles auto show this 
month. While not saying which direction GM will take, Vice Chairman 
Bob Lutz says GM executives believe electric vehicles are the future.

----

Obviously we'll have no idea if they can pull it off until they do. And they'll have to hire some full-time spin-doctors to figure out how to curtail the damage of all their past "EVs suck, failed experiment" crap. But from what I know, they really are going to give it a shot. This doesn't just come out of the blue either... it is a direct result of the movie and "activist pressure." Not guessing here!


----------



## Brock (Nov 7, 2006)

Ok I will start holding my breath...


----------



## cobb (Nov 9, 2006)

I was reading somewhere that GM and other companies that produce flex fuel vehicles were fudging the mpg ratings as when you use flex fuel, they did not count the non gas content and could legally inflate the fuel economy on gas for the vehicle.


----------



## ikendu (Nov 10, 2006)

If you produce a Flex Fuel car than can run on E85 (85% ethanol), you get to state the mileage for CAFE purposes as though 15% of a gallon of gas will take you as far as 100% of a gallon of gas.

So... a Flex Fuel SUV that gets 15 mpg gets to count as though it is 15 mpg/.15 or 100 mpg for the purposes of calculating that vehicle's contribution to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). That's a pretty sweet deal for the auto makers.

I think I'm OK with that "loop hole" if it means we make lots of E85 vehicles ...AND we raise the CAFE standard from where it as been stuck since 1990; 27.5 mpg. Both California and Canada are proposing to raise the CAFE five mpg in the next 5 years. The European Union is proposing to raise theirs 13 mpg in the next five years.

As a point of reference, the 2002 Camry got 27 mpg (EPA combined city/hwy) and now 5 years later the 2007 Camry Hybrid gets 39 mpg (EPA combined city/hwy). That's 12 mpg improvement in five years. Surely we could raise the national CAFE by 5 mpg over that same period.


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 12, 2006)

ikendu's post was a surprise to me. While I can see it as an inducement to build alt fuel cars, it really messes up the otherwise useful numnbers.

If one was picky (which I'll try not to be) one could suggest that the energy it takes to create the ethanol, shoudl be included. If that were the case the MPG would be drastically lower, and in some cases worse than the gas powered versions.

I have to agree with the idea that we need to raise the minimum CAFE if we fudge the numbers like that.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Nov 13, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> If one was picky (which I'll try not to be) one could suggest that the energy it takes to create the ethanol, shoudl be included. If that were the case the MPG would be drastically lower, and in some cases worse than the gas powered versions.



The NRDC estimates that very little _petroleum_ is used to make ethanol (although many ethanol plants burn a fair amount of coal or natural gas). They estimate that ethanol reduces petroleum use by 93%. So... if you are worried about the impact of addiction to *imported* oil (I certainly am), then ethanol or E85 is a good thing.

See page 15 of this NRDC document:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/pump/pump.pdf



gadget_lover said:


> I have to agree with the idea that we need to raise the minimum CAFE if we fudge the numbers like that.
> 
> Daniel



Although, even without that, we should be raising CAFE. It's been stuck at the current level since 1990; 16 years. We've made many advancements in efficiency since then. The only other way to get those advancements into production vehicles is to start taxing the carbon in gasoline ...Americans are unlikely to vote for increased gasoline taxes. So... increasing CAFE seems way more do-able to me.


----------



## Darell (Nov 17, 2006)

A pretty GREAT article on why we need plug-in cars.

link


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 21, 2006)

Each day I commute to work on an electric train. We pass the Oakland AC trancit bus maintenance yard. On the north end end of the yard is a large multi story parking garage for the bus drivers. I guess they can't catch a bus to work.


On the south end is a big installation (the length of a bus) with a big banner advertising that it's a hydrogen filling station.

Funny thing is that I drive by during commute hours, and I almost alway see (if I look) the two hydrogen powered buses parked there.

I wonder why? I suspect they are not ready for prime time yet.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Dec 5, 2006)

Not sure if this was known, when the board crashed I was car shopping. I found 7 new prius's at the toyota dealer in Chester, VA exit 58 off of i95 a priority dealer. THey also had a few used 02 models for 17 grand. THe front end looked much like a saturn than the current model. 

I was looking at the yaris and scion xa. I got my car fixed and didnt purchase anything.


----------



## BB (Dec 5, 2006)

Because of lower fuel prices and declining tax credits:

Sales Slow for Hybrids



> Sales of gas-electric hybrid vehicles have fallen sharply since August, a result of declining gasoline prices, shrinking federal tax credits for some brands and uncertainty over carpool-lane stickers in California, the leading hybrid market.
> 
> Despite the sales drop, prices for the two best-selling hybrids -- the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid -- have barely budged. But that could change if inventories continue to climb.
> 
> ...



I am waiting for the Plug-In Hybrids... 

-Bill


----------



## Brock (Dec 6, 2006)

BB said:


> I am waiting for the Plug-In Hybrids...
> 
> -Bill



Same here.


----------



## Darell (Dec 6, 2006)

And here.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 6, 2006)

Say, Darrell, you ought be a great source of _filtered_ information on that plug-in hybrid that GM recently announced, so spill it!


----------



## Darell (Dec 6, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> Say, Darrell, you ought be a great source of _filtered_ information on that plug-in hybrid that GM recently announced, so spill it!


Ha. If there were only anything to filter. Here's my brief GM timeline of significant plug-in events.

1996: We'll change the world with the modern world's first EV! Greenest, most efficient car on the planet.
1999: Ignoring that we can't fill the demand that we tried so hard not to create, we've decided that there's no market for this car. We'd like you to give all the cars back to us even if you're willing to purchase yours for $1million. We'll crush them for your own good. We don't want you stuck with the one GM product that exceeded everybody's expectations.
2000: You can't tell us what to do. Stop making us sell ZEVs! We're just making the cars that Americans want to drive. We're filling demand. And Americans want full-size, over-powered gasoline vehicles the preferrably weigh enough to put them into the commercial vehicle class, so they don't count against those pesky CAFE numbers. If you don't stop telling us what to sell, we'll sue you. We'll even get the federal government to sue you. WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT BETTER THAN YOU DO. Hummer anybody?
2003: American drivers don't want hybrids, and we aren't going to make them. Toyota and Honda are secretly losing money, the dummies. Gas will be cheap again, and you'll just be stuck with those silly little "green" cars while your smart neighbor will be driving a REAL car.
2006: GM is going to give you exactly what you want: EVs and Plug-in Hybrids. We're the leader in green technology. We'll have something way better than the guys who've been building these for 10 years. We'll be doing all this leadership stuff just as soon as the batteries are ready. Stand by for that announcement, as we don't have a date quite yet. But really... we'll be the leaders. Hummer anybody?


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 6, 2006)

I really want one of these, if they can make sure the batteries won't go boom:












www.teslamotors.com

Powered by thousands of lithium ion batteries… :eeksign:


----------



## Darell (Dec 6, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> I really want one of these, if they can make sure the batteries won't go boom:


I'm quite curious... do you drive a gasoline car? Is it full of any sort of special gas that doesn't "go boom?"

They aren't making cars with batteries that "go boom" - battery cars are orders of magnitude safer (pretending that we can quantify "safer") than anything that hauls gallons of gasoline. Crazy that we don't even think about the dangers of gasoline any longer. If it hadn't been invented yet, we'd likely NEVER allow its use as a motor fuel - for safety reasons alone.

So what I'm saying here is - GET ONE! Of course they've already sold more in the first round than they intended... which is a great sign.


----------



## Darell (Dec 6, 2006)

Say... did I mention that yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the EV1 launch? 8am, December five, 1996. I was at one of the events. And I remember thinking that I had already purchased my last gasoline vehicle ever. I could not have been more excited.

Ten years and three gasoline cars later, here we are.


----------



## Darell (Dec 7, 2006)

Here are a few short videos from a fellow EV1 driver. Just about made me cry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsdUfAEIEos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eSvSec6QRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOYBABv4Zc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQh6Nd50hWY


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 7, 2006)

If we didn't live at the top of a mountan, we'd probably have an EV by now.
The EV1 was the only EV built so far that could have done it for us,
but we couldn't afford one when they came out.
By the time we had that kind of money, GM was repo-ing all EV-1's from their devoted owners and sending them to the crusher.   

While GM was being totally , Ford was developing the first hybrid SUV, the Escape Hybrid.
We got one. We like. More comfortable, better mileage, less polluting
than the RAV4 we traded in. (Oddly, Toyota has since started selling
hybrid SUVs, but theirs get worse mileage than the Ford and are not SULEV
like the Ford. The Ford also has a means of jumpstarting the HV battery
from the 12 volt system. The Toyotas need a Special Charger. Last I
heard there were only four of those in the entire U.S. They fly them
around the country as needed). Mileage: EPA 34/29, our actual 28-29.
(The RAV4 we traded only got 21-22).

This didn't stop us from also getting a Prius, once the waiting list had
shrunk down a bunch (just _before_ Katrina jacked gas prices up-up-up!). Mileage: EPA 60/51, our actual 42-44.

Still have my old Civic Del Sol. It gets almost as good mileage as the Prius.
A Telsa would be the perfect replacement for it.

But I am rather concerned about the batteries.
What do people here think of their battery protection systems?

There is also the issue of high-$ projects with long leadtimes that require 
prepayment in full.

Have any CPF'ers got a Tesla on order?


----------



## Darell (Dec 7, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> But I am rather concerned about the batteries.
> What do people here think of their battery protection systems?


While I personally know of five people close to me who have ordered a Tesla, I don't believe any of them are CPF members. Not sure that anybody here will be able to answer your concerns about battery protection. That's something that would be best answered directly by the folks at Tesla Motors. And I'll turn it on its ear again - what do you think about your gasoline protection systems in your gas cars?



> There is also the issue of high-$ projects with long leadtimes that require
> prepayment in full.


Yup. Welcome to the bleeding edge.

Good on you for your choice of vehicles BTW! Sounds like you flog your Prius. after 6k miles, my overall average is over 50mph - and that includes some long trips with tons of crap on the roof - cargo boxes, kayaks, bicycles, etc.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 7, 2006)

I think it's because I live in the mountains.
We also have California gas, and California freeway speeds..
I also don't get stuck in traffic much. Carpool stickers rock!
But I also probably have a "low-bin" Prius.
The Escape hybrid comes closer to its advertised MPG,
and it is much more likely to be carrying heavy loads.

Driving as if the accelerator was made of eggshells makes less difference than I would expect.


----------



## Darell (Dec 7, 2006)

May I take a moment here to say how sorry I am for the rash of typo's!? Man. I go back to read my posts and they look like my six-year-old banged them out. Ug. When will we have automatic, real-time spell check like I depend on for my email?

OK... and back to the subject.

"Driving as if the accelerator was made of eggshells makes less difference than I would expect."
Just "going light" on the pedal doesn't have nearly the advantage of "doing it right." To squeeze the most out of a hybrid (at least in the case of the Prius) takes some knowledge of the system, and practice. Pulse and glide is the name of the game. I can make my mileage as bad as 35, or as good as 60. That's a pretty big difference! Still cracks me up that I can't figure out ANY way of making it worse than 35 though!


----------



## ikendu (Dec 12, 2006)

Apparently some new study validating that if every vehicle in the U.S. was a PHEV, the existing grid and generation infrastructure could charge 84% of them without any new capacity what-so-ever.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/12/11/031109.html


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2006)

ikendu said:


> Apparently some new study validating that if every vehicle in the U.S. was a PHEV, the existing grid and generation infrastructure could charge 84% of them without any new capacity what-so-ever.
> 
> http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/12/11/031109.html


Not a surprise. Remove the private swimming pools in CA, and we could power a few hundred million more!


----------



## James S (Dec 13, 2006)

wow, thats a great article. It pretty much puts a stop to the argument that we hear so often even in this thread that the electrical systems are so overtaxed already that plugging in my car to charge would black out the country 

And I'd really much rather give my money to the electric company to improve their infrastructure and build cleaner generating plants than to the oil companies.

Course, if we were to switch over all the cars tomorrow (or thursday, thursday would be OK) that means that my local mini-mart/gas station will be raising the price of a squishie again...


----------



## Gransee (Dec 13, 2006)

The study ikendu mentioned was done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

Btw, the experts on longbets.com agree that by 2020, electricity generated by solar will be as cheap or cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels (including coal):

http://www.longbets.org/76

Personally, I predict that photovoltaics will go through a, "moore's law" phase where cost per watt drops in half every x (a small number) years. We are seeing the same thing with other semiconductor products (LED for example). This will greatly increase manufacturing volume as new applications are realized. A large percentage of homes throughout the world will be able to generate more power than they consume (including charging their BEVs). 

I expect the energy usage per capita to continue to climb as we increase automation but this will be offset by more effective energy systems.

Peter


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 13, 2006)

Darell said:


> Pulse and glide is the name of the game.



I have tried "pulse and glide". It doesn't make any measurable difference
on either hybrid.

It's only an option in the flatlands anyway. It is not possible to glide uphill.

The trip up the mountain has the MPG's reading in the teens and 20s.
Even single-digits occasionally. This at speeds around 25 mph.
(average grade 8%)

Even with regenerative braking, that cannot be made up on the downhill.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> I have tried "pulse and glide". It doesn't make any measurable difference
> on either hybrid.
> 
> It's only an option in the flatlands anyway. It is not possible to glide uphill.
> ...


Wow. You make this sound like an absolute. I assure you that it is not. There are folks who can achieve better than 100mpg using pulse and glide. I use it regularly to increase my mileage by about 10mpg - to about 60. I have also driven this car in the mountains, with a cargo box on top, and many hundreds of pounds of people and cargo inside of it. The worst full-tank mileage I have ever seen is 45mpg.

It is all in how you drive.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 13, 2006)

If you have any tips for getting decent mileage in the mountains I'd like to hear them.
Trying to "pulse-and-glide" uphill just means I'm pumping the accelerator continuously
since the car loses momentum almost instantly on a steep grade. The downhill is so
long and steep that the battery is full before I'm 1/3 of the way down.



> The worst full-tank mileage I have ever seen is 45mpg.



My best is 46. 
I can't possibly have that bad of a lead foot.


----------



## BackBlast (Dec 13, 2006)

Darell said:


> So far my best time is 75 minutes. Today was 90 minutes due to constant head-wind. I couldn't get up to 20mph which is where I usually cruise. I stop twice on the route to get blood back into my toes and hands, and to refuel. (interesting note to the "all that matters is what it costs" folks. It costs me FAR more to ride my bicycle than to drive my EV if you just count the cost of the "fuel" I use for both methods. The cost to ride is about equal to the cost of driving the gasoline Pius. Crazy huh?)



As a "all that matters is what it costs" type, after a fashion (I have other requirements too...). I can't resist...

~75 minutes @ ~20 mph, I'd estimate you're burning ~1200 calories in fuel.

To get those back using economy ramen noodles, a package will yield you ~400 calories. Typical cost of one package in my area is $0.10, I'm sure volume discounts are available also but lets go with this number so we can use the equivalent grid price for comparison sake. Thus your cost per mile in fuel is $0.30/25 mi = 0.012 $/mi. To my knowledge most EVs get 3 mi/kwh (I think I pay $0.08/kwh) which turns out to be 0.08/3 = 0.026. So, I think that's lower than your EV, if it isn't I'm sure I can come up with some cheaper alternative :naughty: (corn syrup?  )

I might humbly suggest that this is dwarfed by the sticker price and maintenance of your bicycle. My bicycle setup has ~1000 invested in it so far, and that would be ~85000 miles before this particular fuel costs more than the bike (never going to happen). Which I suspect is also true of the EV, last time I ran numbers battery costs were still so very high and it can't beat my current IC for overall cost. I know my bike could if I spent more time on it, less than 2 years using it 9 months in the year... I think I could realistically beat it with an EVized bicycle too in 3 years. Fuel is such a small part of the overall cost in an economy vehicle.

Though, I might agree with you if you prefer not to use economy fuel all the time. However, that is technically your own choice. Your body is quite capable of running off the low grade stuff.

So, generally speaking, when I calculate the cost of a bike I only use sticker and maintenance costs. I consider the costs associated with powering the bike as a benefit rather than a cost, due to being in shape and all that. And I like eating, one of life's simple pleasures and being able to do more of it is a good thing.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2006)

BackBlast said:


> As a "all that matters is what it costs" type, after a fashion (I have other requirements too...). I can't resist...
> 
> ~75 minutes @ ~20 mph, I'd estimate you're burning ~1200 calories in fuel.


I hope I'm burning way the hell more than that! I drink that much in beer at the end of the day, so I guess that's a wash. 

When I speak of my fuel, it IS the high-test variety. Energy bars and drink and Gu... the kind of stuff I can stick in my jersey pocket and consume along the way. Last time I tried to store Ramen in the pocket, I wasn't happy with the result.



> I might humbly suggest that this is dwarfed by the sticker price and maintenance of your bicycle.


Hey! Where does THIS come from???? I thought this was predicated ONLY on the cost of the fuel!

My EV cost about $32k, and my bicycle about $3k. I currently do pay more to fuel my bicycle habit than my EV habit... but that's only because of the money invested in the PV array that fuels the car.

Anyway... I was specifically talking about the actual food that I consume to make the ride vs. the actual cost of gasoline that I'd use in the Prius. It would be cheaper for me to buy gas for the Prius. End of story. No relevant point. Just a bit of interesting fact.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> If you have any tips for getting decent mileage in the mountains I'd like to hear them.
> Trying to "pulse-and-glide" uphill just means I'm pumping the accelerator continuously
> since the car loses momentum almost instantly on a steep grade. The downhill is so
> long and steep that the battery is full before I'm 1/3 of the way down.


My best tips is that you just about NEVER pulse and glide in the mountains. Your goal is to reach the top with an "empty" battery, and have room to regen into it on the way down the other side. Adjusting your power setting is the only way to achieve this. If you arrive at the top with a full battery, you could have actually SAVED energy by going faster. Crazy, eh?



> My best is 46.
> I can't possibly have that bad of a lead foot.


Well, at least your best is 1mpg over my worst.  It isn't about being a lead foot, it is where you use the lead. Short trips are the biggest mileage killer. Leaving the car at home is the biggest mileage booster.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 14, 2006)

The interesting thing about mountains is that it depends on what point they are in your commute.

If you live near the summit and commute to town, the first 5 minutes of your daily downhill drive will be with the engine running (to heat up) even if it's not needed. That's time that most of us will get some benefit from the gas engine. The last part of your commute home will also have the engine running since it is uphill.

On the other hand, a conventional engine would likely do much, much worse for a car of comperable size and drivability. 

I find that the pulse and glide is not quite as usable for me. What works better is the idea of coasting whenever possible. If the light is red (or stale green) and no one is behind you, why not coast the last block or two? If I'm on the slightest downhill stretch, I let off the gas an let it go into stealth mode (traffic permitting). I don't try to maintain a steady speed if there is a slight uphill (1/2 block) followed by a slight downgrade. Instead, I sort-of coast to the crest, then regain speed on the downhill.

The whole concept being that it's better to avoid using the power than it is to try to capture it through regeneration.

All in all, even if I get only 47, it's still twice what I'd get from a comparable car with convemtional power-train.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> All in all, even if I get only 47, it's still twice what I'd get from a comparable car with convemtional power-train.


All good points, as usual... until I got to this line.

Depends on what you call "comperable," I guess. Yet my 2001 Honda Civic EX with conventional everything was getting 39mpg when I sold it. My lifetime average on that car for 40k miles was 38mpg. A far cry from half of 47! Of course the Prius is still very much cleaner to operate, but no - not twice the mileage of other small, efficient cars.


----------



## Brock (Dec 14, 2006)

I think Pulse and glide does more for gassers then diesel. I did try it once, but I couldn't stand it, felt like a slow seizure  But seriously I drive the way gadget_lover describes, when ever I know I am going to have to stop I get off the fuel and glide in to the stop. Often if you get off the fuel further out you can hit the light green again and cruise right through it at 20mph or so never stopping at all. Knowing your route is a big help and seeing your MPG instantaneously by using something like a http://www.scangauge.com/ is another big help. 

Our lifetime is now up to just over 54mpg at 56,000 miles and on its way up, my last 180 days is just over 60mpg with our VW TDI Jetta Wagon.


----------



## raggie33 (Dec 14, 2006)

i wonder how many of ya all know the suns hits the earth in one hour with enough power to supply the whole world with power for 1 year. i hope i worded this right my brain is screwy today


----------



## ikendu (Dec 14, 2006)

Here is an interesting study on prairie grasses for biofuels.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/mixed_prairie_g.html

It makes a point I have ignored until now...

When we make biofuels from corn or soybeans, the plants themselves are pulled up and destroyed each year. When biofuel is made from perennial prairie grasses (planted only once, then harvested year after year), there is as much of the plant underground in the roots as there is above the ground in what gets harvested.

Why does that matter?

Just as the biofuel from the above ground part is "carbon neutral", the part that grows below the ground (and stays there, unlike corn) actually takes this whole process into "carbon negative" territory.

Meaning...

Not only are you making carbon neutral biomass for liquid fuels, you are actually using the exact same plants to suck CO2 right out of the atmosphere and storing it below ground in the root system ...and there it stays. in effect helping to reverse CO2 build up from industrialization.

This... is a key and highly important point.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 14, 2006)

I still can't buy Biodiesel at the local filling station.

Lifetime for the 8,000LB+ Ram 2500 is at about 20.8.

I too drive like Daniel and Brock. I coast whenever possible, lose speed going uphill and gain going down etc.

I can still get over 20 with nearly 3K in the bed, and I get high 17s pulling 5140LBs to Corpus Christi and 2000LBs back to Shepherd.

Have I ever mentioned I_ LIKE_* my Ram???*


----------



## BackBlast (Dec 14, 2006)

Darell said:


> Anyway... I was specifically talking about the actual food that I consume to make the ride vs. the actual cost of gasoline that I'd use in the Prius. It would be cheaper for me to buy gas for the Prius. End of story. No relevant point. Just a bit of interesting fact.




I realize that, I was just giving you a bad time.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2006)

Darell said:


> All good points, as usual... until I got to this line.
> 
> Depends on what you call "comperable," I guess. Yet my 2001 Honda Civic EX with conventional everything was getting 39mpg when I sold it. My lifetime average on that car for 40k miles was 38mpg. A far cry from half of 47! Of course the Prius is still very much cleaner to operate, but no - not twice the mileage of other small, efficient cars.




My version of comparable is that it would be equal in the major aspects; carrying capacity, hill climbing, cargo, comfort, ergonomics, ease of driving. That means a 4 door automatic that will seat 5 adults plus cargo while accelerating up a 5% grade starting at 35 MPH (truck speed) to 65 in a reasonable amount of time (20 seconds or so).

Most cars that fit that bill have a fairly large engine and are not terribly fuel efficient. I've never been in a Honda Civic EX. I don't know if it fits the bill.

Most of the cars that I've rented in the past 5 years have given me less than 25 MPG when driven normally. I always have to rent a car that my elderly parents can climb into. Usually the size of a Camry or Impala.

I should probably just say the hybrids do "much better", but that does not really match my experiences.

Daniel


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 15, 2006)

Darell said:


> My best tips is that you just about NEVER pulse and glide in the mountains.



Since you can't glide up-hill, that seems pretty evident.




> Your goal is to reach the top with an "empty" battery, and have room to regen into it on the way down the other side. Adjusting your power setting is the only way to achieve this. If you arrive at the top with a full battery, you could have actually SAVED energy by going faster. Crazy, eh?



Going up the hill any faster than I do would not be safe.



> Well, at least your best is 1mpg over my worst.



It was also over a year ago. Mileage is supposed to improve when the
car hits about 10000 miles. Mine has gone down a bit. I think it's the gas.
Here in California they give us the equivalent of "winter gas" all 
year round now, with a double-dose of mileage-killer in the winter.
Are there any hypermilers in California?



> It isn't about being a lead foot, it is where you use the lead. Short trips are the biggest mileage killer.



Most of them involve hauling quantities of stuff (e.g. groceries) that
would be extremely difficult to get on a bike, let alone haul up a
mountain on a bike.



> Leaving the car at home is the biggest mileage booster.



Not reflected in the MPG figures for the car though.

This vehicle does not consume any gasoline at all





What it needs most right now is a better (and lighter weight) lighting system.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> My version of comparable is that it would be equal in the major aspects; carrying capacity, hill climbing, cargo, comfort, ergonomics, ease of driving. That means a 4 door automatic that will seat 5 adults plus cargo while accelerating up a 5% grade starting at 35 MPH (truck speed) to 65 in a reasonable amount of time (20 seconds or so).


Well, the Honda Civic EX that I spoke of, does all that and more. Comapred to the first gen Prius, the Civic EX excells in each of those aspects, and cost $18k. The EX had both the most efficient and most powerful (neat huh?) engine in the line. At least that's how it was in 2001 when I bought it.

By moving from the Civic to the 2006 Prius, I've seen 10 or 12mpg improvement. Appreciated for sure, but certainly not anything as exciting as "doubling" the mileage. The Prius is, of course, more than twice as "clean" however... except in CO2. Yes, there are tons of cars out there that don't do as well as the Civics. But I dare say that there are PLENTY of Civics plying the American highways.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> Since you can't glide up-hill, that seems pretty evident.


I thought so too. Since you brought it up a couple of times, I was compelled to comment though!



> Going up the hill any faster than I do would not be safe.


Using more throttle at certain times, and less at others can make you no less safe, while still modifying the power consumption curve enough to assist in keeping the batteries empty. Obviously, this has nothing to do with driving the car normally. Efficient driving is a hobby of mine, and I don't expect many others to go to the "trouble" that I find a fun and challenging.



> It was also over a year ago. Mileage is supposed to improve when the
> car hits about 10000 miles.


My mileage had a noticeable improvement at around 5k miles. 



> Are there any hypermilers in California?


The SUPER hyper guys (well, a gal is the champ) are in Japan. There are plenty of folks in CA who have done better than 80mpg on a tank. Again, this is not the kind of driving that you can typically do on normal roads with a normal driving routine. These were done ONLY to get the mileage numbers. Nothing practical about them. I'm in CA, and can do 60+ mpg if I try.



> This vehicle does not consume any gasoline at all


My bicycle is my primary mode of transportation as well. Next comes the EV, and in a distant third is my Prius.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 15, 2006)

Ah, the "pulse and glide." I've been doing that for years now in my conventional gasoline-powered vehicles in the interest of _preserving momentum_. If a stoplight turns red 1000 feet ahead of me, I let off the gas and depress the clutch. Rolling and wind resistance will eat of some of my velocity, but if the light turns green before I have to step on the brakes, I can step on the gas with a decent remainder of my original speed and typically roll past the fools that jackrabbited up to the light and made their usual installment on their next donation to the brake shop industry. There are a number of situations during my daily commute where I could almost turn off the engine for certain stretches and coast along - I can almost get away with that sort of nonsense entering my apartment complex from the south were it not for the need to come to a stop and wait for the garage door to open.

Not that I'm going to see Prius- or even Civic-like mileage in the Ranger, but mileage can swing by 25% either way depending on driving behavior. I like to see it as using the engine closer to overall average demand instead of something with big power spikes in it - eliminate the needless stops and starts.


----------



## cobb (Dec 15, 2006)

I too found no vast improvements in pulse and go with my diesel benz vs the gas econovan. I do however still coast to red lights, let off the gas on hills and let it roll back a few mph and shift to not lug the engine. Since its a diesel, its too easy to floor it and wait for it to come up to speed to shift, vs slowly flooring it, then shifting when it comes up to speed. If Ifloor it, I can slowly see the gas meter move after a 15 mile trip. Any travel driving faster than 70 you can too see the gas meter slowly start to move.

Sure the prius may not get twice the fuel economy of the honda, but was the honda a hatch back and the prius what, a station wagon or full size sedan?

Sure my mercedes may only get 32 mpg, but its a full size sedan that weighs 4k pounds.

You prius guys, have you considered using a free-er flowing air filter, larger exhaust system or other tweeks to improve the breathability of the engine? What about using more air in the tires to further lessen the rolling resistance?


----------



## raggie33 (Dec 15, 2006)

check this out it way cool 
http://store.horizonfuelcell.com/handhyst.html


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 16, 2006)

cobb said:


> You prius guys, have you considered using a free-er flowing air filter, larger exhaust system or other tweeks to improve the breathability of the engine? What about using more air in the tires to further lessen the rolling resistance?



I don't usually alter a car that's designed as a an integrated system. Many tweaks simply move the power to a different RPM, or improve power by defeating polution controls. I don't have the tools to really analyze the impact of random changes, so I leave it alone.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Dec 16, 2006)

Maybe yall are right about the grid and electric car support. I just know the city of richmond has an annual new flash at the heat of summer and dead of winter that we reach record demand for kilowatts and if we do not cut back, rolling black outs will be used. If a window unit in every window or space heater in every space can cause this, seems like an ev may add. 

When or if I can afford a prius, I will see what the changes can do. Ive done a few to the benz and for the most part, Ive gotten more power, drivability from the worlds slowest car, however if you use it, you will make the needle on the gas tank move, so it can burn more than save. Getting 0-55 in a car in 11 seconds that took nearly a minute should count for something? I can do a burn out for 3 ft and chirp tires in all 4 gears. 

Anyhoo, read an interesting article in diesel power this month, its about a guy who gets 26mpg out of his diesel f350 ford truck. 1 ton truck mind you. 

He built a fancy cover for the bed, covers for the wiper blades, over sized air filter, 4 inch exhaust switched out the rear end gears from 3.73 to 3.08.It has a 7.3L power stroke engine with a manual idle control and custom chip to change the injector timming for economy under 2000rpm and performance above 2000rpm.

My benz could use some work on it either way to get the power where it is needed. I have a bit of torque and can shift through all 4 gears at idle, then again at about what sounds like 4 grand. Inbetween it just lacks power, so I can of lug, lug, lug to 3rd gear, take it to 40, then shift to 4th gear.


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2006)

cobb said:


> You prius guys, have you considered using a free-er flowing air filter, larger exhaust system or other tweeks to improve the breathability of the engine? What about using more air in the tires to further lessen the rolling resistance?


You can stuff a K&N air filter in there, though most don't bother. Same with the exhuast. This little engine uses so little air (because it doesn't use much fuel, among other things) that the gains of a better filter and exhaust are limited.

Just about everybody airs up the tires to something reasonable. The cars come with LRR tires. I use 44 front, 42 rear.

And back to the pulse and glide for a moment. Trying not to sound snotty... I am amused to hear from folks who say they've tried it, and don't see any difference. Using pulse and glide effectively is not something most folks can just decide to do one day, and see a huge jump in mileage. It takes quite a while to learn how to do it. Thousands of miles in some cases (like mine!). If it were as simple as just deciding to do it one day and being great at it immediately, well, everybody would be doing it as a matter of course, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Pulse and glide can be used in any vehicle - the Prius just makes it much more simple in that everything can be controlled with your right foot. No ignition cycling, no clutching, etc. But it takes practice. You want NO regen during this process. The hypermilers show ZERO little green cars on the display when they get better than 100mpg on a full tank.

Anyway, without even trying all that hard, here's what I managed this weekend on our trip between Vacaville and S. San Francisco. That's not a full tank, but is 75 miles, and is a typical drive for us. The way back was a less impressive, but still decent 54mpg. This was done with every seat occupied, and cargo for a weekend. 54° ambient with lights and heat. I drove 65-70 when I could, and was also stuck in slow-and-go traffic in several spots. (BTW, we normally take the EV on this trip, but couldn't because of an ugly vehicle-scheduling conflict! A friend borrowed the EV, and didn't get it back to us on time.)


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 19, 2006)

OOOOoooohhhhh!!!!

If I had a gauge like THAT to watch I would certainly run off the road often!

But I would do anything withen my power to make it sing!


----------



## cobb (Dec 19, 2006)

The nissan murrano I rented had a screen like that, just to monitor fuel economy and efficiency. Although it read about 27mpg, I got 16 when I filled it up.


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2006)

The crazy part about that screen is that the the bars show average mileage per 5-minute intervals. Mileage has no time component, so that is a REALLY odd way to measure it. If you crawl along at 2mph getting 100mpg, your bars look REALLY great, but in the grand scheme of things, those bars would mean nothing when you finally started driving somewhere.


----------



## cobb (Dec 21, 2006)

The nissan I had was instant. A good flooring of the gas would get the meter to read 19 mpg, but a bit of lax driving would bring it back to 27mpg. 

Since I got my cruise control working, I seem to get less fuel economy, although it seems to do a great job keeping me right on the dot with the speed limit. When I managed my own speed I would vary 5 mpg either direction.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 22, 2006)

darell said:


> The crazy part about that screen is that the the bars show average mileage per 5-minute intervals. Mileage has no time component, so that is a REALLY odd way to measure it. If you crawl along at 2mph getting 100mpg, your bars look REALLY great, but in the grand scheme of things, those bars would mean nothing when you finally started driving somewhere.



While MPG has no time component, it is usable way to see the last 1/2 hour at a glance. Id like to see a better one.

It is sad to see the bars drop below 25 mpg for more than 5 minute period. The last time that happend I was in a miles long slow and go creep to the Oakland bay bridge (a toll plaza). It took 30 minutes to creep about 3 miles. I was aghast when I saw the MPG was down in the teens (around 17) for almost 1/2 hour.

Then I realized that I'd driven for 1/2 hour on less than 1/5 of a gallon. That's a burn rate of 2.5 hours per gallon. My average for that 70 mile trip was 48 mpg. It read 52 cumulative MPG just before I hit the traffic jam. 

I haven't figured out a better representation.

Daniel


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 22, 2006)

Darell said:


> Just about everybody airs up the tires to something reasonable. The cars come with LRR tires. I use 44 front, 42 rear.



I do the same, except during the rainy season (which is now).



> And back to the pulse and glide for a moment. Trying not to sound snotty... I am amused to hear from folks who say they've tried it, and don't see any difference. Using pulse and glide effectively is not something most folks can just decide to do one day, and see a huge jump in mileage. It takes quite a while to learn how to do it. Thousands of miles in some cases (like mine!).



So how many years of pulse-and-gliding did it take for you to see _any
difference at all_ from doing it?

Are we really talking about something that require such extreme skills
that most people could never master it?

How safe is it to be driving all the time with one eye on the display anyway?


----------



## Darell (Dec 23, 2006)

cobb said:


> The nissan I had was instant.


There is also an instantaneous reading as well as the 5-minute intervals.


----------



## Darell (Dec 23, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> While MPG has no time component, it is usable way to see the last 1/2 hour at a glance. Id like to see a better one.
> 
> It is sad to see the bars drop below 25 mpg for more than 5 minute period. The last time that happend I was in a miles long slow and go creep to the Oakland bay bridge (a toll plaza). It took 30 minutes to creep about 3 miles. I was aghast when I saw the MPG was down in the teens (around 17) for almost 1/2 hour.
> 
> ...


Well, I certainly have no burning desire to argue about it. Noting to gain. What you've written here is an excellent example for why it is a poor representation. You had half an hour in the teens, yet your whole 70-mile trip was 48mpg. What did that half hour in the teens info do for you besides depress you? 

Better than time bars? Easy. Show an average mpg bar for each X number of miles driven. Wouldn't that make more sense since there is no time componenet in MPG!? If I'm sitting still for 20 minutes, I don't really give a damn what my mileage is. Can't do anything about it anyway. I'd even rather have gallons per 100 miles (well, liters per 100 kilometer - but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms).


----------



## Darell (Dec 23, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> I do the same, except during the rainy season (which is now).


You like slipping around in the wet? Yikes. Low pressure typically (hey, there are no absolutes) gives you a better chance of hydroplaning.



> So how many years of pulse-and-gliding did it take for you to see _any
> difference at all_ from doing it?


I saw nothing for the first month of trying. After three months, I could improve my mileage consistently. Of course I don't drive all that much either, so it can certainly be done much quicker with more practice in a shorter time.



> Are we really talking about something that require such extreme skills
> that most people could never master it?


Nope. We're talking about something that requires a bit of skill, some knowledge of the systems and a LOT of patience. Anybody can do it. And just like riding a bicycle, it may not work so well the first few times you try it. I don't mean to make it sound impossible or super-highly technical. My original comment was in regard that when you tried it once, you didn't see any improvement. There is no ONE way to do it for all situations. That where the patience and knowledge of the systmes come into play.



> How safe is it to be driving all the time with one eye on the display anyway?


It isn't. Just like it isn't safe tuning the radio, dialing the phone or reaching back to smack the kids (not that I do that...). One you've got the experience under your belt, you don't need the display at all. You can feel where everything is. You know when you're gliding, and you know when the ICE is running, and how hard. The guys who do this for the triple digits wear no shoes. I often leave my display off to avoid the distraction.

You know what makes ALL of this easier? Driving an Electric Vehicle. You get the same gas mileage all the time.


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Dec 23, 2006)

I think Tesla Motors is going to be the first big BEV company around. Hopefully, if they are able to get the ball rolling early, they might be able to sway the market towards BEV technology, and get people to stop thinking about Hydrogen so much. Right now they are a high-end sports car manufacturer, but if you read about their "secret" business plan here, they should be right on par with more reasonable manufacturers.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=8&js_enabled=1


----------



## cobb (Dec 25, 2006)

Darell, you consider 5 minutes to be instant? 

Since I am tall, I had my seat back and could easily see it out the corner of my eyes and the dashboard. Not sure but the prius may just have a center dashboard. The nissan I drove had the conventional one on the drivers side and the one in the middle. 

I tell you what, cruise control made my fuel economy worse on the benz. I guess pulse and gluide did more than I though for it? Then again, its hard to stay on top of the desired speed unless you floor it, I would do maybe 3/4 then wait for the pill to pass so it would come back up to speed. 

With the nissan, there was two wayd to guarantee to make the economy meter go up. One was to just coast from highway speed, the other was to drive at 20mph.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 26, 2006)

Darell said:


> You like slipping around in the wet? Yikes. Low pressure typically (hey, there are no absolutes) gives you a better chance of hydroplaning.



Not _low_ pressure, just what Toyota recommends.



> I saw nothing for the first month of trying. After three months, I could improve my mileage consistently...



Our mileage is actually worse than it was a year ago.



> My original comment was in regard that when you tried it once, you didn't see any improvement.



We have had the Ford Escape Hybrid for 2 years, and the Prius for almost
a year and a half. I have been trying it when terrain and traffic permits.
Our driving rarely features flat terrain and minimal traffic though.



> You know when you're gliding, and you know when the ICE is running, and how hard.



It's easy to tell if the engine is running, but that is a lagging indicator.


----------



## Darell (Dec 26, 2006)

cobb said:


> Darell, you consider 5 minutes to be instant?


Um. No. I only LOOK stupid. 

It has the five-minute average bars in ADDITION to in instantaneous readout. Sorry if I wasn't clear. If you look to the far right of the image I posted, you'll see a scale called "current" - I'm parked so it has no info, but while driving that tells you your instantaneous mileage. On the other info screen, it shows that info digitally as well.


----------



## cy (Dec 26, 2006)

neat master plan...



IlluminatingBikr said:


> I think Tesla Motors is going to be the first big BEV company around. Hopefully, if they are able to get the ball rolling early, they might be able to sway the market towards BEV technology, and get people to stop thinking about Hydrogen so much. Right now they are a high-end sports car manufacturer, but if you read about their "secret" business plan here, they should be right on par with more reasonable manufacturers.
> 
> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=8&js_enabled=1


----------



## Gransee (Dec 26, 2006)

Here's another electric vehicle manufacturer:

Phoenix Motorcars
started in 2001
Based in Ontario California
products: Sport Utility Truck, SUV
battery: 35kwh Altair Nano lithium (12 yr typical life)
range: 100+ miles
speed: 95mph
charge: 10 minutes with fast charger
target price: $45k
public release: 2008 (commercial units in 2007)
company website: http://phoenixmotorcars.com/index.html

video:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=electric+suv&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4201003.html
in the news:
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=06-P13-00050#feature9
http://news.com.com/Revving+up+for+the+all-electric+SUV/2100-11389_3-6139703.html?tag=news.1
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/phoenix_install.html

For us, the 100mi range is enough for a typical day of driving. 

Peter


----------



## Darell (Dec 26, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Here's another electric vehicle manufacturer:
> 
> Phoenix Motorcars
> started in 2001
> ...


Hey Peter! How ya been? 

Instead of listing all the "EV mfg's of the future" here, let me just point you to one of the newer pages on my EV site that's got pointers to all kinds of fun stuff that is happening in the battery EV world. I'm happy to add more when you find 'em. Some are very difficult to categorize! http://evnut.com/ev_available.htm

As for 100 mile range being enough - it isn't surprising that it is enough for a typical day of driving. Fully 50% of automobiles in the United States NEVER travel more than 100 miles in a day. And certainly 90% of US drivers don't travel more than 100 miles/day on average. A limited-range EV won't work for everybody. Only *most* everybody.


----------



## Gransee (Dec 26, 2006)

Hello Darell.



btw, the PMCs chassis are made in Korea. Also, the Altair cells are the first production units of that new battery. 

Nice to see an industry heating up. Reminds me of the LED flashlight business awhile ago.

Peter


----------



## Darell (Dec 26, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Also, the Altair cells are the first production units of that new battery.


More accurately, the Altair cells *WILL* be the first production units of that battery. As far as I know, these cells are not yet in commercial production.


----------



## cy (Dec 26, 2006)

Vehicle Mileage Estimates Get Real

"That 55-mile-per-gallon hybrid car you've been eyeing may end up being a 44-mpg hybrid if you wait for the 2008 model.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency announced a new system Monday for evaluating fuel economy that will lower mileage estimates for most vehicles.

Annual survey finds average driver wasting 51 hours a year.
On average, vehicles rated under the 2008 method will post a 12% drop in city gasoline mileage and an 8% decline in highway mileage, said Bill Wehrum, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation.

With the new testing requirements, the EPA is attempting to come up with estimates that more closely reflect the real-world mileage motorists can expect when they purchase a vehicle.

Under the current system, which has been in effect since 1975 and was last changed in 1984, actual mileage is often far lower than the posted EPA ratings.

Hybrids will be hit harder because the new test eliminates some of the all-electric driving that helped them produce impressive results under the present system, Wehrum said."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1212-05.htm


----------



## AndyTiedye (Dec 26, 2006)

"100-mile range" used to mean 100 miles if it's perfectly flat and you drive 20 mph.
Is that still the case?


----------



## Darell (Dec 26, 2006)

AndyTiedye said:


> "100-mile range" used to mean 100 miles if it's perfectly flat and you drive 20 mph.
> Is that still the case?


No. My "100 mile range" EV will do 150 miles in those conditions you describe. 100 miles if I don't give a damn how I drive, and 80 miles if I purposely beat the snot out of it. MFG's like Tesla are being far more conservative. What they call 250 mile range, I'd call 300 miles. They are *definitely* talking about "real world" miles when they say 250. If driven at a steady 60mph, the Tesla will easily do 300 miles.


----------



## Darell (Dec 26, 2006)

cy said:


> Vehicle Mileage Estimates Get Real
> 
> "That 55-mile-per-gallon hybrid car you've been eyeing may end up being a 44-mpg hybrid if you wait for the 2008 model....
> Hybrids will be hit harder because the new test eliminates some of the all-electric driving that helped them produce impressive results under the present system, Wehrum said."


Yeah... lovely. Two things come to mind:

1. The "new" system will do nothing to improve gas mileage of the fleet... or our oil-dependent situation.
2. Hybrids are only "hit harder" when you talk of the raw miles per gallon. If you speak in percentages of miles per gallon - the only part that should count - hybrids are hit no harder than any other vehicle. A hummer rated at 10mpg will now be 8. A Prius that was 55mpg will now be 44. Can you say "no freaking difference?" I thought so.
3. Finally this may spell the end of the bad press for hybrids "not living up to expectations."


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 27, 2006)

> "That 55-mile-per-gallon hybrid car you've been eyeing may end up being a 44-mpg hybrid....



What will be nice is that most hybrid drivers will be able to exceed the EPA milage after that change. Too bad most folks will see it as proof that hybrids aren't worth the cost.


Daniel


----------



## BB (Jan 2, 2007)

A strangely interesting article about driving a Fuel Cell car in San Francisco...

The article has few useful facts--but does have some that I have not heard before, plus an interesting comparison to "old" technologies:

Fuel Cell Car Test Drive:



> t would be nice to say that driving a fuel cell car around the Bay Area for a couple of days was a little like being a pioneer in the world of personal transportation. But the reality is it's a car that, in most ways, behaves like nearly every other car out there -- it just fuels up a bit different, sounds a bit different, and is a bit different.
> 
> There are not many fuel cell cars running around California roads -- the fleet can be measured in the dozens of vehicles -- because there are not many fuel cell filling stations out there. California, the state with more fuel cell activity than any other, has 23 stations -- 17 in Southern California and half a dozen in the Bay Area and Sacramento.
> 
> ...



So the advantage of hydrogen fuel cell is???? Fuel in 1 minute for 100 mile range? All for the fun of my "...money...largely irrelevant..."

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jan 2, 2007)

BB said:


> A strangely interesting article about driving a Fuel Cell car in San Francisco...


Thanks for the article, Bill. Wow... where do I start? 



> the fleet can be measured in the dozens of vehicles -- because there are not many fuel cell filling stations out there.


And this is the only reason? Not the $1 million price tag? The limited lifespan of the PEM membrane? The cost of the fuel? The short range? The inefficiency of the system? If we just had filling stations, FCV's would have no hurdles? If that were true, then EVs should be wildly embraced. Just look at all those power outlets!



> In mid-November, the viability of fuel cell cars got a boost when Honda introduced a racy-looking four-door sedan called the FCX, built from the ground up as a fuel cell car, and said it would be in full production by November 2008.


Though just last week Honda said that mass production would be somewhere closer to 2016. Oops.



> Because some of these components had to be small, the car's range is restricted to about 100 miles.


Which of course is no good for an EV, but just fine for a FCV, naturally.



> ...The experience is a lot like driving an all-electric car -- remember them?


Why yes! Yes I do. Every time I drive mine. 

DaimlerChrysler spokeswoman Lora Renz said a typical fuel cell car gets about "50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen, equivalent to a gallon of gasoline." She said the target price of hydrogen is the same as gasoline. 



> Like most manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler is loath to say how much the F-Cell cars are worth and what customers will pay


Yet we're going right ahead with production... in maybe ten years. Check.



> DaimlerChrysler says it has spent about $10 billion since its program began in the mid-1990s...


Can you imagine where we'd be with batteries today if that $10 billion were spent on something currently viable? Damn.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 2, 2007)

Darell said:


> Yeah... lovely. Two things come to mind:
> 
> 1. The "new" system will do nothing to improve gas mileage of the fleet... or our oil-dependent situation.
> 2. Hybrids are only "hit harder" when you talk of the raw miles per gallon. If you speak in percentages of miles per gallon - the only part that should count - hybrids are hit no harder than any other vehicle. A hummer rated at 10mpg will now be 8. A Prius that was 55mpg will now be 44. Can you say "no freaking difference?" I thought so.
> 3. Finally this may spell the end of the bad press for hybrids "not living up to expectations."


Another thing to take into consideration is that buying 20% more gas for a small sedan or a hybrid is a _lot less_ than buying 20% more gas for a hummer. This is why I think reporting fuel consumption in say liters/100km or gallons/100mi is more intuitive -- The Hummer would go from 10g/100mi to 12.5, and a hybrid would go from 1.8 to 2.3 -- a much smaller actual difference.



> "100-mile range" used to mean 100 miles if it's perfectly flat and you drive 20 mph.
> Is that still the case?


I believe in the case of Tesla, they are reporting range according to the EPA Highway Driving Cycle. This means that you'd probably get slightly less than that for real world highway driving, but significantly more than that for real world city driving (zero idling, regenerative braking, and efficiency doesn't fall off when accelerating hard for electric the way it does with gas -- the stop and go won't hurt it as much).


----------



## Darell (Jan 2, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> This is why I think reporting fuel consumption in say liters/100km or gallons/100mi is more intuitive


You'll get no argument from me! I've been pushing this for a while now.



> I believe in the case of Tesla, they are reporting range according to the EPA Highway Driving Cycle.


Regardless of what "cycle" or metric is used for range, there is no one single answer that makes sense to everybody. Basically the car will go about 250 miles between charges if driven "normally". Drive it well, and it'll go quite a bit further.


----------



## BB (Jan 2, 2007)

Hi Darell! 

I think that $10 Billion is OPM based (other people's money--i.e. taxes--I am sure that share holder's would have hung management if they ever used their monies). Makes it all OK. 

-Bill


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 2, 2007)

Make something like my Ram that will do 250avg on a charge and you'd likely sell every damn one you could build!

The unofficial mileage for my Corpus Christi trip at about 13,400# southbound and about 10,000# northbound with about 16 miles of no trailer at all was 17.680ish.

Lifetime is running around 19.7ish.

Were I trying to do it with a gasser with equal torque, I'd be lucky as heck to be around 13.5 lifetime!!!

Have I ever mentioned I LOVE my Ram?


----------



## cy (Jan 2, 2007)

yup... LOVE my 97 12valve Cummins Turbo Diesel. best mileage achieved so far is 22mpg. that may not sound like much, until you factor in how large of a truck this is. 6500lbs 4x4 long bed.

like PBJS says, CTD pulls 10k+ loads routinely with impunity, while getting decent mileage.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 2, 2007)

cy said:


> yup... LOVE my 97 12valve Cummins Turbo Diesel. best mileage achieved so far is 22mpg. that may not sound like much, until you factor in how large of a truck this is. 6500lbs 4x4 long bed.
> 
> like PBJS says, CTD pulls 10k+ loads routinely with impunity, while getting decent mileage.



Now, if we could just get you Cummins owners hooked up with some good 'ole US of A made biodiesel... we'd be all set!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 2, 2007)

Bio D is going to have to come to the podunk store/gas station where we all fill up on one company check before I'd be able to use it.

Sad, but that's the way it is!


----------



## cobb (Jan 6, 2007)

Why dont you try a warmer therostat, a bed cover and maybe a free-er flowing air filter and higher ring and pinnion? Seems that article I read about that guy with his f 350 was pretty neat, of course why you want to ride around in an f350 with no needs to haul or carry anything beats me.

Prius owners, whats the optimun speed to drive the car for fuel economy? Whats the average if you traveled 5 miles a day at a rang eof speeds from 25-70mph? 

I was just wondering as I am saving for a new car. Seems from what I have read thre yaris hatch back is pretty consistant at 43 mpg, where as the sedan model gets less depending on how you drive. Seems the prius gets around 47 again depending on how its driven.


----------



## cy (Jan 6, 2007)

in Tulsa, 500k+ metro and there's no bio diesel available. 
if it was readily available, I'd give it a fair trial...



ikendu said:


> Now, if we could just get you Cummins owners hooked up with some good 'ole US of A made biodiesel... we'd be all set!


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Jan 7, 2007)

Cummins powered Dodge here too. B10 in the winter, B100 in the summer. Probably going to get a Frybrid setup this summer so I can run B100 year round. I love my truck!

:buddies:


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 7, 2007)

5 miles a day seems ideal for an EV.
Possibly a Prius with the EV-mode mod could even do it.

A hybrid or anything else with an internal-combustion engine would get horrible mileage because it would never get warmed-up.

If the distances are so short, pedal-powered options merit consideration as well,
a bicycle in good weather, a velomobile when the weather isn't so good.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 7, 2007)

cobb said:


> Prius owners, whats the optimum speed to drive the car for fuel economy? Whats the average if you traveled 5 miles a day at a range of speeds from 25-70mph?



There are a lot of variables, but....

I get around 47 MPG in similar circumstances. I find it hard to make a full tank without at least one extended (50 - 200) mile trip. That brings the average back up.

Does the Yaris get 43 in real life stop and go? That's pretty impressive.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 7, 2007)

AndyTiedye said:


> 5 miles a day seems ideal for an EV.
> Possibly a Prius with the EV-mode mod could even do it.
> 
> A hybrid or anything else with an internal-combustion engine would get horrible mileage because it would never get warmed-up.
> ...


That's 2.5 miles each way. I won't even consider anything except walking for so short a distance. It's even a waste to take a bike since I have to worry if it'll get stolen when I chain it up. I figure it takes me 30 minutes to walk that distance on a good day, maybe 35 on a bad one. I could bike it in maybe 8 to 10 minutes, depending upon traffic patterns, but then figure two minutes to get the bike out of the garage, open the gate and then another two or three minutes at the other end to chain it up and walk the last 50 or 100 feet to my destination. In the end walking costs me a big 15 to 20 minutes each way over biking. Not worth taking the bus, either. Chances are I'd have to wait at least ten minutes, and then another 15 to 20 for the bus ride. That's not much better than walking, and costs me $2 each way. Driving probably makes the least sense of all the options here, especially from a cost standpoint, regardless of what type of vehicle you have.

Over about 4 miles one way or more is when I'll start to think about something other than walking. In the end it turns out for a lot of trips the feet are really the best way to go. Most of my regular trips are 1.5 miles or less each way.


----------



## cobb (Jan 7, 2007)

I in a sense mis spoke. I live 5 miles from both jobs, so the total daily millage would be 20, 5 to and 5 from job 1 and 5 to and 5 from job 2. Job 2 is 45mph all the way with one stop light. Job 1 is through 3 exits down the interstate and back. 

The 43 is for the yaris on mostly highway, little city. Its not that bad in the city either, but I was using the top figure since that is most of the traveling I will be doing. My mercedes is like 32 and 15mpg with highway vs city driving. Also over 70 the fuel economy goes right down to 15. 45mph I get about 40mpg. 

The ev is an idea, its just that I need to drive out to my folks 57 miles away and help them from time to time after job 1. Actually a few times each month the past few months. 53 minutes one way and with the availability of diesel, I can drive right back before my second job starts without worry of recharging. 

In the summer when I got the car, it got rock solid fuel economy. Now with the cooler and from time to time colder weather, it doesnt warm up and the fuel economy sags. I could take surface streets to job 1 and keep the prius in the ev mode and was thinking about the ev hack. I can plug it at both jobs and home.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 7, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> That's 2.5 miles each way. I won't even consider anything except walking for so short a distance. It's even a waste to take a bike since I have to worry if it'll get stolen when I chain it up. I figure it takes me 30 minutes to walk that distance on a good day, maybe 35 on a bad one. I could bike it in maybe 8 to 10 minutes, depending upon traffic patterns, but then figure two minutes to get the bike out of the garage, open the gate and then another two or three minutes at the other end to chain it up and walk the last 50 or 100 feet to my destination. In the end walking costs me a big 15 to 20 minutes each way over biking. Not worth taking the bus, either. Chances are I'd have to wait at least ten minutes, and then another 15 to 20 for the bus ride. That's not much better than walking, and costs me $2 each way. Driving probably makes the least sense of all the options here, especially from a cost standpoint, regardless of what type of vehicle you have.
> 
> Over about 4 miles one way or more is when I'll start to think about something other than walking. In the end it turns out for a lot of trips the feet are really the best way to go. Most of my regular trips are 1.5 miles or less each way.



It must be marvelous to live in a pedestrian-friendly city. Save for their downtown areas, Dallas and Fort Worth are downright pedestrian- and cycle-hostile. Sprawling urban areas. Often as not no sidewalk. Vehicles howling along 4- and 6-lane divided roads at 40-50 miles per hour. Pedestrian signals at intersections that are often nonfunctional if present. Sprawling parking lots that must be navigated at any destination - quite the hazard for a pedestrian. Did I mention that the DFW area is _sprawling_ at ~20,000 square miles?

I would be lucky if the average destination were a mere 2.5 miles away and simply would not feel safe walking along the roads here too often.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 7, 2007)

Cobb, if you have a nice 5 mile ride at 45 MPH wih only one stop sign a hybrid will be quite happy. It will be able to use the power created while it's warming up. In my case, I have multiple stop signs and lights in the first mile or two, so the power created while warming up is sometimes wasted.

Most folks compare the highest milage rating of a coneventional car against the real life milage or range reported for hybrids and EVs. That's pretty natural. If you can get the rated 43 MPG in the Yaris, you should be able to see the 60 MPG in the Prius. I like the way the Prius's worst ever milage was still better than the best ever milage in my wife's Camry. The worst ever in the Camry was reallllly disapointing.


Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 7, 2007)

idleprocess said:


> It must be marvelous to live in a pedestrian-friendly city. Save for their downtown areas, Dallas and Fort Worth are downright pedestrian- and cycle-hostile. Sprawling urban areas. Often as not no sidewalk. Vehicles howling along 4- and 6-lane divided roads at 40-50 miles per hour. Pedestrian signals at intersections that are often nonfunctional if present. Sprawling parking lots that must be navigated at any destination - quite the hazard for a pedestrian. Did I mention that the DFW area is _sprawling_ at ~20,000 square miles?
> 
> I would be lucky if the average destination were a mere 2.5 miles away and simply would not feel safe walking along the roads here too often.


I'm aware that many cities built up in the last 50 years in the south and west just aren't pedestrian-friendly. I personally just don't get the appeal of horizontal as opposed to vertical development, especially in business districts. When you're at work in a cubicle does it really matter if you're on the second floor in a sprawling office complex or on the 50th in a skyscraper? The way a lot of the country is laid out is greatly responsible for the competitive disadvantage the US will face as fossil fuels rise in price. The population density just isn't there to support public transportation even if people wanted it.

I would hate living someplace where I had to get into a car to do virtually anything, and where it wasn't really that bike friendly, either.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 7, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> I would hate living someplace where I had to get into a car to do virtually anything, and where it wasn't really that bike friendly, either.



I have just the opposite feeling. I was raised in a rural area, and find the financial district of San Francisco to be downright oppressive. Too many people in too little area. Can't see the sun except at noon, etc. I'm glad I'm no longer working there.

On the other hand, most suburbs have shopping centers sprinkled around. Every mile or two has a strip mall or at least a grocery store. Just like in a city (with it's corner stores) you don't have to drive 5 miles to the nearest store. Unlike the city, you are assured a parking spot when you get there and when you get home again.

Within 1 mile are two grocery stores and a strip mall. I could do without a car if I needed to. I would miss the convenience.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Jan 7, 2007)

Here is a new PHEV announcement from GM:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/01/07/detroit_chevrolet_volt_concept/index.html


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 7, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> I have just the opposite feeling. I was raised in a rural area, and find the financial district of San Francisco to be downright oppressive. Too many people in too little area. Can't see the sun except at noon, etc. I'm glad I'm no longer working there.


Here's my home block-doesn't seem very oppressive to me (but I hate the way the parked cars make the block look):







We have three large grocery stores within 7/10ths of a mile (one is 3 blocks away). Two blocks away you can get one bus to downtown Flushing (20 minute ride, 35 minute walk), another one to the 71st/Continental Ave. express subway stop (about 40 minutes combined bus and subway ride to Manhattan). Kind of the best of both worlds. My mom even grows vegetables.

I'll admit the business districts in Manhattan seem a bit too crowded to live in 24/7 but it's good to visit often. The residential parts aren't too bad, though. I wish I could afford to live in them.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Jan 7, 2007)

I've got to agree with Gadget Lover. I'm glad I need a vehicle to get anywhere in any kind of reasonable time frame; it means I'm far enough way from idio...er, people. I can step out on my front porch and see wheat fields. There's an orchard behind my house, and a horse pasture on the corner. No sidewalks at all, there's just not enough people to need them. The closest traffic light is 7 miles away. Soon I'll be building an off-grid house on my woodlot and moving out there. It'll be a half hour drive into town, one way. I can't wait.

:buddies:

Edit: Maybe it's about time for "EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9."


----------



## cobb (Jan 7, 2007)

I am not trying to start a war of hybrds vs regular cars, its just that the prius seems rated for better fuel economy in stop n go vs highway and most of my driving is highway with all the mainianics going well over the posted limit. 

Yeah, if my area had sidewalks and only a murder a week vs several a day, I may be petaling to work vs driving. I am very tempted next car problem to get a motor scooter, of course that would mean no highway. 

Yeah, seems the yaris hatch back is pretty good at its top end fuel economy. I am saving for that car and if the benz lasts longer, I will likely swng for the prius. I want a hatch back for the small size to get around, my folks want to me to buy a sedan so they can use if or ride with me. I believe the scio xa is very much like a stretched yaris, however would it be any harder to get parts ten years down the road vs the yaris. 

Really, if I could find one in great shape and a good price, I would love to have the diesel vw golf hatch back. Since the diesel fuel is suppose to switch over to the new ultra low sulfur fuel, I just as well wait for the new fuel and cars. So far, I have see a bluetec diesel or two, but all the diesel fuel is a federal offense to use in 07 or newer vehicles. Of course I need only 17 gallons a month and quart of kleen power.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 7, 2007)

cobb said:


> I am not trying to start a war of hybrds vs regular cars, its just that the prius seems rated for better fuel economy in stop n go vs highway and most of my driving is highway with all the mainianics going well over the posted limit.



The key is "rated". The real life result is often different. Steady state driving at sane speeds on level road yields consistent mileage better than 50 MPG. Unlike a conventional drive train, the stop and go does not kill the mileage. The proper low speed driving can give even better mileage, but in our area the traffic engineers deliberately break up the long stretches as a speed / traffic control tool. No matter how efficient the car, it will get worse mileage when you have to stop frequently.

The Prius sweet spot has been reported to be around 45 MPH. At that speed the air resistance is not that high and everything is working at its most efficient. I don't know anywhere that I can drive for miles and miles at 45 without having to stop, slow or accelerate so I can't attest to this.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 7, 2007)

Diesel I am with you, we live "out in the country" as well, about 10 miles from the nearest stop light. Going to and from work I don't pass any, yet... 

Not sure how much you looked in to or know about off griding, but check out
http://www.wind-sun.com/smf/index.php
BB is over there a lot and Darell pops in and out.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 7, 2007)

Nearest store (Liquor) is about 1.5miles away. General purpose store/gas station is about 6.5miles with 5 of that on Hwy 59 with 70 mph limit starting about 5.8miles away.

Makes driving pretty much mandatory.

Sure are some pretty Horses, Goats, Cows and other assorted critters around here though!

I'd LOVE to give BD a go, but like I said before if it doesn't come to me (in the form of being sold at the local station) or I don't get it!


----------



## cobb (Jan 7, 2007)

So 45 is the sweet spot? Whats the worse speed to drive then? 65, 70, 75, 80? Lets not forget I am comparing a 3 door hatch back to a mid size sedan either. I just may end up commuting from the folks house and helping them out and needing to drive 57 miles twice a day vs 20 miles a day. 

I believe a local woodfin fuel depot sells bio diesel, however its for fleet use only. I wouldnt mind it, but I have heard horror stories about using it in the benz diesels with some age on them.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 7, 2007)

I don't recall hearing about the worst driving conditions. Prius drivers tend to try to maximize their mileage. Generally, the faster you drive the higher the energy demand. There are always spots where the aerodynamics work better than others, but I don't know of anyone who has tried to map that.

Daniel


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 8, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> I personally just don't get the appeal of horizontal as opposed to vertical development, especially in business districts. When you're at work in a cubicle does it really matter if you're on the second floor in a sprawling office complex or on the 50th in a skyscraper?



We have EARTHQUAKES.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 8, 2007)

We used to have a store 1/2 mile away, but it closed down.
Now the nearest $$tore is 8 miles away,
and that's a 2000' climb coming home with the groceries.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 8, 2007)

cobb said:


> I believe a local woodfin fuel depot sells bio diesel, however its for fleet use only. I wouldnt mind it, but I have heard horror stories about using it in the benz diesels with some age on them.



Could you clarify about the stories?


----------



## Bright Scouter (Jan 8, 2007)

The Volt looks like it might be interesting. Have to wait and see how it actually looks if and when it makes it to production though.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> Most folks compare the highest milage rating of a coneventional car against the real life milage or range reported for hybrids and EVs.
> Daniel


This can't be said enough. If I had a dime for every time somebody compared the EPA numbers of a given car with the "real" numbers of hybrids and EVs... well, I'd be able to buy another EV. Maybe the new EPA guidless will be useful after all! Few folks realize that the real-world mileage numbers of all cars are off by the same percentage. True with gas cars, true with hybrids. As long as you compare EPA with EPA or real with real, then the comparison is valid. Otherwise you're just whistling Dixie.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2007)

OK, EV part 9 is now open for business:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1777425#post1777425

I'll close this one down. See you over there.


----------

