Electric cars head toward another dead end

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 11:45:26 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
> wrote:


>
>No doubt in my mind that the Chevy Volt is well designed and
>manufactured. The Tesla model S is as well. Neither vehicle is
>economically viable for the majority of Americans. The technology just
>isn't there to make electric vehicles economically viable unless they
>are made extremely light weight.

The F-150 isn't economically viable for the majority of Americans.
They sell a lot of F-150's.
The Volt isn't an "electric car." It's a plug-in hybrid.

On Feb 9, 1:59*pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 11:45:26 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>
> > wrote:
>
> >No doubt in my mind that the Chevy Volt is well designed and
> >manufactured. The Tesla model S is as well. Neither vehicle is
> >economically viable for the majority of Americans. The technology just
> >isn't there to make electric vehicles economically viable unless they
> >are made extremely light weight.
>
> The F-150 isn't economically viable for the majority of Americans.
> They sell a lot of F-150's.
> The Volt isn't an "electric car." *It's a plug-in hybrid.

Sure it is. It does a great job of hauling cargo around, which is a
big reason it's so popular. You expect Americans to run to U-Haul
every time they need to move something?

On Feb 6, 10:11*pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> "brewertr" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, jon_banquer > wrote:
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...tric-hydrogen-...
>
> > "Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who
> > helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles
> > hold far more promise than battery electric cars.
>
> > "Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time
> > — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most
> > conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."
>
> Nothing like stating the blindingly obvious and then representing it
> as if it's some sort of revelation.
> ==================================================

This is going to take a some time to respond to all of your post so I
will respond in pieces as time permits.

> The Q is: *are fuel cells a (develop-able) answer? *Dunno.

I was responding directly to his statements

1) "he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than
battery electric cars."
2) "Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and
recharging time the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for
most conventional cars,"

> Keep in mind, the new Prius "c" (sposedly for "city") gets 68 mpg (according
> to lightfooted drivers). *Which means Moi would proly get 80 mpg....
> helium-foot. * lol
> The "c" is the smallest in the prius line.

As I read his statement I believe it to be about EV's not Hybrids.

I also wonder what the "total" environmental impact of manufacturing
the cars, producing electricity for, as well as disposal after the
battery and/or cars reach the end of their serviceable life.

Every rechargeable battery has a finite charge cycle and loses
capacity on each recharge. What's the impact of deep discharge vs.
partial discharge, etc., etc. As battery packs get used up are they
still Hybrid's or just gas cars carrying an unusable battery pack?

Tom

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:06 -0600, Vic Smith
> wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:55:20 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mebbe over-tech?? $45K for a battery and a motor??
>>
>
>>
>>But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done. But
>>jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer, nevertheless.
>
>You got the design part right. You want to know the car future for
>the next few decades, it's probably the Volt design.
>Pure elegance in concept and execution. Kudos to GM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrol...nd_recognition

The Volt is an amazing technical achievement and should be far more
popular than it is. One reason it isn't is that society is trending
towards what I'll politely call the short attention span mentality.
The afflicted prefer things that don't require any effort to
understand. The Volt is the opposite. I was explaining to someone that
it only has a 10 gallon gas tank and he said that was obviously too
small, his car has 16, yada yada. GM's main mistake may turn out to be
overestimating the intelligence of the market.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:15:01 -0600, rwwink > wrote:

>I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries
>instead of fuel cells.
>As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as
>fuel,
Nitrogen as a fuel for a fuel cell would be quite the trick. Liquid
nitrogen as an energy stoage medium for a thewrmal expasion engine is
a totally different system

> produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building
>a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car
>body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.
>The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas
>engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to
>package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more
>of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the
>platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries
>though I don't know if it would last as long.
>What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only
>consider batteries?
>R. Wink
>
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:06:01 -0800, whoyakidding's ghost
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>>>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>>>>using
>>>>>lead-acid banks.
>>>>
>>>> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
>>>> drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
>>>> about 60mpg.
>>>
>>>60 mpg is not shabby.
>>
>>Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox.
>>It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing
>>for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or
>>better.
>>
>>It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up
>>and support the tech.
>>
>>>When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
>>>> 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
>>>> owners though.
>>>
>>>On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think
>>>your mpg's would be?
>>
>>It's about 40. Unless it's in "mountain mode", where it can be
>>increasing battery state of charge while driving on ICE power. That's
>>inefficient but I've used it a couple times on extended trips to
>>ensure that the battery is sufficiently charged at the destination to
>>allow friends to drive the car on battery alone.
>>
>>http://www.voltstats.net/ At that website you can view mileage stats
>>from hundreds of Volt owners. Click on the top of the columns to
>>resort by category. A Volt shopper can estimate his projected EV
>>percentage, sort by percentage, and then see the stats of current
>>owners with a similar EV percentage.
>>

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:03:12 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
> wrote:

>On Feb 9, 1:59Â*pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 11:45:26 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >No doubt in my mind that the Chevy Volt is well designed and
>> >manufactured. The Tesla model S is as well. Neither vehicle is
>> >economically viable for the majority of Americans. The technology just
>> >isn't there to make electric vehicles economically viable unless they
>> >are made extremely light weight.
>>
>> The F-150 isn't economically viable for the majority of Americans.
>> They sell a lot of F-150's.
>> The Volt isn't an "electric car." Â*It's a plug-in hybrid.
>
>Sure it is. It does a great job of hauling cargo around, which is a
>big reason it's so popular. You expect Americans to run to U-Haul
>every time they need to move something?

You're nuts. If they're economically viable, then why don't the
majority of Americans own them?
Because they want no part of a pick-up truck. The majority of
Americans aren't '"cargo haulers."
And pick-ups aren't that "popular" either. Very small part of
vehicle sales, though they sell well because businesses, farmers and
tradesmen find them useful or essential.
I've had pick-ups and full size vans. Hauled stuff with them too.
But whenever I moved I rented a 20' box truck.
Made the pick-up look like a tinker toy.
I've had a lot of stuff hauled since I had pick-ups and vans.
Free delivery or a 10-50 buck charge.
Most of that can be avoided by loading into the back seat of mid-size
sedan or tying it on the roof.
Doesn't add up to a hill of beans compared to +$30k for a decent new
pick-up.
But if you want a pick-up, go for it.

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:00:36 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
> wrote:


>
>"Whatever loss the gov takes when they shed the rest of their GM
>shares will pale in comparison to the disaster that would have
>happened if they allowed it to collapse"
>
>What a bunch of bull****. Explain to me why US taxpayers should have
>to take any loss at all on the GM bailout deal.

This is a car tech group. I stick mostly to that.
You're a political monkey.
Here's my last words to you.
Go **** yourself.

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:06 -0600, Vic Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:55:20 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Mebbe over-tech?? $45K for a battery and a motor??
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done.
>>>But
>>>jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer, nevertheless.
>>
>>You got the design part right. You want to know the car future for
>>the next few decades, it's probably the Volt design.
>>Pure elegance in concept and execution. Kudos to GM.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrol...nd_recognition
>
> The Volt is an amazing technical achievement and should be far more
> popular than it is. One reason it isn't is that society is trending
> towards what I'll politely call the short attention span mentality.
> The afflicted prefer things that don't require any effort to
> understand. The Volt is the opposite. I was explaining to someone that
> it only has a 10 gallon gas tank and he said that was obviously too
> small, his car has 16, yada yada. GM's main mistake may turn out to be
> overestimating the intelligence of the market.
>

And their wallet.... lol

But, 40 mpg on gas alone is not too shabby either, really pretty good.

Hopefully others will follow the diesel-electric locomotive strategy, and
get it right.
Four small motors per wheel would give the vehicle tremendous versatility,
and off-road ability. Hub motors.
--
EA

On Feb 9, 2:35*pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:00:36 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Whatever loss the gov takes when they shed the rest of their GM
> >shares will pale in comparison to the disaster that would have
> >happened if they allowed it to collapse"
>
> >What a bunch of bull****. Explain to me why US taxpayers should have
> >to take any loss at all on the GM bailout deal.
>
> This is a car tech group. *I stick mostly to that.
> You're a political monkey.
> Here's my last words to you.
> Go **** yourself.

I'm a realist and unlike you I don't have my head shoved up my ass.
Here are my last words to you:

**** off and die.

On Feb 9, 2:24*pm, whoyakidding's ghost >
wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:06 -0600, Vic Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:55:20 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> > wrote:
>
> >>Mebbe over-tech?? *$45K for a battery and a motor?? *
>
> >>But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done. But
> >>jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer, nevertheless.
>
> >You got the design part right. *You want to know the car future for
> >the next few decades, it's probably the Volt design.
> >Pure elegance in concept and execution. *Kudos to GM.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrol...nd_recognition
>
> The Volt is an amazing technical achievement and should be far more
> popular than it is. One reason it isn't is that society is trending
> towards what I'll politely call the short attention span mentality.
> The afflicted prefer things that don't require any effort to
> understand. The Volt is the opposite. I was explaining to someone that
> it only has a 10 gallon gas tank and he said that was obviously too
> small, his car has 16, yada yada. GM's main mistake may turn out to be
> overestimating the intelligence of the market.

The Chevy Volt isn't popular because it offers no real value to the
American consumer.