Re: Electric cars

Jim Yanik wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:OhLfl.120$N5.48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Yanik wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:gZIfl.71$N5.34@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


As a first step to ultraefficiency, superlight, streamlined cars
make sense.

Essentially,enclosed electric scooters.

Or electric Smart4Two.(I read they're making them now...)

No!! There's a load on Amory Lovin's Rocky Mountain Institute
website, but the gist is you can make a same-size car a bunch
lighter with lightweight materials. Then, it needs less power
plant to propel it, so you can use a smaller engine for equal
performance, which makes it lighter still. Both measures save
gas. It's a virtuous circle.

except in REALITY,you have to pass safety and crash tests.
Cars USED to be a lot lighter than they are today,and that is because of crash standards and added equipment.

That's one of my gripes--I don't want a nanny car. I stop faster
manually than with antilock brakes, I fasten my own seatbelt, and
I don't mind rolling up my own windows. Oh, and I check my tire
pressure too. I'd rather save the weight, complexity, and expense,
but Congress won't let me.

Their goal is safety, but the best safety comes from learning to
drive well, practicing maneuvers occasionally, then being careful
on the road. Making a crashproof car is great, but not crashing
is even safer.


Many people today are still stuck on big heavy cars/SUV/trucks because they think it makes them safer(at the expense of other's safety...).
They simply DONT WANT small cars,fuel efficient or not.

Me,I LIKE small cars;they're easier to drive,more maneuverable(safer),more fun,and better on gas.I've only owned ONE big car,the rest have all been small cars.Mostly Hondas,1 Triumph Herald,1 English Ford Cortina GT!)

He also addresses making such a car _safer_ than current cars
with simple, energy-absorbing cones placed inside.

yeah,and WHY hasn't anyone else used this "simple" technology?
If it's that good,and simple.....

You mean those famed innovators at the Big 3? If they already meet
standards, where's the incentive? And even Japanese car makers are
slow to change: ultra-conservative.

Technically it's pretty easy--hanging *** metal on light, stamped
frame supports just doesn't absorb much energy, or provide much
protection.

Steel is soft; a side impact will sag it like a suspension bridge
between supports, no matter how strong. And it has to be very,
strong to resist much at all.

Lovins' deal is to deploy internal crush cones pointing outward
inside the structures. Like the highway crash barriers. They're
stiff, light, and absorb a huge amount of energy as they collapse,
protecting you.


Propulsion technology is a separate, independent issue: the
improved body design equally benefits gas, hybrids, and electrics.

There's an _excellent_ video on the site, but it takes an hour
to watch. .PDF notes of the presentation too. (hard to interpret
without watching the video)

Good stuff. Really.

Cheers,
James Arthur


I have dialup,so I'm not going to watch any video.
But,I suspect it's all Utopian dreaming;
not PRACTICAL for manufacturing in any volume at prices people could afford.


Could be. Lovins is selling, but he's a physicist, knows his numbers,
and makes a decent pitch.

Even if he's a little fast and loose, he rightly points out that streamlining and saving weight is _the_ way, and makes a number of
good suggestions in that direction.

Oh, and hybrids? Lovins was pushing that ages ago.

Cheers,
James Arthur
.

Loading