Posted by DH on May 5, 2006, 7:48 pm
> >
> >> m.dixon4@ntlworld.com "Martin Dixon" writes:
> >>
> >> > The one thing that would really make hybrids irresistable would be a
> >> > means of charging the batteries from the mains. That way, even less
> >> > fuel would be burned (at least by the car). But I doubt the oil
> >> > companies would allow that to happen.
> >>
> >> As you seem to realise but shrug off, the energy to charge the
> >> batteries would still have to come from somewhere. Needing to
> >> seek out a mains socket would involve some energy wastage, to
> >> which add those occasions when you are caught short with a flat
> >> battery,
> >
> > He's still referring to a hybrid. The IC engine would recharge the
> > batteries. If I understand him correctly, he's thinking of a hybrid
with
> > a
> > significantly bigger battery, that could simply go further without using
> > the
> > IC engine at all. If the car was used just for shorter commutes, the IC
> > engine would never need to run. However, if the owner decided to take
it
> > out of town, he'd be spared the need to plug in every 30 or 40 miles (or
> > less) by virtue of charging the battery from the IC engine.
> >
> > An optional battery pack that lay flat on the trunk floor, perhaps,
would
> > extend the range of the vehicle in electric-only mode and would be an
> > interesting option. An expensive option, no doubt.
> >
> >> to which add the energy used in hauling around the much
> >> larger (and heavier) batteries required to give a decent range.
> >>
> >
> > If you were going on a long trip, it would probably be even more helpful
> > to
> > be able to remove the battery for the trip. That would increase the
> > capacity of the car, probably improve its overall fuel economy and you'd
> > not
> > be likely to be plugging in much along the way.
> >
> >> Sorry but TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
> >> And I doubt the oil companies would have much say in the matter.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Stephenson
> >>
> >
> > And the car then becomes the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle. It's mostly
> > fueled
> > by whatever the power company finds to be cheapest at that particular
> > time.
> > Overnight, it's their base capacity, which is typically the cheapest
> > electricity they can make. The nukes run all the time and probably make
> > up
> > the basest part of the base capacity in most places, so the car would be
> > partially "nuclear-powered."
> >
> > I could use a car like that. 90% of my daily drives are under 20 miles.
> > If
> > you could add enough optional battery to a Prius to give me 20-mile
range
> > (maybe 10), I'd drive it as an electric vehicle most of the time. The
> > thing
> > that keeps people from buying an Electric Vehicle is that while 90% of
> > their
> > trips are under 20 (or whatever) miles and, it's the other 10% that rule
> > out
> > the limited range of the EV. When they do go out of town, the maxium
> > range
> > of an EV becomes a real problem. Who wants to stop every 100 miles on a
> > 1000 mile trip and wait 6 hours to recharge the car? A hybrid solves
that
> > problem, using gas to both get a 400+mile range and 5-minute
"recharges."
> > A
> > hybrid with a bigger, removeable battery can act like an EV 90% of the
> > time.
> > As an EV, of course, it's carrying around a lot of unnecessary weight
(up
> > to
> > 90 lbs of gasoline, the IC engine, etc) but there are tradeoffs for
> > everything.
> >
> >
> You can go to toyota.com and look at Prius faq's and info about hybrid
> technology to learn why the Prius does not offer optional battery packs,
> plug-in chargers, etc., even the response to a question about whether the
> Ford Escape uses Toyota's technology (it does).
> It is natural human nature for people to think that their ideas are better
> than what the automakers have designed and built, but in most cases, the
> automotive engineers have thought everything through pretty thoroughly.
> Other factors to keep in mind are the marketability of a product,
production
> and retail costs, and utility of the product.
> --
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
Oh, I do not think I am smarter than Toyota's engineers. I figure they are
thinking about this or have thought about it and the idea has been at least
temporarily shelved under the heading of "infeasible" for reasons I don't
know or "unmarketable, except to that DH character and a few loons like
him."
:-)
I will check the faq, though, and see what they had to say. I hadn't
realized they would bother to put up a faq that included speculative items
like this.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Posted by Ray O on May 5, 2006, 8:14 pm
<snipped>
Oh, I do not think I am smarter than Toyota's engineers. I figure they are
> thinking about this or have thought about it and the idea has been at
> least
> temporarily shelved under the heading of "infeasible" for reasons I don't
> know or "unmarketable, except to that DH character and a few loons like
> him."
> :-)
> I will check the faq, though, and see what they had to say. I hadn't
> realized they would bother to put up a faq that included speculative items
> like this.
Toyota has a reputation among the public and automotive press for making
good cars. Toyota's reputation among automakers is that of being a
moneymaking machine and being perhaps the best in the world at "doing
business." i can tell you from firsthand experience that Toyota gives
thought to every actioin.
I've often thought that Toyota should have designed and marketed the
Highlander, RX 400h, Camry, GS, and LS hybrids for good fuel economy yet the
emphasis for these vehicles is more on performance than fuel economy because
Toyota is aware the hybrid powertrain does not make sense from a pure
dollars and cents view. Rather than market to people who are trying to save
money, they market to people with money who want performance and reasonable
fuel economy.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Posted by Andrew Stephenson on May 5, 2006, 5:02 pm
dh@stargate.com "DH" writes:
> > m.dixon4@ntlworld.com "Martin Dixon" writes:
> >
> > > The one thing that would really make hybrids irresistable would be a
> > > means of charging the batteries from the mains. That way, even less
> > > fuel would be burned (at least by the car). But I doubt the oil
> > > companies would allow that to happen.
> >
> > As you seem to realise but shrug off, the energy to charge the
> > batteries would still have to come from somewhere. Needing to
> > seek out a mains socket would involve some energy wastage, to
> > which add those occasions when you are caught short with a flat
> > battery,
> He's still referring to a hybrid. The IC engine would recharge
> the batteries. If I understand him correctly, he's thinking of
> a hybrid with a significantly bigger battery, that could simply
> go further without using the IC engine at all. [...]
Okay, I see his point. Fair enough, if the flexibility you go on
to describe can be made to work.
My short-term expectation is that battery technology will shrink
the current pack. This would (a) release more space in the rear
of the car (for normal uses like carting around random rubbish)
and/or (b) allow more battery capacity in much the same volume.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Posted by Martin Dixon on May 5, 2006, 8:08 pm
ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
> m.dixon4@ntlworld.com "Martin Dixon" writes:
>
>> The one thing that would really make hybrids irresistable would be a
>> means of charging the batteries from the mains. That way, even less
>> fuel would be burned (at least by the car). But I doubt the oil
>> companies would allow that to happen.
>
> As you seem to realise but shrug off, the energy to charge the
> batteries would still have to come from somewhere. Needing to
> seek out a mains socket would involve some energy wastage, to
> which add those occasions when you are caught short with a flat
> battery, to which add the energy used in hauling around the much
> larger (and heavier) batteries required to give a decent range.
>
You would still have your petrol engine for times when the battery got
low. But at least you could arrange to always start out with a full
charge. If you did a lot of short journeys, it would vastly reduce
overall fuel consumption.
> Sorry but TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
> And I doubt the oil companies would have much say in the matter.
--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/
Posted by Ray O on May 4, 2006, 9:09 pm
>>
>> I think the biggest drawback to a hybrid diesel is cost. Both the diesel
>> powerplant and hybrid power plant cost more than a conventional gasoline
>> (etrol) engine so a diesel hybrid would have a double cost disadvantage
>> to
>> overcome.
> I would speculate that one problem with a diesel hybrid would be the
> extra power needed to crank the engine, remembering that this will
> happen quite frequently in a hybrid. This may mean more batteries
> (and hence weight) and a heavier engine anyway, meaning that the
> engine will need to run more frequently than it would in a petrol
> powered hybrid.
A hybrid already has extra batteries so having the power to crank a diesel
is not a problem. The hybrid controller would have to be programmed a
little differently to allow for the additional power needed to crank a
hybrid engine.
> The hybrids that I have seen have clearly been designed to minimise
> weight, even perhaps compromising braking and cornering performance by
> fitting narrower tyres. With present technology, it is even possible
> that the extra weight required by a diesel engine would cancel out the
> gain in fuel economy compared to a petrol engine.
A diesel engine doesn't weigh THAT much more than a petrol engine. A diesel
hybrid is technically feasible but it is not necessarily something that a
consumer would pay 2 premiums for. There is a premium to build a diesel
powerplant and there is a premium for a hybrid system, and it is unlikely
that a consumer would pay over $,000 more for a diesel hybrid.
As I mentioned before
> The one thing that would really make hybrids irresistable would be a
> means of charging the batteries from the mains. That way, even less
> fuel would be burned (at least by the car). But I doubt the oil
> companies would allow that to happen.
There are a lot of totally ridiculous conspiracy theories floating around
that the oil companies control the technology that goes into consumer
vehicles. Since consumers buy a lot more cars than oil companies, the
automakers have a lot more to gain by producing something consumers want
than what oil companies want.
Again, the factors that make charging the batteries from household current
are practical;
- the hybrid system has the capacity to charge the batteries as necessary so
an additional power source is not needed with the current battery capacity.
- Adding additional battery capacity costs more money to build, adds weight
to the vehicle, and reduces cargo and/or passenger space in the vehicle.
Some enterprising do-it-yourselfers have fitted external chargers and
additional battery packs at a cost roughly equal to the cost of the hybrid
vehicle and they have had to use all of the cargo space in the car to do it.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
> >> m.dixon4@ntlworld.com "Martin Dixon" writes:
> >>
> >> > The one thing that would really make hybrids irresistable would be a
> >> > means of charging the batteries from the mains. That way, even less
> >> > fuel would be burned (at least by the car). But I doubt the oil
> >> > companies would allow that to happen.
> >>
> >> As you seem to realise but shrug off, the energy to charge the
> >> batteries would still have to come from somewhere. Needing to
> >> seek out a mains socket would involve some energy wastage, to
> >> which add those occasions when you are caught short with a flat
> >> battery,
> >
> > He's still referring to a hybrid. The IC engine would recharge the
> > batteries. If I understand him correctly, he's thinking of a hybrid
with
> > a
> > significantly bigger battery, that could simply go further without using
> > the
> > IC engine at all. If the car was used just for shorter commutes, the IC
> > engine would never need to run. However, if the owner decided to take
it
> > out of town, he'd be spared the need to plug in every 30 or 40 miles (or
> > less) by virtue of charging the battery from the IC engine.
> >
> > An optional battery pack that lay flat on the trunk floor, perhaps,
would
> > extend the range of the vehicle in electric-only mode and would be an
> > interesting option. An expensive option, no doubt.
> >
> >> to which add the energy used in hauling around the much
> >> larger (and heavier) batteries required to give a decent range.
> >>
> >
> > If you were going on a long trip, it would probably be even more helpful
> > to
> > be able to remove the battery for the trip. That would increase the
> > capacity of the car, probably improve its overall fuel economy and you'd
> > not
> > be likely to be plugging in much along the way.
> >
> >> Sorry but TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
> >> And I doubt the oil companies would have much say in the matter.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Stephenson
> >>
> >
> > And the car then becomes the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle. It's mostly
> > fueled
> > by whatever the power company finds to be cheapest at that particular
> > time.
> > Overnight, it's their base capacity, which is typically the cheapest
> > electricity they can make. The nukes run all the time and probably make
> > up
> > the basest part of the base capacity in most places, so the car would be
> > partially "nuclear-powered."
> >
> > I could use a car like that. 90% of my daily drives are under 20 miles.
> > If
> > you could add enough optional battery to a Prius to give me 20-mile
range
> > (maybe 10), I'd drive it as an electric vehicle most of the time. The
> > thing
> > that keeps people from buying an Electric Vehicle is that while 90% of
> > their
> > trips are under 20 (or whatever) miles and, it's the other 10% that rule
> > out
> > the limited range of the EV. When they do go out of town, the maxium
> > range
> > of an EV becomes a real problem. Who wants to stop every 100 miles on a
> > 1000 mile trip and wait 6 hours to recharge the car? A hybrid solves
that
> > problem, using gas to both get a 400+mile range and 5-minute