Discussion
qooqiiu said:
stew-S160 said:
just checked mine. my 2000MY Lotus Elise sport 160, comes to £185 a year. my girlfriends 2001MY Peugeot 106gti comes to £215. mine is a highly strung 1.8l, hers is a 1.6l general every day car.
makes sense dont it.
Its not ment to make sense.makes sense dont it.
Its ment to make money!
[/quote]You guys seem to be under the illusion that this is all about CO2 and saving the planet, it's not, it's about making money. Which is precisely why it isn't put on fuel
[/quote]
at last someone said it...
CO2 emissions do not adversely affect the planet at all as far as scientific research shows. Moreover our C02 emissions have a negligible impact on the planet. Give it 200 years or so and global cooling will be the order of the day, but i tell you what, if they invert the taxes and fuel prices are relatively as high as they are today, god help us finding the compromise between reasonable tax and 'warming' gas guzzling big engine...lol
I can see the banners now: 'keep the world cosy; buy a V8' :-)
Either way, if 'pollutant' emissions per km were the deciding factor in VED bands, I don't understand why they didn't apply the band system in retrospect to every car on the road perhaps that would encourage mass scraping of older cars...why then did the government bother with the A-G tax bands and just start out with A-M as of 2001? reducing many perfectly good cars to scrap value when they have plenty of life left in them is certainly not good for the environment.
I'm as guilty as I am smug about this; my non-cat pug 205 1.1 probably has notably 'worse emissions' than a 2litre TDi of today...
Larger engined cars (that are softly tuned) tend to last longer anyway as they cope better and are not necessarily less economical as they are not so stressed. I think it is Western affluence that has created this notion that cars are 'old' when they have done 100k. I know people who change car every 50k....apart from just fancying 'a new one' there is no reason to do this. Ok, so you argue that simple economics would keep this car going on and yes, to an extent, but for some reason people will not continue to service a car if that car is less valuable than the servicing cost, which seems a bit odd. I can understand people wanting to invest their money in fresh metal but they will lose tons in depreciation. atleast when you properly service a car that money will carry it on at optimum for usually another 10000 miles or so...
Petrol cars should do 150-250k miles no sweat depending on size and with timely oil changes. Diesels should go between 250-500k before needing a re-bore...
There may of course be an argument to suggest buying new cars funds R+D...
Clearly a large amount of research on this matter needs to be done and the general public should be furnished with accurate data on the relationship between buying a new more efficient car, and simultaniously investing in that manufacturers R+D vs. lasting out a serviceable car well beyond it reaching scrap value.
Does anyone here have any idea what constitutes a 'truly' environmentally optimally car replacement point?
Edited by Uberloin on Sunday 11th May 23:44
Edited by Uberloin on Sunday 11th May 23:50
i agree this is a total piss take etc etc but i can't believe the amount of people on here saying they might change cars because of this..... £200 more a year for tax isn't really much when you take into account the increases in petrol haven't made us all go and swap our cars for a Toyota Pious.
Uberloin said:
p said:
You guys seem to be under the illusion that this is all about CO2 and saving the planet, it's not, it's about making money. Which is precisely why it isn't put on fuel
at last someone said it...CO2 emissions do not adversely affect the planet at all as far as scientific research shows. Moreover our C02 emissions have a negligible impact on the planet. Give it 200 years or so and global cooling will be the order of the day, but i tell you what, if they invert the taxes and fuel prices are relatively as high as they are today, god help us finding the compromise between reasonable tax and 'warming' gas guzzling big engine...lol
I can see the banners now: 'keep the world cosy; buy a V8' :-)
The government(s) could say "hey, we're worried about the oil supply", but have decided mass lying and deceit is what they prefer. The inevitable result is what we see today.
All green taxes on fuel are to make people use less of it. Because governments are s
t scared of what people will do when the oil companies can no longer provide enough. It's also a 'useful' tax. Green propaganda and taxes have nothing to do with the environment, in fact aluminium and cadmium production is rather harmful to it, making the Toyota Pious environmentally hostile.
[quote]CO2 tax and global warming is about using less oil, period.
The government(s) could say "hey, we're worried about the oil supply", but have decided mass lying and deceit is what they prefer. The inevitable result is what we see today.
All green taxes on fuel are to make people use less of it. Because governments are st scared of what people will do when the oil companies can no longer provide enough. It's also a 'useful' tax.
Green propaganda and taxes have nothing to do with the environment, in fact aluminium and cadmium production is rather harmful to it, making the Toyota Pious environmentally hostile.
[/quote]
Firstly, I think the prius is the biggest joke going; 45mpg? my pug 205 does 42-44 with frequent starting, the odd thrash and country driving; 48 mpg on the motorway, so i don't know what the fuss is about. I will never understand how having one engine to drive another is any more efficient. if it worked it would be kicking a significant law of thermodynamics - which rules out perpetual motion due to 100% efficient energy transfer being impossible - out of bed. somehow i doubt it's that special.
Secondly, i don't think there is a shortage. However, let me just qualify this by trying to define 'shortage' as I see it. We have enough oil to keep us going for some considerable time. If there was an urgent shortage it would not be left to market's to decide; there would be petrol rationing. The good old fuel vs. food argument crops up here.
You can be rest assured the goverment would prevent the wealthy (who can afford private oil-consuming transport) from buying out those who were less well off and could only afford food. Since food and many other essentials requires much oil to transport, this would received priority.
Truth of the matter is the goverment are poor at the moment and need to raise money. Inelasticity of demand is economically speaking highly desirable on as many products as possible as far as raising money goes. There being a finite amount of oil creates all the tension.
I think the fuel prices are enough to incentivise people to get more economical cars - the simple supply and demand crunch will cause reduced consumption. Increasing road tax is unlikely to, seeing as most people, as they se it, drive because they need to. Thus unless their need reduces, they will drive just as much. in the most economical car they see as pertinent. Showroom tax will be absorbed by dealers so i don't think this is an issue at all for the consumer really.
So the next big question is, are there viable alternatives to oil and do we need to drive as much as we might think?
The government(s) could say "hey, we're worried about the oil supply", but have decided mass lying and deceit is what they prefer. The inevitable result is what we see today.
All green taxes on fuel are to make people use less of it. Because governments are s
t scared of what people will do when the oil companies can no longer provide enough. It's also a 'useful' tax. Green propaganda and taxes have nothing to do with the environment, in fact aluminium and cadmium production is rather harmful to it, making the Toyota Pious environmentally hostile.
[/quote]
Firstly, I think the prius is the biggest joke going; 45mpg? my pug 205 does 42-44 with frequent starting, the odd thrash and country driving; 48 mpg on the motorway, so i don't know what the fuss is about. I will never understand how having one engine to drive another is any more efficient. if it worked it would be kicking a significant law of thermodynamics - which rules out perpetual motion due to 100% efficient energy transfer being impossible - out of bed. somehow i doubt it's that special.
Secondly, i don't think there is a shortage. However, let me just qualify this by trying to define 'shortage' as I see it. We have enough oil to keep us going for some considerable time. If there was an urgent shortage it would not be left to market's to decide; there would be petrol rationing. The good old fuel vs. food argument crops up here.
You can be rest assured the goverment would prevent the wealthy (who can afford private oil-consuming transport) from buying out those who were less well off and could only afford food. Since food and many other essentials requires much oil to transport, this would received priority.
Truth of the matter is the goverment are poor at the moment and need to raise money. Inelasticity of demand is economically speaking highly desirable on as many products as possible as far as raising money goes. There being a finite amount of oil creates all the tension.
I think the fuel prices are enough to incentivise people to get more economical cars - the simple supply and demand crunch will cause reduced consumption. Increasing road tax is unlikely to, seeing as most people, as they se it, drive because they need to. Thus unless their need reduces, they will drive just as much. in the most economical car they see as pertinent. Showroom tax will be absorbed by dealers so i don't think this is an issue at all for the consumer really.
So the next big question is, are there viable alternatives to oil and do we need to drive as much as we might think?
Uberloin said:
I will never understand how having one engine to drive another is any more efficient.
Never say "never". How about this:Imagine a car which needs about 10bhp to cruise at a steady speed on the motorway. Clearly having a 10bhp engine would be impractical? Not necessarily. Imagine this car has a small go kart sized engine putting out 12bhp which runs at a constant rpm, just in the "sweet spot" for most efficiency. This motor is linked to a generator, which makes electricity. When you get in and start the car it spends a few moments charging up a set of capacitors. You go to drive away and the capacitors discharge providing energy to a set of electric motors in the wheel hubs. Acceleration will be way faster than 12bhp could provide, as energy was stored in the capacitors.
When you're cruising the capacitors will be empty but the car has kinetic energy. It cruises along using the 12bhp engine.
Then when you brake, the electric motors act as generators, converting the kinetic energy back into potential energy in the capacitors.
Then you accelerate again, and the potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy.
Clearly in a world of 100% efficiency you would only need to charge the capacitors once for the whole life of the vehicle. In reality there is wind resistance and inefficiency in the electric motors, here's where the little motor comes in, to keep it all topped up.
These are the cars we need.
EDITED TO ADD:
These things will also be immense drivers cars.
1 In order to be safe, the hub motors will need to be super powerful when acting as 'brakes'. This means that they will also have immense power to accelerate when you put your foot down.
2 Electric motors provide 100% torque from >0 rpm. So 'instant' torque.
3 Additionally, we all know about the Evo with it's 4WD and trick diffs which distribute power between the wheels inteliigently. Also, the Evo X with it's active stability management which can apply brakes to individual wheels. Well with the in hub motors you could manage the power and braking effect on each wheel to the nth degree, all independantly.
4 No friction surfaces to heat up, so no brake fade.
Side benefits.
1 No drivetrain losses (i.e. no gearbox and diffs etc)
2 Fewer consumables (brake pads (brake dust!), brake discs, brake fluid, clutch paddles)
3 You could, if you wished, have the wheels turn 90' to aid parking. (Think in sideways) Becasue they are not "tied" to a driveshaft.
4 You could, if you wished, use the rear wheels to steer gently at high speed or to aid tight parking.
5 You could, if you wished, use the rear wheels to steer to correct oversteer.
6 Weight distribution and cabin space could be improved since you dont need a mechanical link between the "engine"/capacitors and the wheels. (Yes, the wheels would be heavier than alloys and brake discs but the other handling improvements would no doubt have a substantial mitigating effect.)
These cars would be awesome. Who gives a monkeys about emissions!! Even the most 'old skool' petrolhead must recognise that using brakes which heat up isn't the best idea. We should harness that energy ready to accelerate again (hard!). The current 'poster boy' prius is too inefficient to do what we need it to. But the technology I've discussed is on its way and I can't wait. (Although I will miss the exhaust noise and glowing carbon ceramic brakes... I think the performance potential of independantly driven/braked wheels with masses of instant torque will make up for it.)
Edited by mrmr96 on Monday 12th May 13:19
mrmr96 said:
10-12bhp, these are only numbers for illustration. The point is that cruising needs less power than accelerating. Also, read the rest of the edit and tell me that doesn't sound like a fun car.
Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.So going by what othes have said above then the Rover 1.4 75bhp I have also couldnt achieve 70mph... however it does achieve 70mph in 5th gear at 3,500rpm. So again doing the very simplistic linear calcs then in the Rover Im only using 50bhp to maintain this speed.
I have seen a table somewhere online from a good source and it gave the ave hatchback weight 5 door & assumed ave Coefficient of drag althouh it doesnt effect it too much at sub 100mph speeds and from memory at 70mph you need only 30bhp. So this could be from a tiny 200cc engine pulling full power of a huge V8 at idle, or again a bigger engine shutting down cylinders as there is no need for all to be firing as enough power is being created.
BTW I have a 5.5HP Honda lawnmower - nice & big no a ride on and oddly no power drive ... push that thing around for a morning and you can cancel your Gym membership... I assure you of that.
[quote=Welshbeef]from memory at 70mph you need only 30bhp. So this could be from a tiny 200cc engine pulling full power[quote]
Ok, thanks. It's the same kind of ball park though.
Also, I like your idea of shutting off V8 cylinders when not needed. I think there might be a VW which does this already?
Also, the new M5 will have a part time alternator, which engages on the over run only, so it costs you no performance when accelerating. Also, the new M5 will employ "stop start" technology to flip the engine off when stationary at traffic lights. Unless you're going for a launch, this is a pretty good idea. As these things reduce the amout of money that one has to spend on fuel, but not at the expense of performance.
Ok, thanks. It's the same kind of ball park though.
Also, I like your idea of shutting off V8 cylinders when not needed. I think there might be a VW which does this already?
Also, the new M5 will have a part time alternator, which engages on the over run only, so it costs you no performance when accelerating. Also, the new M5 will employ "stop start" technology to flip the engine off when stationary at traffic lights. Unless you're going for a launch, this is a pretty good idea. As these things reduce the amout of money that one has to spend on fuel, but not at the expense of performance.
Welshbeef said:
mrmr96 said:
10-12bhp, these are only numbers for illustration. The point is that cruising needs less power than accelerating. Also, read the rest of the edit and tell me that doesn't sound like a fun car.
Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.So going by what othes have said above then the Rover 1.4 75bhp I have also couldnt achieve 70mph... however it does achieve 70mph in 5th gear at 3,500rpm. So again doing the very simplistic linear calcs then in the Rover Im only using 50bhp to maintain this speed.
I have seen a table somewhere online from a good source and it gave the ave hatchback weight 5 door & assumed ave Coefficient of drag althouh it doesnt effect it too much at sub 100mph speeds and from memory at 70mph you need only 30bhp. So this could be from a tiny 200cc engine pulling full power of a huge V8 at idle, or again a bigger engine shutting down cylinders as there is no need for all to be firing as enough power is being created.
BTW I have a 5.5HP Honda lawnmower - nice & big no a ride on and oddly no power drive ... push that thing around for a morning and you can cancel your Gym membership... I assure you of that.
As you point out, at the m/way speeds you mention, the resistance of air is the barrier; it increase at a rate of Speed squared. I gustimate (based on the Vmax of various low powered older cars) that 70mph might need 20-30bhp in a car with a decent cd.
SS7
mrmr96 said:
10-12bhp, these are only numbers for illustration. The point is that cruising needs less power than accelerating. Also, read the rest of the edit and tell me that doesn't sound like a fun car.
It doesn't sound like a fun car. Fun and quick are two different things. For me personally it's about the whole experience and that includes the rumble from the engine and noise from the exhaust. It's not all about flat out efficient speed. Imagine watching your super electric powered cars at Le Mans. It would be like watching Scalextric.Try and catch "GT Racers" on TV and you may get a hint of what I'm trying to get at. Nothing wrong with pushing technology and looking for more efficient [green] cars, but can I keep my V8 please
Maybe I'm a neanderthal, but I'll take the Ferrari or Porsche, even if they are slower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ
Edited by benny.c on Monday 12th May 14:26
You might be able to make a decent commuter car on the basis that constant speed motorway cruising doesn't need much power and energy storage in batteries or capacitors can suffice for brief, infrequent bouts of acceleration.
How much fun is it going to be on this?
OK, extreme example, but it's still going to suffer cross-country on a British B-road. The combined outputs of regenerative braking and puny engine are not going to be able to meet the average energy demands of prolonged repeated hard acceleration and braking on a twisty road driven hard.
How much fun is it going to be on this?
OK, extreme example, but it's still going to suffer cross-country on a British B-road. The combined outputs of regenerative braking and puny engine are not going to be able to meet the average energy demands of prolonged repeated hard acceleration and braking on a twisty road driven hard.
Welshbeef said:
Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.
Your car has 110bhp @ 2500rpm, if that helps. (229lbft * 2500 / 5252)otolith said:
Welshbeef said:
Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.
Your car has 110bhp @ 2500rpm, if that helps. (229lbft * 2500 / 5252)mackie1 said:
otolith said:
Welshbeef said:
Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.
Your car has 110bhp @ 2500rpm, if that helps. (229lbft * 2500 / 5252)FYI - as a comparator when I drove the Golf GT TDI 115 on a similar patch of M way the instant readout for MPG would usually be mid 70's to high 80's, In fact when I had long 3hr M way stints with clear traffic I would try to maintain the instant readout as high as possible for the journey while keeping to the speed limit, anticipating overtakes even on the M way and slip streaming behind another car (at the std distance for safety) does make a notable difference to the MPG and in the correct way. HJournies never took any longer that way either + its a great feeling when you have nailed a good MPG along with a high ave speed.
benny.c, I guess it's different strokes for different folks in a way. I love my Evo becasue it's got lots of gizmos to make it go fast. It's quicker than a TVR, but a TVR is more of a drivers car. We all want different things from cars and that's ok. :-)
It works since all the previous kinetic energy is converted to potential and back again, less the inefficiency which is made up for by the little engine.
(In fact, once up to speed the caps will be almost empty and the little engine will continue to fill them. There is the potential problem that you hit the brakes and the energy can't be stored in the caps as they are already part full... so the system has big fkoff resitors built in to dissipate this excess energy to heat.)
otolith said:
You might be able to make a decent commuter car on the basis that constant speed motorway cruising doesn't need much power and energy storage in batteries or capacitors can suffice for brief, infrequent bouts of acceleration.
How much fun is it going to be on this?
[img]twisties[img]
OK, extreme example, but it's still going to suffer cross-country on a British B-road. The combined outputs of regenerative braking and puny engine are not going to be able to meet the average energy demands of prolonged repeated hard acceleration and braking on a twisty road driven hard.
I guess it comes down to how efficient the regeneration system is, and how big the engine is to keep the capacitors topped up. The puny engine needs merely to cover the difference between the energy recovered from braking and that required to acceleration. The specs on the prototype car I saw mooted somewhere north of 600Nm of torque and this will be sustained to get you back up to the speed you were doing before you hit the brakes. How much fun is it going to be on this?
[img]twisties[img]
OK, extreme example, but it's still going to suffer cross-country on a British B-road. The combined outputs of regenerative braking and puny engine are not going to be able to meet the average energy demands of prolonged repeated hard acceleration and braking on a twisty road driven hard.
It works since all the previous kinetic energy is converted to potential and back again, less the inefficiency which is made up for by the little engine.
(In fact, once up to speed the caps will be almost empty and the little engine will continue to fill them. There is the potential problem that you hit the brakes and the energy can't be stored in the caps as they are already part full... so the system has big fkoff resitors built in to dissipate this excess energy to heat.)
Edited by mrmr96 on Monday 12th May 15:16
mrmr96 said:
benny.c, I guess it's different strokes for different folks in a way. I love my Evo becasue it's got lots of gizmos to make it go fast. It's quicker than a TVR, but a TVR is more of a drivers car. We all want different things from cars and that's ok. :-)
I like Evo's and I'm not against gizmos that make cars quick (to an extent)l, I guess I just like good ol' petrol engines 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff