James May's Cars of the People
Discussion
ClockworkCupcake said:
One thing I thought he could have mentioned about the Jet Turbine car, which was pretty fundamental, was they had absolutely lousy throttle response that meant that they just did not lend themselves to automotive applications at all. Not a problem for aircraft or boats, but a bit of a show-stopper for a car. They were also rather noisy. Instead he made it sound like the only thing that prevented adoption was the lead in the fuel at the time.
Yes, they're also extremely expensive compared to a regular engines and guzzle fuel even at "idle" like it's going out of fashion. Gas turbine powered tanks like the American M1 Abrams need a huge tanker fleet to support them.Vocal Minority said:
As James May pointed out, all new technology starts out expensive - but they seem to be getting the technology more user friendly.
I think electrics principal achilles heel currently is charge time - Tesla really seem to be getting on top of the remaining tech issues.
These wireless induction charging pads you can get for your phone etc. Bigger versions of that, in front of the traffic lights and in public car parks. Years from now people will call me a visionary.I think electrics principal achilles heel currently is charge time - Tesla really seem to be getting on top of the remaining tech issues.
My pie is well and truly in the sky tonight!
marksx said:
These wireless induction charging pads you can get for your phone etc. Bigger versions of that, in front of the traffic lights and in public car parks. Years from now people will call me a visionary.
My pie is well and truly in the sky tonight!
inductive charging is horribly inefficient, let alonenthe costs and additional weight to the cars.My pie is well and truly in the sky tonight!
Battery tech is getting there, the real issue is where does the electricity come from in the first place.
Scuffers said:
if we must go fuel cell, Direct methanol fuel cell is probably a better bet on ground the energy density of methanol is massively higher than hydrogen and it's an awful lot safer to store and transport.
it can also be manufactured by various methods that don't involve fossil fuels
You could argue that it is much more of a health hazard than hydrogen though. But then again, so is petrol and diesel. Added benefit, you can put the fire out with water if it did go up.it can also be manufactured by various methods that don't involve fossil fuels
Scuffers said:
inductive charging is horribly inefficient, let alonenthe costs and additional weight to the cars.
Battery tech is getting there, the real issue is where does the electricity come from in the first place.
I haven't put any thought into this! Battery tech is getting there, the real issue is where does the electricity come from in the first place.
marksx said:
You could argue that it is much more of a health hazard than hydrogen though. But then again, so is petrol and diesel. Added benefit, you can put the fire out with water if it did go up.
What's the hazard with methanol?Its a stable liquid at room temp, it's not corrosive, it does not explode, etc etc.
Hydrogen at 700 bar is somewhat more problematic.
Scuffers said:
What's the hazard with methanol?
Its a stable liquid at room temp, it's not corrosive, it does not explode, etc etc.
Hydrogen at 700 bar is somewhat more problematic.
It's toxicity.Its a stable liquid at room temp, it's not corrosive, it does not explode, etc etc.
Hydrogen at 700 bar is somewhat more problematic.
http://kni.caltech.edu/facilities/msds/methanol.pd...
otolith said:
One thing we definitely won't be doing is synthesising fuel to burn in IC engines.
I concur. It'll be range-extended hybrids. Although I foresee traditional petrol cars run as hobbies at ruinous cost the same way as horse riders do now. After all, horses were once like cars.
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, they're also extremely expensive compared to a regular engines and guzzle fuel even at "idle" like it's going out of fashion. Gas turbine powered tanks like the American M1 Abrams need a huge tanker fleet to support them.
very realible and i am sure with development problems could be overcome.The Spruce goose said:
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, they're also extremely expensive compared to a regular engines and guzzle fuel even at "idle" like it's going out of fashion. Gas turbine powered tanks like the American M1 Abrams need a huge tanker fleet to support them.
very realible and i am sure with development problems could be overcome.That said (I'll confess to being out of date these days) I don't know if there'd be more opportunity in the era of hybrids and more economical turbine manufacturing processes!
The Spruce goose said:
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, they're also extremely expensive compared to a regular engines and guzzle fuel even at "idle" like it's going out of fashion. Gas turbine powered tanks like the American M1 Abrams need a huge tanker fleet to support them.
very reliable and i am sure with development problems could be overcome.only way to make them really efficient is to run them CCGT, ie, post turbine heat recovery (steam plant like power stations do), this in a car is somewhat impractical.
I think the best plan at the moment is battery with methanol direct fuel cell charging it, in this setup the fuel cell does not need to be huge (like the 100Kw one in the hyundai) as the peak loads are run from the battery, but the fuel cell is working 24/7 charging the battery (until it's charged or plugged in), so it only has to be the size to cover the total KW/h of the max daily use.
Scuffers said:
The Spruce goose said:
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, they're also extremely expensive compared to a regular engines and guzzle fuel even at "idle" like it's going out of fashion. Gas turbine powered tanks like the American M1 Abrams need a huge tanker fleet to support them.
very reliable and i am sure with development problems could be overcome.only way to make them really efficient is to run them CCGT, ie, post turbine heat recovery (steam plant like power stations do), this in a car is somewhat impractical.
I think the best plan at the moment is battery with methanol direct fuel cell charging it, in this setup the fuel cell does not need to be huge (like the 100Kw one in the hyundai) as the peak loads are run from the battery, but the fuel cell is working 24/7 charging the battery (until it's charged or plugged in), so it only has to be the size to cover the total KW/h of the max daily use.
http://www.imperialclub.com/~imperialclub/Yr/1963/...
But yeah turbines are really not any more efficient than a reciprocating engine (probably worse at many points). They can be smaller for a given power, but they suit constant speed/load operation over the massively transient stuff you get in driving. The main benefit I see really is that you can run it on pretty much any combustible fluid. I guess that is why the US put one in the back of their Abrams tank. If you're stuck out in the field and need to get out, you can probably scavenge some burnable fluid from somewhere easier than needing to find diesel.
Its a fascinating car though and some of the design details on it are exquisite. Definitely one of my favourite cars and good poster car for the 50's post war amercia can do anything mentality.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff