Discussion
it did seem to be well thought out, like material choice and selection of applications. could tell it was done by a designer, looked great! always been a fan of the z8.
but, and this is where i have the issue(s)
1) the petrol engine, or any engine for that matter is still in the car, is still running so will be producing emissions - so ill be taxed. it is still and engine being used and therefor needs fuel, maintenance and a mechanic if it goes bang - unlikely as its jap and will be doing next to no rpm and will just tick over. BUT combined with the fact it essentially doesnt do away with any of the maintenance costs, running costs and to an extent fuel costs WITH
2) the fact it has loads of batteries which have a shelf life - dont know on life span, (5-10 years right?) and associated running and maintenance of the car in general. electric system, and ancillaries like brakes etc etc
It just seems to be the worst of both worlds to me, apart from looking amazing.
it really doesnt make a strong case to go 'this is the way forwards' which is whats its going to take.
my 2 cents.
but, and this is where i have the issue(s)
1) the petrol engine, or any engine for that matter is still in the car, is still running so will be producing emissions - so ill be taxed. it is still and engine being used and therefor needs fuel, maintenance and a mechanic if it goes bang - unlikely as its jap and will be doing next to no rpm and will just tick over. BUT combined with the fact it essentially doesnt do away with any of the maintenance costs, running costs and to an extent fuel costs WITH
2) the fact it has loads of batteries which have a shelf life - dont know on life span, (5-10 years right?) and associated running and maintenance of the car in general. electric system, and ancillaries like brakes etc etc
It just seems to be the worst of both worlds to me, apart from looking amazing.
it really doesnt make a strong case to go 'this is the way forwards' which is whats its going to take.
my 2 cents.
johnhenry said:
2) the fact it has loads of batteries which have a shelf life - dont know on life span, (5-10 years right?) and associated running and maintenance of the car in general. electric system, and ancillaries like brakes etc etc
Probably not in a range extender - the car can very carefully manage the charge levels since it has a constant source of power to recharge them when needed. If the software is written right, the batteries should out-last the rest of the car.When they install turbines for generators, then we should start to see real benefits in mpg.
I can't see batteries ever holding as much energy size-for-size and weight-for-weight as a tank of explosive dinosaur juice. However, there's only so much fossil fuel in the ground, and it's becoming harder to get at the remainder so what we need is small and efficient turbine generators running on bio fuels (hydrogen has too many disadvantages relating to the energy involved in cracking water and then moving it around) and fewer batteries. Do away with the notion that we can run for miles and miles on batteries alone and embrace turbine generation. Alone, turbines are useless at driving a car because they cannot be revved up and down, but as constant speed but variable load generator, they work well.
And then cars will finally sound like KITT.
I can't see batteries ever holding as much energy size-for-size and weight-for-weight as a tank of explosive dinosaur juice. However, there's only so much fossil fuel in the ground, and it's becoming harder to get at the remainder so what we need is small and efficient turbine generators running on bio fuels (hydrogen has too many disadvantages relating to the energy involved in cracking water and then moving it around) and fewer batteries. Do away with the notion that we can run for miles and miles on batteries alone and embrace turbine generation. Alone, turbines are useless at driving a car because they cannot be revved up and down, but as constant speed but variable load generator, they work well.
And then cars will finally sound like KITT.
kambites said:
johnhenry said:
2) the fact it has loads of batteries which have a shelf life - dont know on life span, (5-10 years right?) and associated running and maintenance of the car in general. electric system, and ancillaries like brakes etc etc
Probably not in a range extender - the car can very carefully manage the charge levels since it has a constant source of power to recharge them when needed. If the software is written right, the batteries should out-last the rest of the car.I see every day where battery technology is and it would 100% dissuade me from buying a car that used batteries for anything significant (beyond starting!).
Maybe in 10-20 years time
M
scorchio said:
but its the torque thats simply wow 2x 479 lbft motors,
That is probably the stall torque. The torque output of a motor peaks when it's not turning, and reduces the faster it goes which is why it's such a good fit in a rail locomotive.An to those wondering why they don't use a small diesel - if you are running on the range extender the performance will be limited by the engine. With a 2.0L turbocharged petrol it's got a chance of being able to pull itself along at a reasonable speed.
To me this seems absolutely the wrong way to go. It's ultimately a bodge to make up for the limitations of current battery technology, and brings it's own considerable penalties in terms of weight and space.
I thought running a motor at a constant rpm was much better for ecomony?
But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
The report din't mention brake regeneration, so i'll assume it has it.
...oh and the older audi a8 had those roof solar panels ages ago
But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
The report din't mention brake regeneration, so i'll assume it has it.
...oh and the older audi a8 had those roof solar panels ages ago
esvcg said:
I thought running a motor at a constant rpm was much better for ecomony?
But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
The electrical power you get out of the generator is proportional to the mechanical power you put in. A low power diesel producing big torque numbers will not deliver the goods.But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
Running an engine at constant RPM is good for economy, providing that engine was designed to run economically at a fixed speed. Normal car engines don't fit this criteria.
So why are commercial generators generally diesel?
While its undoubtably a pretty car I can't help thinking they're going after the wrong market. A car that will do 50 miles on batteries but is still capable of bigger distances is going to be far more attractive to commuters than those wanting a grand tourer. This kind of technology in a Golf or Focus would sell well if the price was sensible.
I also agree that turbines are the way to go, the technology is already there with aircraft APUs and starter carts, and they can do silly amounts of hours with little maintenance due to the lack moving parts.
While its undoubtably a pretty car I can't help thinking they're going after the wrong market. A car that will do 50 miles on batteries but is still capable of bigger distances is going to be far more attractive to commuters than those wanting a grand tourer. This kind of technology in a Golf or Focus would sell well if the price was sensible.
I also agree that turbines are the way to go, the technology is already there with aircraft APUs and starter carts, and they can do silly amounts of hours with little maintenance due to the lack moving parts.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 21st February 10:05
marcosgt said:
lordlee said:
Lovely looking car and interesting too.
Sure all the armchair experts can pick it to pieces, but how many hybrid/electric cars that you can actually buy would you want to?
For me, there's only one and it's the Fisker.
M
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st February 10:05
Watchman said:
When they install turbines for generators, then we should start to see real benefits in mpg.
I can't see batteries ever holding as much energy size-for-size and weight-for-weight as a tank of explosive dinosaur juice. However, there's only so much fossil fuel in the ground, and it's becoming harder to get at the remainder so what we need is small and efficient turbine generators running on bio fuels (hydrogen has too many disadvantages relating to the energy involved in cracking water and then moving it around) and fewer batteries. Do away with the notion that we can run for miles and miles on batteries alone and embrace turbine generation. Alone, turbines are useless at driving a car because they cannot be revved up and down, but as constant speed but variable load generator, they work well.
And then cars will finally sound like KITT.
This is where I see the concept going - ditch the petrol car engine, we don't need the flexibility. We need a consistent source of electricity which a turbine is good at providing. I can't see batteries ever holding as much energy size-for-size and weight-for-weight as a tank of explosive dinosaur juice. However, there's only so much fossil fuel in the ground, and it's becoming harder to get at the remainder so what we need is small and efficient turbine generators running on bio fuels (hydrogen has too many disadvantages relating to the energy involved in cracking water and then moving it around) and fewer batteries. Do away with the notion that we can run for miles and miles on batteries alone and embrace turbine generation. Alone, turbines are useless at driving a car because they cannot be revved up and down, but as constant speed but variable load generator, they work well.
And then cars will finally sound like KITT.
Electric range is then not a problem, and neither is mpg (the turbine should be far more fuel efficient as it's normal running state is akin to a petrol engine idling), cars would need fewer batteries so weights can come down to a level where the school/supermarket run can be done on battery power, but longer journeys don't raise the 'charge lottery' issues they currently do.
With the range and charging issues solved, electric cars will become viable as everyday transport for far more people.
I like the look of the Fisker but it looks like the actual green credentials are still under debate. The EPA (US emissions tests) rate it at 52mpg on extended range journeys which isn't exactly outstanding and will be put well in the shade by some of the current "hybrid" supercars in development by Porsche, Ferrari, Honda, BMW, Jaguar.
Mr2Mike said:
esvcg said:
I thought running a motor at a constant rpm was much better for ecomony?
But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
The electrical power you get out of the generator is proportional to the mechanical power you put in. A low power diesel producing big torque numbers will not deliver the goods.But i also think to turn a generator you'd want as much torque as possible, so surely a diesel would be better? (altho probablt too heavy)
Running an engine at constant RPM is good for economy, providing that engine was designed to run economically at a fixed speed. Normal car engines don't fit this criteria.
-highest powered engine possible for the costing of the car,
-designed to run at constant rpm, with
-best mpg it can give and
-be as light as possible?
I really like the range extender idea, mainly because you can still charge it by the mains and just use electric for the short journeys, superb for short commuting.
As tech moves on, I can imagine one with a small turbocharged petrol engine could be very efficient, especially if it was designed for purpose and not a regular car engine.
As tech moves on, I can imagine one with a small turbocharged petrol engine could be very efficient, especially if it was designed for purpose and not a regular car engine.
esvcg said:
ok, so what we need is the
-highest powered engine possible for the costing of the car,
-designed to run at constant rpm, with
-best mpg it can give and
-be as light as possible?
Honda portable genset engine?-highest powered engine possible for the costing of the car,
-designed to run at constant rpm, with
-best mpg it can give and
-be as light as possible?
Serious suggestion - Honda have been building engines for exactly this purpose for years, mainly petrol engines too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff