RE: Geneva Special: Ferrari's Hybrid Future
Discussion
BSC said:
The hype about the hybrid powered cars sucks. In China every week two new coal-burning powerstations are opened. There are burning stuck piles in China as large as South-East England. Does anybod ask how much CO2 is de-allocated?
How many jets are flying around the world without catalytic converters?
How many military waste of fuels for transport of troops and material around the world? Military vehicles and aircraft are the most polluting you can imagine as environment protection that is lowest - if any - priority. And that for wars nobody has an interest in except military personnel and weapon producing companies.
Right, bang on, you're absolutely correct!How many jets are flying around the world without catalytic converters?
How many military waste of fuels for transport of troops and material around the world? Military vehicles and aircraft are the most polluting you can imagine as environment protection that is lowest - if any - priority. And that for wars nobody has an interest in except military personnel and weapon producing companies.
Edited by BSC on Tuesday 2nd March 23:53
But does that mean we should all give up? I walked alongside a busy road recently and the verge was COVERED in litter. Did that mean it was OK to throw my coffee cup into the hedge when I finished with it? No, of course not!
Fidgits said:
Crow555 said:
When there's no oil left, what are you going to run that Prius on?
Edited for a more important point.No matter how efficient a HYBRID is... its still a hybrid, it still needs oil-based source fuel to function.
and fully electric cars - dont make me laugh, terrible ranges, long recharge times, and where does the electricity come from?
We need to INNOVATE. Come up with a whole new solution, not a short term fix (which by the way, catalytic convertors were in the 80's, with the exception of one very significant point - they increased a CO2 emmisions by a substantial amount.... oops!)
First, lets start with catalytic converters. If you've ever been to a country where they are not law, or remember a time in the UK before they were common, you'll know what a god-awful stink non-catalysed cars make when you put lots of them together in a city-centre.
Next up, although hybrids currently use the same petrol non-hybrids do, they have the potential to use lots less of it. Taking the Prius as an obvious example, the car has gone through 3 generations, and the tech has improved immensely in even that short space of time. Petrol/diesel tech just can't keep up. Importantly, if demand for fuel drops, things like biofuels, hydrogen, alcohol etc can take their place. At the moment, demand for oil outstrips any ability to supply an alternative.
Finally, battery tech is coming on even faster than hybrid tech. Electricity comes from where ever you want it to.
Ferrari don't really want to have to play this game... they are out of their depth and being asked to do stuff their staff and customers don't understand. They will catch up, and this concept is designed to show that they are thinking about it.
Fidgits said:
Crow555 said:
When there's no oil left, what are you going to run that Prius on?
Edited for a more important point.No matter how efficient a HYBRID is... its still a hybrid, it still needs oil-based source fuel to function.
and fully electric cars - dont make me laugh, terrible ranges, long recharge times, and where does the electricity come from?
We need to INNOVATE. Come up with a whole new solution, not a short term fix (which by the way, catalytic convertors were in the 80's, with the exception of one very significant point - they increased a CO2 emmisions by a substantial amount.... oops!)
I'd have thought hybrids are innovation. We have TV's that use a fraction of the power of those 5 years ago. And yet picture quality has improved.
Since according to you hybrids are a short term fix (I don't particularly disagree with you there), I'd be interested in your thought as to what technologies would be worth investigating in as I'm sure you aren't suggesting that we simply use up all the oil and then ask "Right, what next?".
no - im saying hybrids are a short term fix.
So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
Fidgits said:
no - im saying hybrids are a short term fix.
So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
Thing is, I agree, hybrids as they stand ARE a short-term fix. But without a "range-extended hybrid" platform like a Chevy Volt for example, you can't have a hydrogen fuel cell as the generator instead of an IC engine. Trust me on that. And hydrogen itself is a sore subject with lots of unsolved technical problems if it is ever to hit the mass-market.So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
Hybrids have to happen. They are "of the moment" not for the future, maybe.
The whole CO2 thing is about controlling and taxing people. In labs, they already have genetically engineered bacteria that convert sunlight and CO2 from the atmosphere into isobutanol which can be used as a fossil fuel alternative. Give them a few years and 1% of the eco taxes and it'll be a viable global product.
alock said:
The whole CO2 thing is about controlling and taxing people. In labs, they already have genetically engineered bacteria that convert sunlight and CO2 from the atmosphere into isobutanol which can be used as a fossil fuel alternative. Give them a few years and 1% of the eco taxes and it'll be a viable global product.
You don't need a lab to do that... it's happening in my garden pond! 
V88Dicky said:
Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of all this carbon scam bu llsh it? There's no escape from it, everywhere you look, adverts on telly, radio, carbon trust this, act on CO2 that. All because they think a naturally occuring gas, vital to every living thing on earth is somehow taking over the atmosphere. At 385ppm I somehow don't think so, thats 0.0385%. Muppetry of the highest order is afoot.
I couldn't agree more, it's driving me nuts. It amazes me how many supposedly intelligent people have been duped by this carbon scam.Fidgits said:
well, theres a massive hole in the ozone layer.
open nickel mining (which has increased thanks to the explosion in hybrids) causes acid rain..
Explosion?open nickel mining (which has increased thanks to the explosion in hybrids) causes acid rain..
Toyota take less than 1% of the nickel from the sudbury mine (no doubt youve seen the pictures from the 1970s)
Burning oil causes acid rain from the NoX emissions, not making batteries.
Fidgits said:
no - im saying hybrids are a short term fix.
So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
Not as quickly sounds fine to me....So what if they get 60MPG rather than 45MPG? the oils still going to run out - just not quite as quickly...
we need a completley new idea of propulsion, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells (im not saying this is THE answer, but at least its innovative)
So your first hydrogen fuel cell car is a test piece for
a) batteries and controllers
b) electric drivetrains
c) fuel cells.
Or will they be just
a) fuel cells?
Thanks to 20 years or so of development of hybrid cars to establish knowledge and volumes of scale in the electric bits the second option there is the realistic one.
Then the oil companies will look after the H2 bit (even though I think its a naff idea) and everything has moved on in relatively simple steps? Sounds an innovative and sustainable business model to me.
Edited by JonnyVTEC on Wednesday 3rd March 23:00
Mr Whippy said:
I can't see hybrids working out cheaper in the long run, even with economies of scale in mind. Extra batteries, motors and weight will always be present vs a car sans that lot, and that will always have additional costs etc...
Will just have to see I guess. As far as public not being thick, I agree, but when their product is biased by politically set targets for no REAL reason, then it's bad.
Spend the money that has been on developing hybrids to optimise for CO2/mpg cycle test into improving car efficiency generally all over, and would it perhaps have already matched the benefits from hybrids?!
Dave
fWill just have to see I guess. As far as public not being thick, I agree, but when their product is biased by politically set targets for no REAL reason, then it's bad.
Spend the money that has been on developing hybrids to optimise for CO2/mpg cycle test into improving car efficiency generally all over, and would it perhaps have already matched the benefits from hybrids?!
Dave
k me sideways.THEY ARE!!!
What do you think all Autocars various stories on BMW have been about over the last 6months? What do you think my posts on BMW burning *gargantuan* sums of money on efficiency R&D have been trying to point out?
The Japs have been investing in this tech since the early/mid 90s. The Insight was developed from '94 onwards and shown in the Uk for the first time in '96. The Germans missed the boat by 10yrs and now having to play catch up as the Japs are 2 generations ahead.
Politics is setting arbitary figures. The buying public though couldnt give a f
k about those arbitary figures as they have never heard about them, but they do care about the price of fuel as that affects them everyday. The Manufacturers are reacting to the customer requirements and that is efficient cars. The German diesel tech R&D tree is netting them every decreasing returns on cash invested, the hybrid route is just starting.DJC said:
Mr Whippy said:
I can't see hybrids working out cheaper in the long run, even with economies of scale in mind. Extra batteries, motors and weight will always be present vs a car sans that lot, and that will always have additional costs etc...
Will just have to see I guess. As far as public not being thick, I agree, but when their product is biased by politically set targets for no REAL reason, then it's bad.
Spend the money that has been on developing hybrids to optimise for CO2/mpg cycle test into improving car efficiency generally all over, and would it perhaps have already matched the benefits from hybrids?!
Dave
fWill just have to see I guess. As far as public not being thick, I agree, but when their product is biased by politically set targets for no REAL reason, then it's bad.
Spend the money that has been on developing hybrids to optimise for CO2/mpg cycle test into improving car efficiency generally all over, and would it perhaps have already matched the benefits from hybrids?!
Dave
k me sideways.THEY ARE!!!
What do you think all Autocars various stories on BMW have been about over the last 6months? What do you think my posts on BMW burning *gargantuan* sums of money on efficiency R&D have been trying to point out?
The Japs have been investing in this tech since the early/mid 90s. The Insight was developed from '94 onwards and shown in the Uk for the first time in '96. The Germans missed the boat by 10yrs and now having to play catch up as the Japs are 2 generations ahead.
Politics is setting arbitary figures. The buying public though couldnt give a f
k about those arbitary figures as they have never heard about them, but they do care about the price of fuel as that affects them everyday. The Manufacturers are reacting to the customer requirements and that is efficient cars. The German diesel tech R&D tree is netting them every decreasing returns on cash invested, the hybrid route is just starting.The test to determine CO2 is flawed in many ways.
I'm not saying they are not more efficient, if you read my post you would gather that. Rather than responding in a blind retarded rage, notice I'm asking if the money/time/effort spent would have resulted in more wide ranging efficiency benefits if they had just targetted efficiency in many different areas rather than JUST a simple computer controlled rather unlikely driving cycle that has it's flaws.
How about tyre life, brake lifetime. All that added weight will mean more tyres produced. How about dust to dust CO2 cost of the electric motors, batteries and associated parts?
Are these cars REALLY much more efficient, or does a single number generated from injected amount after a brief dyno test-bed run to simulate real-life driving, with odd forced constraints, represent efficiency?
Do the hybrids start the test with full batteries for example?
Sorry, I get what you are saying, but the CO2 figure is fairly well meaningless. It is indicative of being more efficient, but it's as retarded as saying an electric car has ZERO emissions.
The picture isn't clear on overall efficiency. When you emphasise CO2 targets without being penalised, what will an industry do, develop products to produce low CO2 numbers in the required test specifications.
So that is what we get, cars that get good results on the combined cycle CO2 test. It's indicative of efficiency, but doesn't PROVE it.
PDK vs manual 911 is perfect proof of the bias of the poor testing procedure.
Dave
CO2 is a non-problem, and when all four wheels of the AGW bandwagon have finally come off and it goes flying off the cliff, we will be left with a world where the internal combustion engine has been pensioned off way before its time, and any surviving engines will be turbo four pots. 
Stupid targets chasing a made-up number for a made-up reason.
It's preventing proper development as manufactures get tied up with stupid, punitive legislation. For the amount of cars Ferrari produce (and the mileage many of them do), the CO2 emissions are utterly, utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
At some point in the future, the world will look back on our generation with pity and amusement - much like we do now with those who believed you could sail off the edge of the world, that the sun went around the earth or that Katie Price isn't a money-grabbing, vain, egotistical attention-we.
The sooner we leave all this foolish CO2 nonsense behind and deal with more considerable and more environmentally-damaging activities such as tackling waste being pumped into rivers and the sea, and all the millions of tonnes of crap we simply dump in the ground, the better. What comes out of an exhaust pipe really should be further down the list of priorities, especially when money is tight in the car industry.
It's preventing proper development as manufactures get tied up with stupid, punitive legislation. For the amount of cars Ferrari produce (and the mileage many of them do), the CO2 emissions are utterly, utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
At some point in the future, the world will look back on our generation with pity and amusement - much like we do now with those who believed you could sail off the edge of the world, that the sun went around the earth or that Katie Price isn't a money-grabbing, vain, egotistical attention-w
e.The sooner we leave all this foolish CO2 nonsense behind and deal with more considerable and more environmentally-damaging activities such as tackling waste being pumped into rivers and the sea, and all the millions of tonnes of crap we simply dump in the ground, the better. What comes out of an exhaust pipe really should be further down the list of priorities, especially when money is tight in the car industry.
Mr Whippy said:
stuff
The fuel consumption/CO2 tests are imperfect, anyone can see that. But then you can't design a test that ever would be! There's no such thing as "real world" mpg/CO2 because everyone's "real world" is different.What the CO2 figures demonstrate best to me is not how much I will be ruining the environment, but how much I will be paying for fuel and roadtax. A low CO2 figure is good for showing how much fuel your car will drink. What it won't show you, is how much pollution the car will cause over the length of it's life, or how it will be driven, or how well it will be maintained. If you show me a system whereby you can solve those, I would be interested.
The closest you can get is tax on fuel, which is a pay-as-you-go way to punish heavy users and reward low-users.
Funk said:
Stupid targets chasing a made-up number for a made-up reason.
It's preventing proper development as manufactures get tied up with stupid, punitive legislation. For the amount of cars Ferrari produce (and the mileage many of them do), the CO2 emissions are utterly, utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
At some point in the future, the world will look back on our generation with pity and amusement - much like we do now with those who believed you could sail off the edge of the world, that the sun went around the earth or that Katie Price isn't a money-grabbing, vain, egotistical attention-we.
The sooner we leave all this foolish CO2 nonsense behind and deal with more considerable and more environmentally-damaging activities such as tackling waste being pumped into rivers and the sea, and all the millions of tonnes of crap we simply dump in the ground, the better. What comes out of an exhaust pipe really should be further down the list of priorities, especially when money is tight in the car industry.
The world is full of problems caused by man: war, famine, over-population, deforestation, ocean dumpage, over-fishing, depletion of resources, exploitation of endangered species, space junk... and air pollution... a small subset of which is caused by motor vehicles.It's preventing proper development as manufactures get tied up with stupid, punitive legislation. For the amount of cars Ferrari produce (and the mileage many of them do), the CO2 emissions are utterly, utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
At some point in the future, the world will look back on our generation with pity and amusement - much like we do now with those who believed you could sail off the edge of the world, that the sun went around the earth or that Katie Price isn't a money-grabbing, vain, egotistical attention-w
e.The sooner we leave all this foolish CO2 nonsense behind and deal with more considerable and more environmentally-damaging activities such as tackling waste being pumped into rivers and the sea, and all the millions of tonnes of crap we simply dump in the ground, the better. What comes out of an exhaust pipe really should be further down the list of priorities, especially when money is tight in the car industry.
Just because its a small part of an enormous and complex problem doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. One day your V8 will be obsolete. Boo Hoo. You can go down the stables and brush it, and play with it at weekends if you are rich enough like some people do with their obsolete horses these days.
Mr Gear said:
Mr Whippy said:
stuff
The fuel consumption/CO2 tests are imperfect, anyone can see that. But then you can't design a test that ever would be! There's no such thing as "real world" mpg/CO2 because everyone's "real world" is different.What the CO2 figures demonstrate best to me is not how much I will be ruining the environment, but how much I will be paying for fuel and roadtax. A low CO2 figure is good for showing how much fuel your car will drink. What it won't show you, is how much pollution the car will cause over the length of it's life, or how it will be driven, or how well it will be maintained. If you show me a system whereby you can solve those, I would be interested.
The closest you can get is tax on fuel, which is a pay-as-you-go way to punish heavy users and reward low-users.
In my view, the cycles should be varied. Much like you are quoted for urban, extra urban and motorway, how about setting some targets on mpg (CO2) disparity, so that urban/extra urban need to be close to each other, and having a much longer test.
Things like hybrid battery start state are a consideration too, empty, half-full, full? That biases the results massively too.
Too many variables to make one figure representative, yet it is THE one figure that matters to the manufacturers. They are not necessarily aiming for efficiency, just to make that number low. If a hybrid does that job at the lowest cost, then they will do it, irrespective of if the test criteria bias it to start with by having a full battery at the start!
Dave
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff