Chevy Bolt concept - 200 mile range, $30,000 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 09:31:46 pm
content: Greetings EEVBies... (just kidding)I'd never buy a Chevrolet in my life (or the sister Vauxhall over here), but this is interesting:http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/Jan/naias/chevrolet/bolt/0112-bolt.html200+ mile range EPA, realistically that's about 150-180 miles motorway, which isn't too bad.Maybe Tesla will consider licencing supercharger technology to them.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:32:09 pm
content: -I'd never buy a Chevrolet in my life (-You don't need to worry about it, those nice folks at Chevy never considered you a customer.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:39:53 pm
content: They do sell Chevrolets here but it's not a big brand. See them advertising on TV occasionally, too. Vauxhall is bigger and closer to Opel in design but it's all GM.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 11:36:52 pm
content: I'm not going to get a car that looks like that. Let's wait for Tesla's Model III.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 11:48:32 pm
content: $30K for 200 mile range... If they sold them in N.D., and had a decent warranty on them, I'd get one tomorrow.Average daily trip, like 99% of the time, 35 miles at most in 2 chunks (to and from work).But they don't, and they don't. I've still got an '88 Chevy Sprint Metro. Might pollute more overall, but still gets ~54MPG (summer) and I got it for $300 back in '98. Ain't perty, ain't comfortable...mostly isn't comfortable because my wallet is so THICK!!!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 12:47:22 am
content: QuoteI have a truck that I use maybe twice a year. On the highway, it gets like 10 mpg, on diesel,Not too long ago, I had a gasoline engine that gets 15mpg in town and maybe 20mpg for highway driving.I used to own a 1987 Chevy Nova that gets like 35 mpg, made in the 1980s.We haven't made a lot of progress over the last 30 years.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 01:43:59 am
content: While I vowed to never buy another Chevy again after having a real turd of a car from them (a new '98 Corvette, was glad to get rid of it at end of lease), I am glad to see them taking EV tech seriously. I hope this model sells well for them, even if I doubt it will compete favorably against the Tesla 3. There's a chance that this will even beat the 3 to market - if Chevy can avoid slipping the schedule - which would put this car in a really good position. While Toyota wastes time on H cells and milking their 15-years old hybrid tech, I'd like to see more American carmakers step up to the plate with real EV options.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 09:52:34 am
content: What is the carbon footprint of manufacturing a car only used 2 years?Sure you can sell it and it gets reused but that might not happen and it goes to the scrap yard instead

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 10:26:07 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 13, 2015, 09:52:34 amI've seen crazy variations in the estimated energy required to build a car, ranging from a few percent of the energy it uses in fuel over its life to 10 times the energy it uses in fuel over its life. I see glaring silly errors in most of these estimations, and I see lots of things omitted. I don't think anyone has a real clue what the real figures are.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:05:41 am
content: I can't get excited over an electric Nissan Micra, they were bad enough with the petrol engine in!With the realistic motorway (highway for the rest of the world) range for these things I would have to plug it in every day!If there is one thing that most of us are, that is lazy! Well I am anyway.With reports of high cost in batteries, I wonder how much it would cost to replace the battery pack when it was done for.There are pros and cons on most fuel types, I kind of hoped that Hydrogen fuel cells would have taken off, but they seem to have been forgotten about, they sounded promising on the face of it at least.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 03:19:21 pm
content: QuoteThat's a typical tree hugger behavior: insist that others reduce their carbon footprint and then indulge self in a carbon bath, the environment be damned.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 03:21:02 pm
content: QuoteYou have no idea about finance.No wonder you insist on the government managing your (however little) money for you,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 04:07:41 pm
content: There are too many holes in your story that I wouldn't list them all, but this one:QuoteAs you are the owner of the vehicle, you can never "walk away" from something you own, conditionally or unconditionally.The product you described (largely) doesn't exist in the developed country. "Largely" because I cannot rule out a wacko finance company somewhere doing it to trap people.In your case, you have two outcomes:1) you misunderstood the contract and there is money coming your way at the end of the contract;2) you had made an interest loan to the financing company for the duration of your contract.No, I don't expect you to understand any part of it. But good luck, lots of it, as you will need it.And you are absolutely right - in your case, an incompetent and wasteful government is much better at investing your money than you will ever be.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 04:20:59 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2015, 04:07:41 pmI'm pretty sure he has leased the car. Perhaps they call it something different in other countries, but in a lease you pay the depreciation only, plus a "money factor" (like interest). When the lease term is up, you can turn it over to the leasing company, or keep it, or sell it back to the dealer. The lease specifies a residual value at lease end - so if the residual is $20k but the market value is $25k... it makes sense to buy it and sell it.In actuality, you don't ever actually buy out the car unless you are intending on keeping it - it's an all-on-paper transaction where you just get a check back at lease end.The only thing that doesn't fit is that he says he owns the car. In a lease, the finance company owns the car and holds title, but the lessee has most of the same rights and responsibilities as if they were the owner.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 04:39:04 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2015, 04:07:41 pmIn Europe you can get a guaranteed buy-back price for a car so you have a fixed maximum depreciation. Just take it back and you'll get a price which has been set by a contract. Is that so hard to understand?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 05:17:32 pm
content: dare i say it ? only a NUT would buy a Bolt.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 05:19:29 pm
content: GM here sells mostly Opel, Daewoo and Hyundai badged units, with the odd Holden ( not for much longer either or until the stock is finished), with the higher priced vehicles being imports mostly from Europe.As to electric vehicles the only ones you see are the few Toyota Prius and the Lexus hybrids, which are a very nice vehicle.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 06:48:35 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on January 13, 2015, 05:17:32 pmAnd wouldn't have any money left over for a washer...

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 08:00:32 pm
content: The Bolt (stupid name!) will likely do well as another step in the direction of more EVs and less ICE vehicles. It will offer an alternative low end EV to compete with the Tesla model 3.Of course there is already a mass produced 200 mi range EV - the Nissan Leaf - but its quirky fugly design has limited appeal.(my bad- the current Leaf range is much less)But it's just a stepping stone. Until there exists a national fast charging network on par or exceeding the one Tesla is building, range anxiety will be a real limiter. While studies show 95% of Americans drive less than 40 miles in a typical day, most still make occasional longer trips.This is why for now the "series hybrid" type "extended range EVs" which plug in and allow a short all electric range with a small on board ICE to charge the battery pack and allow longer trips without the range anxiety make sense.The haters and doubters who have never actually driven such a car will whine about their shortcomings but the bottom line is they work great. Several manufacturers are building these now. The flagship is of course the Chevy Volt, which has the highest customer satisfaction ratings ever reported which are consistently over 90%True - its sales have not met expectations - which in no small part is due to the unfortunate politicalization of it. It's a car for crying out loud - but for the far right in the US it became a crusade to destroy it. Bob Lutz, the Chevy executive behind its development - and a political conservative - spelled it out inthis recent interviewQuoteAnd for the one-note charlie "let EVs succeed on their own merits" yada yada yada folks. The history of tax incentives and government support for the traditional auto industry dwarfs any and all EV tax incentives and support to date. Government, for all its excesses and over reaching sometimes does the right things - e.g. seat belts, air bags and EVsPersonally - I have owned many cars over the years - none of them American designed and built until now. This past August my Subaru was totaled and I bought a Volt!. My work commute is 13 miles round trip. The only gas I've burned in it was when I drove it home from Seattle and a few other longish trips. I've burned about 5 gallons of gas in 4 months. It is amazing not to have to go to the gas station once a week any more. I do own a Toyota Tundra truck for the heavy snow days and for hauling stuff but I only put about 2000 miles a year on it.And the Volt is a great driving car with incredible torque. My commute home includes a 5 mile drive on a mountain road climbing 1500 feet and I can pass slow vehicles with ease.It is really an amazing piece of engineering. The Voltec drivetrain and the battery management are engineering masterpieces. This is an engineering forum after all ,,,

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 08:18:43 pm
content: The current-gen Leaf does 110 miles EPA. But Carlos Ghosn of Nissan has said they're working on a 200+ mile Leaf.I will probably own one ICE car in my life (diesel Peugeot hand-me-down.) After that, I plan to buy the Tesla Model III and become fully independent of fuel burning vehicles...I don't see the "econobox" (sub-$20,000 market) being electric any time. This is a difficult market to build ICE cars for, let alone cars with big expensive battery packs. I do expect that as the EU/EPA/etc mandates increasing efficiency improvements that they will be using hybrid drivetrains, probably micro-hybrid types, with almost all low speed city driving (<30mph) done through the electric motor.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 08:21:14 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2015, 08:18:43 pmOOPs -you're right. I guess I was thinking of the 2016 Leaf range I recently read about! Thanks for the correction.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 09:19:56 pm
content: Lol, the Leaf is an electric Micra, it even looks the bloody same with it's weird front end!I love the smell of petrol, I do think they need something else though, but the battery technology just doesn't seem to be able to compete with petrol yet, I can't remember ever seeing an electric hook up point, I like the fact I can get a week to work and back without trying to find a petrol station or a plug socket anywhere.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 09:30:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 13, 2015, 09:19:56 pmIt's not based off the Micra chassis. It's based vaguely off the Tilda/Versa chassis, but has a unique body structure. It's also really quite big. It's about the same size as my dad's old 206, and it seats 5 people comfortably (though rear legroom is a little limited)

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 10:55:58 pm
content: Can of worms coming right up!But ALL you're doing is moving the source of harmful emissions and pollutants from directly behind you to miles away at the regional power plant!!!

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:17:29 pm
content: Ok, technically it might not be based on the Micra, but essentially that is what it is seen as, for me there are still too many unknowns for an electric car. Hybrid seems a bit better as you have a backup, but full electric, hmmm.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:39:58 pm
content: QuoteMaybe you should take that advice yourself?Q: who makes that "Optional Final Payment"?Choices: You or Nissan?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:40:36 pm
content: QuoteNo. It is just the way you DON't understand the contract.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2015, 11:39:58 pmEither...If you make it, you then own the car. You've bought it off the finance company. Since the finance company is usually Nissan themselves, you've just essentially leased a car then bought it, it becomes a hire-purchase agreement. Although usually more expensive than just a normal HP agreement, plus you have one large payment at the end which isn't covered by monthly installments.If you don't make it, then you don't own the car. You return it to the dealership and the dealer will then sell it as a used car or lease it again or use it as a courtesy/loaner car or do something else with it.This is a pretty common arrangement in the UK. You can also get a car via hire-purchase. This acts similarly to the lease but you own the car in the end and the final payment is much smaller. I believe the rate is generally a little higher and there are no mileage or wear and tear limits (though if you default they'll take the car to cover the cost - if it's badly damaged they'll want extra costs.)Tesla have a finance agreement on their cars, which are usually 60 month loans. At months 36-39 you can sell the car back to Tesla for the remaining principal at a guaranteed figure, they don't pay you anything as they just write off the part of the loan covered by the resale guarantee.Lots of financial fudging but it makes some cars much more affordable than they would actually be.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2015, 11:40:36 pmThe know it all has spoken.Why does anyone bother engaging with him once he has bestowed his wisdom?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:53:47 am
content: QuoteYou should also insist the incompetent and wasteful government invest your money for you,

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:56:35 am
content: I must be honest, Nissan's everyday car market for me is like Marmite.I used to have a Primera GT, which I thought for it's time, the styling was pretty nice, then they bought out the new Primera, and it kind of went down hill from there for me (personal opinion). Now what with the Cube, Juke, Qashqai, newer Micra's and now the Micra++ (Leaf) I do not get their styling at all, the GTR thankfully has definately improved with age.It's like BMW decided to split their car ranges to 2 series, 4 series etc, which are basically 1 and 3 series cabriolet and coupes, kind of a unnecessary (for Joe public, not for their profits) money making scheme in my eyes.For my everyday needs electric cars have to have been around for more than a few years to get proper feedback and results for them to be a replacement for Diesel or Petrol, so many things to go wrong, at least with a mechanical engine you can jump start (or hill start) and if there is a power malfunction it just takes your clock out on you radio, hybrids were seemingly a "good idea" but even they haven't had much market exposure, seems the Prius has taken the market share, not many people know Honda make a few Hybrids for example but everyone has heard of a Prius for some reason or another.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 01:02:28 am
content: I had always been a Nissan fan, until recently. Owned a 510, 280ZTurbo, a couple 300ZX. Loved every single one of them. Always wanted to own a Cedric / Gloria, never had a chance.Had a G37X briefly and a terribly engineered car: soft at high speed and harsh at low speed, a transmission that hunts for the right gear always at the wrong time.I hope one day they could bring back those simple and fun cars of the past.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 01:49:14 am
content: Ahh we had the 300zx (fairlady I think was the "codename"), the 200sx, 100nx, seen a few 240's, the silvia s15, also a few under the Datsun brand in the day (Bluebird 510)! And of course the newer 350Z and 370Z, all decent looking, fun cars, I don't know what the current offering is in other countries, but they certainly do not make them like they used to!Edit---I think the 240 was a Datsun branded model.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:00:26 am
content: Both the 240 and 280 are Datsun.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:08:18 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 13, 2015, 11:20:31 pmI don't see how you can own the car - the finance company is holding the title, aren't they? So they own the car until the title is transferred to you (presumably when the debt they paid on the car is satisfied).And is your payment the price of the car divided by the number of months you financed it over? Or is your payment just the depreciation? So if the car is $40,000 and the agreed-upon price after 2 years is $16,000.... the difference then being $24,000. And you do this program over 2 years... are you paying $1,000 per month or $1667/mo?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:09:01 am
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 14, 2015, 12:56:35 amIts certainly true that only Toyota (plus people it supplies drives to, like Hino vans) has achieved any success with hybrids, but they have had a lot of exposure now, and seem to stand up. Hundreds of thousands are in use, and they get used in punishing applications like taxis and police cars (though not of the high speed chase variety). You may or may not like what they offer, but they do work reliably over a number of years. For what was really a first generation attempt at doing something, using a battery technology (NiMh) with a lousy track record for long service, I am amazed who well they are standing the test of time.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:14:42 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 13, 2015, 10:55:58 pmActually no. Even with the typical coal dominant energy mix for electricity production - efficiencies gained by driving an EV vs an ICE only vehicle mean less pollutants.But even better - where I live in the Pacific NW - the vast majority of electricity is from Hydro power. And for about 6 months of the year my solar PV produces enough excess electricity to charge my car if I need it to. I like being independent of the grid and the gas stations as much as possible. But as I have said repeatedly - EVs and renewables do not solve every problem - it's only a partial solution.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:22:55 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 13, 2015, 10:55:58 pmNot true.EV's pollute substantially less. But even if they polluted the same, it is MUCH easier to scrub air, collect pollutants and filter out impurities in a single place on a large scale where there is a staff working 24/7 to maintain that equipment and ensure it's working right, and some very deep pockets backing up that staff and the equipment who answer to groups like the EPA.......than it is to do all those tasks at the point of use on millions upon millions of cars individually.That's the reason we (most of us anyway) don't grow our own food, slaughter and prepare our own cattle, make our own wine, weave our own cloth, refine our own gasoline or develop our own medicines. These, like stopping pollution, are all things which make a lot more sense at a large scale macro level than trying to do individually.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:31:16 am
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 13, 2015, 11:17:29 pmAs someone pointed out, the Leaf is basically an electrified Tilda/Versa. Its a considerably bigger car than the Micra. I assume tilda is a Japanese word meaning something very ugly. I couldn't find anything nice to say about the Tilda after I had a rental one for a week, but its definitely nothing like a Micra.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 03:00:15 am
content: Ya, I know... I just wanted to start some shitRegardless of the source of electricity, coal power plant, hydro, nuclear, solar, whatever, I've got no doubt that driving a full-on EV is more efficient than an ICE, in terms of pollution generated (whether it be at the source of electricity or at the source of the tailpipe for the ICE), efficiency in the power generation (mass generation of electricity by burning a fossil fuel vs. generation of horsepower to turn wheels by burning a fossil fuel), and a thousand other factors.Heck, I'm even in the camp that still wants to use Pb batteries in EV's if only because a PB battery is damn near almost 100% recyclable. Of course they don't have the AH capacity or charge/discharge cycle capability of other technologies (NiMH, LiPo, whatever), but facts are facts that you can't recycle the material in a NiMH or LiPo battery nearly as easily or cheaply as you can a Pb battery. And, sure, I believe in the future, the technology will advance far enough to make recycling old NiMH or LiPo packs as efficient, cheap, and easy as Pb batteries...but I don't think the world as a whole is there quite yet. I think that's another place where a combination of technologies might be a good thing. Something along the lines of using LiPo batt's for bulk storage and Pb batt's for massive intermittent juice dumps...go easy on the LiPo's, beat the hell out the Pb's.But that's just me...I'm weird that way...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 03:52:41 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 14, 2015, 03:00:15 amTrust me, you don't want a lead acid battery EV. I drove an experimental one back in the early 90s, which was build from a Ford Escort. The suspension had to be beefed up to support the tons of batteries. It accelerated like a rocket, but turned and braked like a freight train doesn't. More advanced braking could have helped it stop, but nothing was going to make an object that heavy turn well, even, if the batteries were re-engineered to sit very low in the car.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 06:43:42 am
content: I really don't understand why people even consider to buy modern cars. All those electronic gizmos in them are usually source of problems and additional costs, engines are terribly downsized which translates to lower lifetime and so on. I know that manufacturers can't make cars that do not break, becuse they stop earning money (like it happened to Mercedes with W124).I think it's cheaper in longer run to buy an old Mercedes, Saab, Audi or something simple like that, replace all the parts that are worn out and you'll still be saving like 50-80% of the money compared to buying a new car and it will probably last for another 20 years without major repairs.Aside from that - new cars are annoying. For example my parents have a 2014 Opel Astra Mk4 (also GM...), I drove it once and it's a freaking nightmare. When you start the car it will inform you about tons of stuff, remind of shitloads of other stuff, beep several times for different reasons, basically you have a start procedure like it was a space shuttle... Who the bloody fuck needs that? I wanna get in, start the engine and go without being bothered unless there is some serious problem.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 07:24:36 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2015, 12:53:47 amYou should probably do the same, knowing nothing about leasing or finance agreements.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 11:10:47 am
content: I don't mind the look of the Prius, Toyota do not make bad cars at all really.I guess we don't have those other cars here in the UK, or I've not seen any if we do, the closest looking car to the Leaf is the Micra, it's like the Audi TT used to closely resemble a squashed VW Beetle, probably completely different, but thats what it was referred to as.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:04:10 pm
content: QuoteWow.Good luck in life.You will need lots of it.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:11:07 pm
content: Danny, you're just being a troll now. Perhaps you should indicate where you disagree? What mojochan has described is a very common finance agreement in the UK. It's not a scam.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 06:08:51 pm
content: (I really should know better than to post in yet another thread that our friendly neighbourhood know-it-all has turned into a pissing match, but...)Quote from: Wilksey on January 14, 2015, 12:56:35 amI think it's more intended to make it more obvious that there's a phase shift between the life cycles of the 'normal' and 'fancy' styles. When I went looking for a new car a couple of years ago and asked the dealer to show me the 1 Series in 5-door and coupe, I noticed he was curiously reluctant about the latter; when I asked why, he explained that the hatchback was already the new version, but the updated coupe wouldn't be available for another 18 months or so and thus he wasn't keen to sell me a car that was just about to be replaced by an updated model (which also explained why I'd noticed significant differences in available equipment levels between the two styles). Hence renaming the 1 Series coupe to the 2 Series, etc., so that it's more obvious that they're treated as different models when it comes to their refresh cycles and options.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 07:22:05 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 14, 2015, 11:40:47 amModern cars seem reliable, because most of the stuff is being swiped under the carpet. The stuff that gets media attention and mass field recalls (like for example the Toyota accelerator pedal thing) are only a top of an iceberg. Having worked in automotive for a few years, I can tell you for sure that amount of hardware and software problems grows exponentially with amount of unneeded (read it: reuired by regulations) electronic features and gizmos. Cost reductions, time pressure and lack of innovation cause bugs like you wouldn't even think of. Recently Honda and one other manufacturere have been punished with $70M fine (because that's maximum that could be imposed according to US law) for not reporting cases of deaths and injuries caused by design failures. Regulatory bodies make sure that new, more stringent regulations (eg. emissions) are being introduced on regular basis and manufacturers make sure that people in those regulatory bodies haveright motivationto make it happen.When older cars were designed, engineering departaments didn't have such amazing simulation capabilities as they have today, so they overengineered stuff a bit to have a safety margin. Right now cars are designed to fail, ideally just after warranty period ends, same as most white goods and other home appliances.A car is a tool, like a hammer. It doesn't have to be pretty but I expect it to fucking work when I need it to.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 10:00:18 am
content: Designed by Holden in Australia but won't be sold herehttp://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-30000-electric-car-designed-by-holden-in-australia-that-will-never-be-sold-here/story-fnjwucvh-1227182770578

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 10:01:19 am
content: Quote from: poorchava on January 15, 2015, 07:22:05 amWhilst that is true, its effects work both ways. Old designs were mostly overengineered, but there was a high chance of something being missed. The result was fairly unbalanced designs, where one or two points where the cause of almost all failures. These days simulation lets the designers strip back the overengineering, but it also gives them a much better chance of avoiding the weak links. The result tends to be more balanced designs that work really well for some time, and then lots of things start breaking one after another. Which is better? A product that serves you really well for some time, and then rapid becomes scrap, or one who's weak links keep breaking throughout its life? I guess that depends a lot on how much life you get before the reliable product turns into scrap.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 10:13:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 15, 2015, 10:00:18 amIt seems car manufacture in Australia is collapsing, while design engineering is building up. Is that sustainable?The writeups say the big Australia designed Buick, shown off at the same time as the Bolt, will be made in Shanghai. I suspect the Bolt will be as well.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 08:41:01 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 15, 2015, 10:13:47 amOfcourse. Engineering pays well and it is not like the Chinese are catching up on engineering rapidly. Just look at test equipment from China.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:42:21 am
content: Cost of living in Australia is quite high, as are wages. And with China/Malaysia/etc being so close....

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:49:21 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 16, 2015, 09:42:21 amTry looking at a globe. The nearest part of China is an 8 hour flight from Autstralia.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 10:15:27 am
content: Point is, it's easy enough for manufacturers to move to the far East for final assembly. And increasingly for engineering too. 8 hours by aircraft, 3 weeks by boat... it doesn't matter that much if labour is so cheap.Quite a few cars are still made in the UK, I wonder if this is because it's a lot harder to import from China here - it's considerably more costly, at least. I can think of a few Chinese brands of cars in the UK (Great Wall is one), but they're very rare sights.Tax and subsidies also apply, of course.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 10:36:59 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 16, 2015, 10:15:27 amAssembly labour is still fairly cheap in China, although a lot of simple assembly work has moved to cheaper places. Professional engineers really aren't that cheap any more, and their salaries are still rising. China doesn't get to be the world's largest car market by paying everyone peanuts. Car production is no longer that labour intensive. Chinese car plants are just as full of robots as anywhere else.Quote from: tom66 on January 16, 2015, 10:15:27 amA lot of cars in the UK are still made in Japan, and who is their closest neighbour? Japan built car plants in Europe more to reduce trade friction than to reduce shipping costs. China has a booming car market. As that saturates they will look much more aggressively at exports. By that time their local car makers will also be a lot more competitive, as they improving fast. The global brands will just manufacture in the cheapest place they can get away with. That might be Thailand, rather than China.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:50:23 am
content: i don't know how anyone looking at the billions / trillions of subsidies taxpayers have been forced to hand out to the green energy industry wouldn't get angry at this.Unless you are a parasite who don't pay taxes or this evil fat-cat banker who is on the receiving end of this billions / trillions of subsidies through his green energy investment.Science on this is so settled and so many experts from the left have opined I don't know why you liberals are still debating it. Time for you all to get in line now.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 01:07:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 16, 2015, 11:50:23 amIgnoring the billions of subsidies for the fossil fuel industy, and not forgetting the human tolls from the Iraq War, amongst others,Quote from: dannyf on January 16, 2015, 11:50:23 amWell, perhaps you should do a little more research. Wind energy and solar both get subsidies - it's true. But, the private capital cost exceeds the subsidies, at least for most UK installations, which means these investments are at least for the time being sunk costs. That is until they generate power of course.I don't know that much about other countries though, so it could vary.Quote from: dannyf on January 16, 2015, 11:50:23 amIt would be silly to say that science is settled, as it constantly adapts to new evidence and hypotheses. However, the following information is available for you to make your mind up:-- The planet is warming at a rate faster than in the past 100,000 years and warming is not due to any apparent sun cycle or insolation changes;-- There is a 95% chance that humans are causing the warming through carbon emissions and deforestation;-- 97% of scientists agree that human-caused global warming is happening - there is a debate on the exact speed or rate, or how bad it could be (some even suggest it could have a positive effect - but this is not accepted by most);-- Volcanoes are contributing a negligible amount of carbon to the atmosphere, compared to human emissions;-- There are considerable negative effects from burning fossil fuels around population centers, such as increased cases of asthma and lung diseases, not to mention the effects of smog;-- There are also negative effects due to the burning of coal and natural gas in large power plants, though the negative effects are less (but non zero) if cars are electric powered by coal/nat-gas electricity;-- People are unlikely to significantly reduce their power consumption so it is best to reduce emissions by minimising the source of them rather than reducing consumption;-- Until (if) we settle humans on Mars, we only have one planet to screw up.If caring about the potential negative effects of my actions makes me a left wing nutter who gets in line, I don't care any more.Do you care to address any of the points from your right-wing argument?The summary so far (by my interpretation)... "I don't want to pay for any of the potential damage that my actions may cause. If some investment by the government involves even a slight risk, then it's fundamentally wrong. All scientists are involved in some kind of global conspiracy to forge results and make tons of grant money. Poor big oil is suffering because of these bad scientists."

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 04:56:44 pm
content: I suppose it is ok for commuting. Though other than the Tesla and maybe the Volt, I've not seen any vehicles that can run on electricity that are very desirable looking.In the unlikely chance that I were to get an electric vehicle I'd like one that was at least as attractive as a similarly priced I.C.E. based vehicle.When we talk about 80's to early 90's cars that got great mileage like the lean burn Civic and Metro (based on the Suzuki Swift), the technology used in those vehicles wouldn't pass regulations on a new vehicle these days because of emissions.Sort of a double edged sword, lean burning means good mileage but bad NOx emissions. Maybe they could build a lean burning car with high NOx emissions and add on a Urea injection system like AdBlue or Bluetec.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 05:12:31 pm
content: Apart from "mileage" that is the other issue, the looks of the cars that are electric only, you can get some fairly decent looking hybrids.If you commute around large cities that have congestion charging, like London for example, and you only have to go a few miles down the road and you don't want to use a bike or public transport then Electric cars are great for that occasion.I still think we are a bit off of them replacing main combustion engine based cars, which cost the same, if not less.Ignore the forest and global warming for a second, most people who go and buy a car look at mileage, and how much it will cost to run, unless you are fortunate enough to not have to care about these things.In my opinion it's a +1 for running costs, -1 for mileage, and it's too early to tell how much they will cost to repair.If a standard car battery breaks, it costs about £100 roughly for a new one, if the engine blows, it will cost about £2k to replace, how much would a motor cost and / or a battery pack to repair / replace on a 30k electric car? Bearing in mind that batteries may well not last 100k miles where as an engine is pretty much going to providing it is serviced. Is there any kind of "service" that can be done on a battery pack?These are all things I would consider to be important if they could match my car which can get me around 600 miles on a full tank. Otherwise, until we are all forced to buy electric or some other fuel, I would rather buy a "normal" car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:21:23 pm
content: Your concerns about EV life may be valid. However, most EV manufacturers provide very long warranties. For example, Tesla has an unlimited mile warranty (8 year max) on the motor/gearbox/drivetrain and battery pack. The LEAF gets a 5yr / 60k mi warranty on the battery (75% capacity guarantee) and 3yr / 60k on everything else.For good peace of mimd, it's probably best to lease, at least for the first few generations. This will provide useful information on how long batteries/motors will last.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:30:35 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 16, 2015, 05:12:31 pmThat's a good question.Even though 'newer' battery technologies say they don't need to be cycled or reformed or anything like that, you'd think maybe something along the lines of a nice slow discharge/charge/discharge/charge cycle over a weekend might be beneficial in some way/shape/form, eg. more cycles, longer cycles, etc.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 10:24:18 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 16, 2015, 10:10:55 pmWell, ya, everything is developed not to "require" such things, but we all know that sometimes, such things can be helpful...especially since the same guys developing the stuff also have to figure on keeping their jobs, therefore, probably wouldn't want to let such information out to the general public. (and no, I'm not some kind of conspiracy theory goofball or something like that)."nice" slow discharge/charge cycle...I've got no idea. Just something that doesn't dump on the pack during a discharge or cram it into the pack on a charge. Let all those stuck electrons tunnel their way out of the nooks and crannies during the discharge and find their way back in during the charge.You gotta figure (and I'm throwing wild numbers in the wind here...), if you can get 500 cycles out of a battery X charged at 1C, 1000 cycles out of a battery Y charged at .5C, well, how many cycles could you get out of battery Z charged at .1C? Assuming X, Y, and Z were exactly the same at the start of the whole experiement.I know there's a point of diminishing returns as far as charge rates go, but maybe a guy goes just a bit farther into those diminishing returns over the lifetime of the battery pack and gets, say, double the life out of that same battery pack by treating it nicely all thru it's life.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:25:08 pm
content: Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.Bottom line for the companies is still the almighty _______(insert currency here).Bottom line for the end user is also the almighty _______(insert currency here). As well, the average pinhead in the world likely doesn't want to put in X extra effort to gain Y at the other end.As for me (lot of IF's and MIGHT's coming up), if I had an EV, and if there was such a charge/discharge mode where it would take a full weekend to complete but I might gain 5 miles per charge or main gain 5% more cycles out of the battery, but it would mean I'd have to put off that one trip to town for a couple of days, I'm in.Ya, maybe those ideas are somewhat throwbacks to the days of NiCd batt's. I gave those up back in '95 or so when NiMH started to really get going, and I'm still not 100% converted to LiPo as it is.Thing is, if you're hard on something, it's probably not going to last as long. Take it easy on something, probably gonna last longer. Goes for pretty much everything in my book...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 05:10:13 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 16, 2015, 03:04:48 pmTrillions is an understatement, it's actually gazillions. This is a ginormous industry that lives of other people money and is supported by crony capitalists, tree huggers, AGW zealots and various pinko types.You may disagree with the choice of words but this statement is pretty much true. ;-)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 06:46:57 pm
content: So you don't have an actual figure, just more nonsense? Why won't you engage in a reasonable discussion? Only someone who has no real arguments left would go this far, surely.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 10:12:13 pm
content: Just buy a more silent car. (IC) engine noise doesn't have to be loud in a well designed car. Besides that tire noise can easely be louder than an engine. I recall having tires which made more noise than the diesel engine in my first car.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 10:49:40 pm
content: Maybe for some the life of the car isn't that much of a concern, cars seem to be treated like consumables these days, if you expect car to last > 5 years you are seen as being mildly delusional, if I buy a car, I expect it to still be working albeit with a bit of maintenance along the way without costing an internal organ in 15 - 20 years time like they always have done. With EV's and battery packs, I am not sure that they will be.Another point has been raised which I believe is also one to be wary of is noise emission, someone I know has a Leaf, and that thing makes hardly any noise at all, on a windy day, you do not know when he is coming, and people who are a bit hard of hearing going to cross the road etc, I can see it being dangerous, yes there will always be arguments of how they should look where they are going etc, but being realistic, people do not, they tend to listen for cars rather than look for them, at least with a V8 you can hear it!

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 10:56:13 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 17, 2015, 08:06:54 pmDo you think a person could get away with that without wrecking the battery pack as a whole, physically I mean?'cause that would be my kind of regularly scheduled maintenance...if I owned an EV...testing and replacing individual cells that aren't up to spec.QuoteGas is running about $2.20USD/gallon right now (I expect it to spike right back up to $4-$5 any second now).About all I'll say about the 2.50 for the round trip you made is, you forgot to factor in the cost of the car!(I'm just starting some more shit...)Had to run a service call this morning. 249 miles out and back. 54MPG (give or take). About $10.15 in gas.Made the trip in my '88 Chevy Sprint Metro, 245K miles on the odo, bought back in '98 for $300.Was it comfortable, quiet, and pleasant? Not really. But it wasn't aggravating, noisy, and unpleasant. (the wad of $$$ still in my bank account makes up for it).Point being, I'm not throwing away something just because it's not "in style". The day the frame rusts thru and folds in half or the engine gives out and it's totally uneconomical to repair (from a wallet and material standpoint), yep, time to take a good hard look at an EV, or even a partial-plug-in-hybrid-series-mode-EV.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 10:58:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 17, 2015, 10:49:40 pmThere ya go. Newest thing I own is an '09 Odyssey, oldest thing I drive is a '74 Malibu.As far as EV pieces/parts, maybe that sort of thing will evolve like ICE pieces/parts as we know them today.You walk down to your local parts store and pick up a motor controller and some fuzzy dice for a 2023 Chevy Bolt...or something like that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 11:58:50 pm
content: QuoteThe OEMs are actually exploring ways to "noise up" their EVs for precisely that reason.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 12:53:28 am
content: BMW's hybrid i8 has a speaker in one of the fake exhaust ports to produce a V8 roar (from the 3 cyl engine.) Luckily it is a user configurable option.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 03:09:21 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 17, 2015, 11:58:50 pmHa. Even a Prius can be very quiet. Especially in the Whole Foods parking lot."I'm in electric mode, you can't even hear the engine"Sorry I can't resist....

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 03:39:56 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 17, 2015, 08:06:54 pmThe magic of government freebies, somebody else is paying for the free loaders and non economic technologies.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 03:50:28 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 03:39:56 amOh man Zapta. Don't you ever tire of saying the same thing over and over again?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:08:32 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2015, 03:50:28 amNot at all, as people are leaching on others and then come here to brag about it.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:28:28 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 14, 2015, 11:57:02 amBut the finance company is holding title to the car, so they own it until such time as you satisfy the amount they paid the manufacturer for the car.I know it sounds something like semantics... but it's analogous to a lease in the USA. You contract to own the car for a period of time and at the end of that term, you must either hand the car back or pay off the balance on it. I'm curious... if the final "agreed upon buyout price" is $16k on a $40k car... are you paying $1,000/mo ($24k in total) or $1,667/mo ($40k in total).If $24k, it's the same as a lease in the USA. I wonder if there is some legal stuff going on whereby it's the same thing just with a different name - like how interest is "banned" in the arab world.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:35:16 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 17, 2015, 10:30:08 pmI just bought a new car - a "luxury barge" as opposed to my previous 2-seater sports car. The problem (one of many) of my previous car is that it was tiring to drive, largely because there was so much road noise.Point being - people underestimate how nice it is to drive a quiet car. And you're absolutely right - most of that noise is tires and wind. It's actually pretty cool that EV's are so quiet engine-wise that the tire and wind noise become significant factors.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:42:00 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 04:08:32 amBut you and your cohorts continue to ignore facts presented that contradict your thesis and fail to provide any facts to support your thesis. Do you think repeating yourself without supporting evidence is going to convince anyone of anything?So - your thesis is that those driving EVs are "leeches" because they don't pay taxis on gasoline, correct?Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue.But in that same year according tothis study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.So who are the leeches?BTW - that NRC study also found that EVs produced slightly more nonclimate -related damages due to fossil fuel electricity production and the manufacture of the motor and batteries. But of course those things are taxed and the taxes are not avoided by the drivers of EVs. And of course if you live in an area with predominately hydro power or other non fossil fuel electricity production you avoid that.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:47:45 am
content: Direct, tangible connection (eg. somebody somewhere has a pile of receipts to prove it) ->>>In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue.Non-Direct, Non-tangible connection (eg. how do we know it wasn't bovine flatulence causing these issues?) ->>> But in that same year according tothis study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.Kinda like saying smoking kills. Prove it. Give me hard, concrete, factual statements that support that.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:57:25 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 18, 2015, 04:47:45 amThe link between ill-health and burning of gasoline and diesel fuel was established long ago. But just like the tobacco companies for years ignored the evidence, so it is with this...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:20:18 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2015, 04:42:00 amFossil fuel energy helps our health more than it damages. How do you think hospitals are powered, drugs are delivered and food is produced. Check the history of human life expectancy and see how it went up as we increased usage of fossil fuel.As for leaching, just check the earlier posts here and you will find the proof.If EV is such a great technology it should win on its own merit. Relying so much on government freebies and leaching on others suggest it's not.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:22:16 am
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 17, 2015, 10:49:40 pmIt may be crazy that cars are seen this way, but it's just the reality of the modern world. I hear a lot of people saying things like "you can buy a 1992 Honda Civic for $800 and overall you will save SO much money!". I don't get that mindset... a car is critical to most of our lives (certainly here in the USA where our country is very spread out and it's not feasible to have public transport to suburbs). You can lease a brand new car for $150 per month, and if you do that you'll never need to buy tires or pay for brake jobs or any maintenance other than a few oil changes and maybe a set of wiper blades. Unless money is super tight such that $150/mo is too much, I don't see why people would deal with older cars that have no warranty and may need expensive repairs unexpectedly when they can turn their transport needs into a fixed cost, and also always drive a brand new late model car and always have the latest features.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:34:14 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 05:20:18 amYou could say exactly the same thing about EV's and the subsidies thereof.QuoteBy energy. And ALL of our energy ultimately comes from the sun (except nuclear and, arguably, hydro).QuoteYou're mixing correlation with causation. Energy usage is a result of societal advancement, not the cause of it.QuoteThe exact same thing can be said of education, home ownership, the oil industry, the banking industry, the airline industry, etc. If one were to take that belief to it's logical conclusion, we would have suffered complete economic collapse in 2008 that we wouldn't have recovered from since.So it's really a case of which pet projects we support. And there is always an argument that can be made for why any given subsidy is bad or good.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:59:26 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2015, 04:57:25 amI'm not saying there aren't dangers when combining the above items, just prove the solid link. If it's so well known, where said link? All I see is studies.Prove smoking causes lung cancer. Maybe it was that whiff of mold from that musty stump in the woods when I was a kid.Prove driving my truck causes ill-health. Been driving the same truck since '03. Broke my pelvis, arm, and bruised a bunch of ribs last year. Must've been because the tailpipe was pointed into the wind. (nope, dumbass me fell off a ladder, then fell on the same ladder, then fell off the same damn ladder again!)

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:28:16 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 18, 2015, 05:59:26 amhttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=link+between+ill-health+and+burning+of+gasoline+and+diesel+fuelA few pages of studies published in respected medical journals and hosted by respected universities and other organizations who make it their business to research and understand environmental science doesn't qualify as a "solid link"?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 07:06:42 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 18, 2015, 05:34:14 amWell, at least we agree that the demonizing of fossil fuel is foolish.Quote from: Corporate666 on January 18, 2015, 05:34:14 amVirtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel. To say that fossil fuel shorten our life while it enabled life expectancy never seen before is ridicules.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 07:26:51 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 07:06:42 amWhy do you assume that those ready to move beyond 19th century technology and working to promote less harmful alternatives which do not rely on finite resources are demoniizing fossil fuels?Were those promoting solid state electronics in the 1960s demonizing tubes? Were those promoting use of surface mount components demonizing through hole technology? Knowledge advances.QuoteYou've created a straw man. Saying something has harmful effects is not the same as saying it has no benefits.I agree with you Zapta in that societies technological advancement and the rapid (and unsustainable) expansion of the human population would not have been possible without the discovery and utilization of fossil fuels - primarily oil. But the notion that this means we should continue to devote all our subsidies towards only fossil fuels, ignoring their downsides, pretending that they'll last forever, pretending that burning them does not have harmful effects on human health and the environment makes no sense.The incessant insistence on ignoring the costs of fossil fuels and touting their benefits while harping on the costs of alternatives and ignoring their benefits is transparently political.And once again - the facts presented regarding the question of who is "leeching" from who are ignored.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 08:06:23 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 18, 2015, 07:21:38 amBecause it enabled the longest life expectancy in human history. That's why.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 11:05:11 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 05:20:18 amYou cause and effect analysis is flaky. If we invented nuclear power before fossil fuels you could have said the same about nuclear power (and solar energy, wind energy, etc).

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:53:48 pm
content: Am I the only one who thinks having a speaker on the outside of a car just so you can hear it coming is ludicrous?What happens if/when that speaker fails? For example, if it is a safety device, which, it would be, 2 or 3 days after the MOT / Service it fails, you have a year effectively to drive it around without a speaker. Is there anything inside of the car that tells you if this is not working?I am not trying to "find faults" I am just curious, as if it is "law" I do not think his is working, it's a 63 plate car (>=Sept 2013 for those outside of the UK).

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:04:56 pm
content: Other safety systems fail. Brake lights. Reverse light (usually only one of them, too.) Or the headlights. Or the indicators.I imagine that if it became a serious problem you'd have two of them. Or they would be readily replaceable.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 07:01:53 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 18, 2015, 03:57:45 pmOh ya, forgot about the gallon difference. I've been to Europe/Asia/etc. I've always said we pay way too little for petrol compared to the rest of the world. When gas hit $5/gallon a few years ago, I was trying to explain to folks that we're just catching up to the rest of the world.QuoteThe thing is, to get that kind of mileage you must have had to drive fairly slowly and carefully. It's also an old car, with poorer safety features and few comforts as far as I can tell. I have health issues that would prevent me driving something like that such a long way, even if I wanted to.Nope, right about on par. '88 Chevy Sprint Metro.I do have a light right foot and don't push much above the speed limits, but at the same time I'm not doing to drive 45 in a 65 either. That's just plain dumb. Safety-featureless...pretty muchBut I also don't drive on seriously busy highways, etc. Not really worried about it much. And it's just me, and I've got nobody to impress, etc.etc.etc. And ya, I do work on it a fair amount compared to my new cars. The thing eats front half-shafts & tires every couple of years (12" tires spin pretty fast down the highway). On the spreadsheet, I'm still wayyy ahead. If I didn't have spare time, probably would turn the thing into pop cans and get a new car.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 07:11:39 pm
content: Here they were branded as Daihatsu Charades. Have you had the fuel pump push rod replaced yet? They wear and then short stroke, which gives the impression the pump is faulty when it is just not getting the full stroke off the cam shaft. Shaft wear or cam wear, but the shaft is more likely as the pump end is poorly lubricated. Braze a pip on the end and it is as good as new. There are still a lot running around, and they are quite nice and reliable.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 08:13:08 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 18, 2015, 07:11:39 pmHA!!!!!Just fought that battle last fall, not 6 months ago...for about 2 months. The thing would run fine up to about 45MPH. Put it under any heavy load, would start bucking, spitting, overall, bleh, no power.Borrowed the fuel pump off my parts car. No fix. Borrowed the carb off my parts car. No fix. Replaced all the fuel & vacuum lines. No fix. Set the float level wayyy to high. No fix.Finally grabbed the rod out of the engine and the one out of the parts engine. Hmmm...not even 1/8" difference between the two. But the stroke is so short, even a 1/16" difference makes a big difference.For grins, I hot-wired in a low pressure fuel pump. Magically fixed the whole problem.Don't remember what the exact dimensions were that I found online, but I ended up taking a couple of old valve pushrod out of a small block engine (Buick 350 I think), cutting and grinding it down, etc. Don't know how long it'll last since the tips probably aren't hardened, but I made 4 of them total. Next time it acts up, I'm set.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 08:19:58 pm
content: Old problem with those, and you can now look for Daihatsu spares to get a replacement front grille. Braze on tip works well for a long time as it self lubricates on the pump end.

author: drakke
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 05:23:30 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2015, 12:47:22 am26mpg in the city, 34mpg on the hwy and those were idealized driving conditions. Today's ratings are based on 'real' world conditions.http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/277.shtmlThe advanced are immense - better crash protection, reliability, reduced maintenance costs, better performance (braking, acceleration etc), reduce environmental impact in manufacturing, recyclability etc.Even if you compare to cars from 5 years ago there has been significant progress.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 05:46:43 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 18, 2015, 08:19:58 pmThe Daihatsu's grille's are the same as the regular Chevy Sprint (trapezoidal headlights). I've got a Chevy Sprint Metro, old square headlight style, not a Chevy Metro, not a Geo Metro, but a Chevy Sprint Metro (also known as the Chevy Sprint ER from '85-'87). Won't fit. Relatively rare model. Shorter duration, higher lift cam, WOT switch set actually close to WOT rather than the usual ~75% throttle position, taller 5th gear, no A/C, no options, 2 door only, blah blah blah. And those 12" tires just make it all that much more pleasant down the highway @ 65MPH...when I can get it going 65MPH!

author: Derick Freese
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 05:58:51 am
content: What do you mean by a Wide Open Throttle switch? Does it have nitrous?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 06:05:08 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 18, 2015, 03:57:45 pmIts is unreasonable to extrapolate what might happen to a Leaf battery pack based on experience with the Tesla ones. The Tesla packs are far more complex, because Tesla think the simpler type of pack in the Leaf will be troublesome.Quote from: mojo-chan on January 18, 2015, 03:57:45 pmStyle? You drive a Leaf.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 06:21:39 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 21, 2015, 06:05:08 amI don't know anything about the Leaf's battery pack but the Volt's battery pack and it's management is extremely sophisticated and conservative. The car is engineered to only use the middle 65% of capacity under normal conditions. The cooling system and electronics has some pretty amazing engineering.There are already people who have put 75,000 electric miles on their battery packs without any noticeable degradation in range or performance. The battery and Voltec drive train are warrantied to 8 yrs/100K miles.Here's a fascinating youtube Volt battery pack video teardown and engineering discussion. There's a fair bit about the electronics that begins around the 6 minute mark. I assume some of the same ideas will be incorporated into the new Bolt.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 06:53:29 am
content: The Leaf packs are pretty barbaric actually. Nissan's approach was cheaper battery that fails sooner. It lacks the conditioning, safety and charge balancing systems found in the Tesla packs. But those systems also greatly increase the cost of the system. So Tesla = probably never have to change the battery pack for the life of the car, and if you do then it's going to be expensive, and Leaf = battery will need to be refurbished every few years, but it's cheap (on the order of ICE maintenance costs when engine/transmission needs major work).I'm not familiar with the Volt/Bolt battery packs.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 10:44:04 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2015, 10:35:19 amYeah, that's what most people don't realize. The cost of driving an EV is lower not just because of not buying gas but because maintenance and repair costs are minimal. Even with my Volt - since I drive it 99& of the time electric only - the ICE in it gets almost no wear. And with regenerative braking my first brake job will likely come at 200K miles.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 11:58:24 am
content: QuoteIsn't that kind of difficult to do in your el cheapo Leaf?Or your sense of "comfort and style" is vastly different from the rest of ours'?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 12:33:47 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 21, 2015, 11:58:24 amNot everyone is that bothered about not driving in a luxobarge.I probably wouldn't buy a Model S because it's too big. I hope the Model 3 is a smaller four door saloon or estate (though I do not like the tall city cars like the Leaf & i3.)

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:06:32 pm
content: Quote from: Derick Freese on January 21, 2015, 05:58:51 amJust what I said...a wide open throttle switch. The carb doesn't have a throttle position sensor, only a W/O/T switch.Most vehicles these days have a TPS to switch from closed-loop to open-loop modes, a bit more power, lower the chance of detonation, etc. Mine has a physical switch.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:12:45 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 06:21:39 amAha! That right there changes my thinking about being able to squeeze a bit more life out of battery packs. I was under the impression that EV's/hybrids used the battery from top to bottom, from 99% down to 1% and back up again. Didn't realize they hung out in the middle where things are all candy and lollipops (no idea what that means, but it sounds good).Now I wonder if they've got some sort of hidden emergency mode where they'll let you actually use the batt pack from the top all the way to dead,..with some sort of crazy warning on the HUD that you'll likely do permanent damage to the pack and have to pay thru the nose to undo said damage.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:19:02 pm
content: QuoteNope. What's why going down to 80% is a significant performance hit.Something a certain Leaf owner failed to comprehend.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:31:47 pm
content: Wasn't the issue with Leaf batteries losing capacity bars only actually an issue in Arizona with average highs of ~45C? Has since been fixed by altering the chemistry used.There is a Tesla Model S with over 150,000 miles on it, and the battery has 95% of original remaining capacity. The Roadsters managed 85% after 100,000 miles. Any concerns about battery capacity fade are poorly founded, in my mind. The rest of the vehicle is likely to experience mechanical failure before the battery dies.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:34:03 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2015, 10:35:19 amAlthough the current picture is not looking too bad for the Leaf's battery performance in the real world, the above is total BS. How could any Leaf battery have been in use for "more than a few years" when they only went on sale 4 years ago. No replacements sounds odd, too. If thousands have been sold, you would expect to find the occasional faulty unit being replaced, even if they work really well. A quick scan of the web shows this is the case. Statements from Nissan are evasive enough to put potential buyers off, but they do admit "refurbishing" some batteries. Of course they haven't sold any replacement batteries - you said yourself that they are still all under warranty. Nissan has repurchased a small number of cars under the US lemon laws, after complaints of falling capacity, without admitting why.Some of Nissan's claims are really iffy. They state expected rates of battery degradation based on never going above 80% charge. Their range figures are base on 100% charging. That's devious. The don't clearly state how much a hot climate will reduce battery life, although the figures are buried somewhere. Temperature is a big factor in battery degradation, and a high percentage of the complaints about battery degradation are from hot climates, like Arizona.Tests, which appear to be independent of Nissan, show that some of the complaints about falling battery capacity are actually caused by poor sensors in the car. These appear to overestimate the fall in capacity. Nissan refused to confirm that, but have changed the sensor in newer cars to avoid the problem they haven't admitted. Wouldn't it be in their interests to own up to that one?All in all, from what I could find, I'd say Nissan are evasive but not actually doing a bad job.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:38:20 pm
content: Tesla state range from 100% to car stopping dead, but encourage drivers to only use 10% to 90% range for daily driving. Warranty valid regardless, covering total or substantial battery failure, although no guarantee on capacity...You can't use all the way down to dead, about 5kWh is reserved on bottom end and the cells only charge to 4.16V.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:25:03 pm
content: QuoteFrom the same guy who doesn't understand return on investments, nor a simple car loan?Read the link you posted about your el cheapo Leaf and you will get a sense of the car's selling price, if you can comprehend that page.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:41:41 pm
content: They only make one model Nissan Leaf right?I don't remember it being able to blow the skin off a rice pudding let alone being able to "blow away" BMW's and Civics, from the one I test drove it was slow as f*k! That was just under a year ago, March '14, I wasn't planning on buying it, just wanted to see what it was like to drive, yes it was smooth, interior wasn't too bad, bit for 30k I'd expect a battery operated hand to come out with a leatherette cloth and gently polish my genitals, one feature it didn't have.And it definitely is not a cheap car, it's extortionately expensive!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 05:07:24 pm
content: The only chance a Leaf will blow the doors off a BMW or a Civic is falling off a cliff, :0I think you would have more comfort and style than Leaf if you travel in a golf cart.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 05:08:25 pm
content: QuoteThere is a Leaf R - where R stands for R@#$%#,

author: bushcrafter
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 11:25:25 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on January 13, 2015, 05:17:32 pm

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:07:36 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2015, 10:35:19 amThat information comes from casual remarks made by members of my local EV Club, the majority of whom drive Leafs. It does not come from anything printed in the press. Most (almost all) are leased, with quite a few coming up for lease termination soon. They are all happy with their car but even happier to have leased it. They all plan to lease one again - or at least I know of nobody who intends to walk away from the lease and get something other than another Leaf (except for one guy who has a Model X reserved - around number 200 on the waiting list).It is a fact that the battery management system in the Leaf is not very advanced. The batteries WILL suffer from this. A common hashtag around here in the winter is #leaflife where people post selfies of them bundled up head to toe just to drive to work because their Leaf's range is derated so badly in the cold that they can't run the cabin heater. That kind of abuse shortens the life of the cells, and from what I've heard people lose several percent of range per year at normal mileage levels (10k-15k per year).On the other hand, the worst case of range derating with a Tesla I know about is a guy in my local Tesla group who is a travelling salesman with over 100,000 miles already (just under 2 years) on his Model S, and he has seen about 3% loss in range in total.I have no bone to pick here, I think the Leaf is a fine car. We even considered getting one to replace our 6-month old BMW 550i (that we HATE), but now am leaning towards just getting a second Model S instead... perhaps a S85D or maybe even a P85D to go with our P85+.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:16:46 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2015, 03:02:08 pmIt does make a difference. For day-to-day driving you should only charge to 80% or 90% capacity and only to a 100% "range charge" right before leaving for a long trip where you know you will need it. It is not healthy for the cells to remain at maximum capacity for long. However you *should* do a range charge every few months to rebalance the cells.You also *do* lose some performance at low charge levels. There is a reason that people who take their Tesla out for track days want to have a 100% charge before starting - and it's not just because you get a few more laps in. The performance difference isn't much though - you wouldn't notice it without doing a timed run.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:17:15 am
content: QuoteTHAT, my friend, is what I would call "travel in comfort and style, Leaf style".

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:45:46 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 18, 2015, 05:34:14 amThe advancements you speak of were enabled by energy - and there are many ways to produce energy. Fossil fuels are energy dense and cheaper to deploy direct to the consumer than - for example - wind power. I agree that fossil fuels should not be demonized, but they should be abstracted from the more general term "energy" which we can produce, store and use many different ways.A lot of game changing technologies only came about because they were subsidized, and things that work at a very large scale often don't work on a small scale. It goes back to the idea that these are all pet projects and each of us will have different ideas on which are good and which are bad. But as long as we - as a nation - are sending billions of dollars to countries like Israel, Russia and many in Africa - and considering the potential massive impact that being an EV world leader could have (as well as the massive impact of getting off the teat of foreign oil), I think EV spending is certainly one of the more intelligent uses of public money, especially when it comes in the form of subsidies instead of direct payments like grants and such.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:55:32 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 18, 2015, 04:07:01 pmChill... I am not saying you don't understand finance or trying to support the other guy in his quest to say that, I am more curious about the differences in how things work there. I live part time in the USA and part time in the UK. I haven't run into the scheme you mention in the UK before, but then again, I've never financed a car there. So if you don't mind me asking, are your payments equal to the totla cost of the car divided by the # of payments, or equal to the difference between the total car price less the buy-out amount and that amount then divided by the number of payments?If the former, it seems you would be tying up money unnecessarily compared to a lease (which would be good for the finance company, and bad for you). If the latter, then it appears to be analogous to a lease in the USA, just with a different name. Perhaps there are different finance laws that make "leasing by another name" how it's done there.FWIW, I leased my most recent car. My name is on the registration, and the insurance, and I have to pay for that insurance as well as the taxes and such. I also have to maintain the car and if I get in an accident, I have to fix it and if I was at-fault, I could be sued. The only difference, really, is that at the end of my lease term, I must decide to either keep the car (in which case I must pay the finance company the agreed-upon residual value on the vehicle to get titled ownership), or I can turn it back in to the dealer and walk away. Or, my third option - if the current market value is in excess of the amount agreed upon for which I may buy the car is to "buy it" and then immediately "sell it" to the dealer. In practice, this is a paper transaction and merely results in the dealer cutting me a check for a portion of the equity I have in the deal, and they do this because otherwise the car would revert to the finance company who may or may not choose to offer it to the dealer.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:22:38 am
content: Quotefor a reported£32kprice tag, WHO would buy such a car?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 02:20:45 am
content: EV car culture has its own quircks. How many miles you can squeeze out of a charge becomes a competittive sport with whole websites devoted to posting ones stats. Some ICE drivers do the same ( but mpg or miles per tank) but it is not a prominent part of the culture. The difference is that ICEs produce a lot of waste heat, so heating your car is free (energy wise).Since >90% of drivers in the US drive less than 40 miles a day, people who bundle up to avoid turning on the heat in their EV are usually just playing that game and not doing it out of necessity. Of course if someone has a daily commute that exceeds the distance they can go between charges in their BEV then they are just being dumb. Of course as BEV ranges get progressivlely longer and fast charging stations become more ubiquitous this becomes less of a concern.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 02:26:34 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 07:06:42 amI suppose you do realise that the industrial revolution was built on water and wind power? Fossil fuels were mostly used for heating and lighting until comparatively recently. The industrial revolution was well underway by the time people like Watt started getting practical motive power from fossil fuels.Erratic though wind power can be, the early adopters applied it in very practical ways. A grain mill didn't have to run continuously. It just needed to run enough of the time to get all the grain milled. The water pumps, which largely created East Anglia in the UK and the Netherlands, didn't need to run all the time. They just had to pump enough over the months to maintain dry conditions. Wind powered ships were a pain when becalmed, but they were more than adequate to let one tiny country stretch out and turn half the planet into its empire. The problem now is wind is being used in less appropriate ways, where it need to be constantly on, or backed by massive storage, to be valuable.Water was the power source of choice for factories for hundreds of years, because it can be relied upon. Where there is sufficient elevated water its still the main energy source for electricity production. If the world's population were not so high, it could provide all our needs today.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:08:22 am
content: Ok, so, you get a car, you're making monthly payments directly related to the car, you lose your job, you quit making monthly payments.What happens to the car? Car goes away? You owned jack in the first place...

author: vvanders
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:20:30 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 01:22:38 amPeople who care about their carbon footprint for one.Honestly for an engineering driven site I'm surprised to see so many people bagging on EVs.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:41:19 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2015, 04:42:00 amSo, what is new about government and semi-government entities just kept on singing the official tune? Just like China's record grain production that everyone "know" it is true, while 20 million people died of hunger in the 60's.I believe in that as much as I believe in our "economic recovery"... 30 year low in labor participation rate, record low in average income, 92 million working age adults not working... Sure we are recovering... Sure...The day I would believe "green" (as it is applied today) is good for the planet is when it when government is totally out of the picture.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:51:41 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2015, 02:26:34 amNot really accurate. The industrial revolution began coincident with the widespread mining and utilization of coal as an energy source, first in England and then later in the United states. I'm not disputing the use of wind and hydro power but the industrial revolution would not have taken off without coal. This is an easily researched historical fact.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:58:48 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 22, 2015, 04:41:19 amWhile I agree with you about false economic statistics, that really has nothing to do with thenational research councilwhich is composed of the national academy of sciences, national academy of engineering, and institute of medicine.It's a completely false comparison. Economics is not a true science and economic statistics reported by government entities are a completely different thing than science or something quite black and white like tax receipts.Of course if your one of those anti-science nutters then, well, good luck to ya...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:09:36 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 04:51:41 amCoal mining goes back into antiquity, but volume mining began in the late 18th century, when Britain developed the necessary tunnelling and ventilation technology. That was a response to the industrial revolution, which was already well underway. Refining needed lots of coal, and the further development of the industrial revolution needed lots of iron.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:32:03 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2015, 05:09:36 amThe Industrial Revolution"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools.It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal."I suppose one could quibble about dates, etc but that's not really the point. Societies advance technologically only on the basis of harnessing excess energy. The energy density of fossil fuels is what has allowed our technological advancement (and population growth) beyond what was possible with firewood and early wind and hydro power. Wind and hydro power were/are important to be sure but they are limited geographically and are not transportable. You can only build so many mills and factories next to rivers and wind power does not work in the cities which is where the workers are.For anyone interested in this topic Gail Tverberg has aexcellent blog post todaydiscussing the role of energy and economic growth.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 07:38:00 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 01:22:38 amOver 100,000 people?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:33:49 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 22, 2015, 07:38:00 amThat seems to be an old figure. Its more than 150k now, and sales still seem to be growing. I wonder if lower gas prices will change that? Telsa saw no growth in North America in 2014. That doesn't sound good. Sales of the Volt fell quite a bit. That's probably due to GM saying a refresh is on the way. Despite the high profile of Tesla, the ugly duckling Leaf seems to be the star of the industry right now.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:38:19 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 22, 2015, 04:08:22 amNope. The car isn't a collateral for the loan. In the EU these sort of things work entirely different than the US. Generally in the EU: If you don't pay then they have to go to court and (ultimately) claim your possessions and sell these. Possessions can include anything you own including back accounts. A common way is to claim part of your paycheck. Actually this method is much smarter than reposessing the car because the car dealer doesn't end up with another used car which they need to sell. Instead they still get their money (and profit).

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:49:52 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 22, 2015, 08:38:19 amSo if they deem your car is not worth what is due because bad resale value or whatever, if you don't pay they can take some other possessions?Not sure if I would like that, I rather stick to the collateral being the vehicle (fully insured of course as demanded by any car loan in the US, not that it matters because the insurance will price the value based on cars for sale adds, not the blue book value).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:08:42 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 22, 2015, 08:49:52 amYes, but only after a court ruling which isn't cheap to get.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:41:27 am
content: QuoteAny borrower picking that arrangement over a secured car loan deserves to be ripped off. Bank lobbying must be extremely powerful there.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:42:31 am
content: QuoteI think you are doing an excellent job there yourself. No need for 3rd party intervention.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:44:14 am
content: QuoteYou had been driving slower than a grandma on a lawnmower. She was just trying to get you to go a little bit faster.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:45:54 am
content: Let's work out the math.The car has a £32k price tag, per you.What's your monthly payments (and for how long) and what's the "agreed upon price"?If you can figure out that math, you will know what's wrong.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:12:11 pm
content: Maybe on a short distance at the lights, but you wouldn't stand a chance against a CTR once there was a decent amount of space and the thing gets going, the only issue with the CTR is that you need to rev it to get it to shift.I used to be able to beat all sorts of cars off the lights in my 1.3l Vauxhall Nova years ago, but as soon as I had got past the lights, game over for me, it didn't meant that I could "blow it away" though, just meant my car was lighter, had more traction on the road and I had a long ass 1st gear! My VXR wouldn't beat much off of the lights, but as soon as it gains traction and gets into 2nd gear, different story.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:12:32 pm
content: Nissan is leasing Leaf in the US for less than $200/month, on a $21K+ vehicle.The same car goes for £169/month, on a £32K price tag.Isn't it nice to live in Europe? Maybe if you re-distribute the wealth a little bit more, the prices would go up even further.But the European Leaf does offer you the chance to travel in comfort and style, I guess,

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:16:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on January 22, 2015, 12:12:11 pmFrom rest a Leaf will probably beat a Veyron for the first few metres. Its amazing what full torque from rest can do.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:17:03 pm
content: QuoteAnd all your other possessions, including bank accounts, according to your fellow Europeans.Good luck with that car loan, as you will need a lot of it down the road.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 12:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 11:45:54 amHere...http://www.nissan-offers.co.uk/new-vehicles/leafMonthly payments of £169 x 25Cash price £21,490.00Nissan deposit contribution (instant rebate?) of £3,200.00Customer deposit of £2,844.08 (~equiv £113/month in payments over 25 months)Total payments £15,445.92 (includes £5,000 gov't grant and both deposits) = £176.07/month actual rateFinal payment (optional) of £11,389.92 - if not paid, Nissan takes vehicle backTotal payment over 25 months is closer to £289/month when deposit accounted for.All seems to add up fine over here.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:00:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 22, 2015, 12:16:05 pmExactly, though only 200 odd NM of torque, it happens all instantly (or there abouts).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:12:25 pm
content: For the first vew millimeters, you can outrun a Saturn rocket too,

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:24:35 pm
content: Actually torque doesn't matter at all. You can have 200Nm of torque but without motion no power is transfered.Let's do some basic physics: in order to accellerate a certain mass you need to put energy into it. So what counts is power. An electric motor can deliver it's full power over a much wider RPM range than an ICE. When dealing with engines power can be expressed as torque * angular velocity (rad/s). One of the interesting features of this equation is that when the power is constant the torque decreases with increasing RPM. That is totally counter intuitive because suddenly less is more!To make it more complicated: every car (including EVs) has a gear box which adapts the RPM of the engine so the power transfer to the wheels is as ideal as possible (just like a impedance matching network does). Torque from the engine becomes totally meaningless! The amount of available torque on the wheels in first gear is much higher than in fifth gear and yet you use the fifth gear to drive fast.Torque has been introduced as a marketing instrument to spout some meaningless numbers during a sales pitch for a car. For example: my own car has a 74kW IC engine and delivers 120Nm of torque at 1500RPM. What does that mean...? It means that the engine of my car only delivers around 18kW at 1500RPM. The maximum power is available at 5500RPM. Try to explain that to someone who has no clue about how an IC engine works. Only 18kW from a 74kW engineAnd yet we all know we have to rev the engine to go up a steep hill...Actually most ICE cars nowadays have an engine with a flat torque graph. My current car is no exception. Research shows that a flat torque graph gives the unaware driver the feeling that he/she accellerates very fast. The actual accelleration can be made faster by having the engine output peak power at a lower RPM and keeping that power level flat. My previous car had such an engine and it does give an odd feeling when the torque starts to drop off but the RPM is increasing faster because the engine is outputting it's full power.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:33:05 pm
content: QuoteWow!QuoteWow!QuoteWow!QuoteWow!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 01:34:55 pm
content: QuoteSo the £32K pricetag you quoted on the Leaf is meaningless - not unexpected.Nevertheless, a price you pay to live in a socialist society.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 02:34:35 pm
content: Come on, mojo. Don't you like to travel in your el cheapo overpriced Leaf in comfort and style, all bundled up head to toe?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 03:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 02:34:35 pm32k GBP for a Leaf. That's almost 50k USD. Wow! No surprise the government need to bribe people to buy them.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 03:24:09 pm
content: Well, no, it's about £21,000 for the most basic model and after grant about £16,500 on the road price. That's cash price to get the car. (Since VAT is 20% on car sales, this is essentially eliminating VAT and giving you about £1,000 on top.)For a fairer comparison, you can buy a basic VW Golf for about £17,000, and VW sell the e-Golf £26,145 with the £5,000 grant. So going electric costs about £14,000 more.Is it worth it? Probably not right now. You'd have to keep the car for at least 8-10 years to recover the extra cost. Of course, driving electric is nicer, for a city car. Lower road tax, and you can drive in London free of charge. And many businesses offer free charging. IKEA do free Chademo ~50kW.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 03:51:11 pm
content: The Ikea in Leeds near me regularly has a LEAF charging. Two spots available. Waiting for the Tesla supercharger outside Leeds too. Massive build out of infrastructure (funded by private parties, I might add -- the government installed 3kW ones are completely useless for anything more than an electric scooter.)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:13:22 pm
content: QuoteThat's half of what mojo-chan paid for its Leaf. Well, I guess he wanted to project an image of wealth and luxury through his el cheapo overpriced Leaf.No wonder mojo-chan was resisting calls to do the math,No mojo after all.The £16K figure is quite consistent with the US prices as well.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:16:15 pm
content: QuoteThat's just so wrong, those EV free-riders.Gasoline taxes are a great and fair way to raise user fees for road construction, in a world where gasoline uses in cars are universal. With the proliferation of EV (or non-gas powered vehicles), that's no longer the case.We should figure out other ways to collect user fees for roads, bridges, highways, etc. Maybe taxing via tires is the new way to go.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:18:44 pm
content: Electric cars would be nice here in S Africa ( providing of course there is actually electricity, as Eishkom is doing it's best to keep power somewhat available), and with our low electricity prices charging would be cheap.I do know of a guy who did the race against a Mirage F1 in a VW Gof GTI, he was ahead for the first km, then the jet came past at about 2m off the ground. If he had used more than takeoff power ( like put on the reheat and double engine output) he would have passed at the 500m mark. I did see a pair of light to light racers one day going through town, and a truck tractor pulled up at the light sans trailers, and proceeded to smoke them to the next 3 lights. He was not full taps, as he needed to keep the front wheels on the road and the torque was tending to lift the one rear wheel set.Here the leaf will be classed as a luxury vehicle, and as the standard luxury car has to be all wheel drive ( and bigger is better, bugger the fuel consumption) and has to tower over all other vehicles I doubt it will sell well. Best selling hybrid id the Ls350H, which is pretty common. Not sold as a hybrid, but more as a luxury vehicle, with the low fuel consumption being merely a bonus. Road licensing costs for electric and fuel vehicles here are only determined by kerb mass and vehicle size, not fuel. Electric pays the same as diesel or petrol, you just save on the cost of the fuel tax but pay electricity taxes instead.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:28:42 pm
content: Most of the hybrid vehicles are luxury vehicles - I live in a 3rd world country.I did see a Nissan Versa (Note?) that has some kind of hybrid badge, and some Hyundais too. So they are definitely going down market now.How about those electric bikes? Delivery guys love them.Too bad that delivery guys don't have sufficient political pulls / bribes to get some tax credits for those things, in spite of the fact that they are equally green as the luxury EVs.Talk about crony capitalism.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:33:06 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 01:12:25 pmActually any car will outrun a rocket or a jet fighter for quite a while. They really take time to crank up.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:40:49 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 22, 2015, 01:24:35 pmAre you being serious here?Physics 101: ideal engine would have maximum power at all possible RPM range (from zero to max) with accompanying torque level equal ~max_power/RPM. Also, with ideal engine you would be able to choose both power level (from 0% to 100%) and required RPM.Thus, in some sense, torque and RPM are not that interesting/unique forperfectengine as these quantities are directly calculated from power level.However, there is no such thing as a perfect engine. All engines have a power and torque curves w.r.t. to RPM. These parameters are important as they allow to judge engine characteristics and compare engines over RPM range. Generally, electric motor has an advantage over ICE in terms of better torque curve through RPM range, especially on 0 and very low RPM. ICE torque curve is essentially zero in low RPM range where ideal engine produces almost infinite torque.You can try to offset torque vs RPM for a specific engine with a specific gearbox, but there are physical and mechanical limitations (for example, you cannot efficiently use very high revving engine with narrow power band for a tractor).QuoteAre you sure about this?ICE does not haveflattorque curve (by construction and physics) unless one really tries to define whatflatmeans. Ideal engine has decreasing torque curve w.r.t. to RPM.In principle you can take electronically controlled engine with arbitrary torque curve and flatten this curve (simply by "cutting off" all excess torque). However, this is not desirable as engine will not too efficient or powerful. There are other ways of doing this flattening, of course.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 04:55:21 pm
content: QuoteAn ideal reciprocal ICE would have flat (maximum) torque curve, with its maximum power happening at the maximum rpm for that engine.Torque essentially comes from the explosion inside the cylinder, so if you ignore the inefficiencies associated with engine breathing and mechanism limitations, the (max) torque is the same as all engine rpm.Torque determines work done by the engine per revolution so the more revolution you can put inside a given time frame (ie. high rpm), the more output you get out of an engine -> HP is linear to rpm, assuming flat torque.Obviously, the torque curve isn't flat: it is low at low rpm, and at high rpm too. Because of that, EVs have a considerable advantage over ICE at low rpm.You can point to lots of dyno charts for support.Obviously, we are making a significant simplification: (brushed) DC motors have its maximum torque at zero rpm and minimum torque at its highest rpm -> you can point to lots of dyno charts for support as well.However, motors in EVs are not your traditional DC motors so that doesn't quite hold*. But in general, EVs tend to have a flat (and maximum) torque at low rpm and then it starts to decline. So great take-off in a EV (I think something like THINK achieved sub 6s in 0-60mph, quite impressive for a shoebox), tough luck at highway passings.*for example, brushless DC motors have terrible torque (practically none) until a certain rpm is reached.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:05:45 pm
content: Here is a Leaf dyno chart.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzXtOK1CkFKsYmExZmI1N2EtYzRlYi00MzhlLWJhMzYtMzA3YmE3M2NjNTE0/edit?ddrp=1&hl=en_US#You can infer from it the following:1) flat torque until 25mph: the HP output is linear to rpm/vehicle speed;2) torque declining inversely with rpm/vehicle speed after that: constant HP output after 25mph. Those would suggest progressively limited acceleration at higher speed -> tough passing at high speed.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:08:40 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 04:16:15 pmYou didn't answer me last time when you brought this up. How is it fair that a Prius driver, using gasoline engine, pays less gasoline tax than a Camry/Corolla driver, which will have a lower average MPG? Neither causes particularly more damage to the road -- arguably the Prius actually causes more, as it's a heavier car, with the battery and two drivetrains.At least road tax takes emissions into account. EVs are zero-tailpipe and low-plant emissions (+ transport for coal or natgas), compared to ICEs, which have tailpipe, transport, production and extraction emissions. (A full W2W analysis of most petrol cars puts them in the 600gCO2/km range.)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:09:25 pm
content: A Honda, with its VTEC valve breathing, would have flat torque well into the 6000rpm+ range, producing lots of power there.However, its low-end torque is limited. The same for the rotary engines from Mazda.That's where a supercharger or a diesel engine or a large placement engine has a significant advantage: you don't have to rev-up the engine to get torque off the line.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:39:02 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 04:55:21 pmI was talking about general engine (with rotating action) with afixedpower. ICE engines are a bit different and more restrictive (you cannot choose any arbitrary RPM to get wanted power).With constant power (and very high low end torque) you get very good low speed/RPM acceleration which decreases as speed goes up. High acceleration at low speed is nice, but for some people it is annoying because acceleration reduces too quickly with speed. Some drivers say that it is a bit depressing to know that "when you press throttle 100%, you know you have experienced maximum acceleration already and it will reduce immediately".With constant torque (and linearly increasing power) you get constant acceleration independent of speed. Some drivers prefer constant torque as it is very intuitive - throttle linearly controls amount of torque/acceleration you experience.Historically, diesel engines were more like constant power devices and petrol engines were more like constant torque devices (very loosely speaking).Given the above, if you have two engines with same max power output, one with higher low-end torque will win a drag race (because it has more torque-> more output power at lower RPM) unless you use very fancy gearbox which forces engine to run at max RPM (and at max power) independent of speed.As electric motors have very high low end torque in comparison with typical ICE, it is not surprising that electric car manufacturers use low speed drag racing type marketing campaigns (for example, BMW i3 drag race)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:02:10 pm
content: QuoteIf you had constant power, torque is necessarily inversely proportional to rpm -> an (brushed dc) motor for example.(regular) ICEs have a torque curve that's flat in the middle and dipped on both ends -> that means their power output is proportional to rpm until a point -> ie. not constant power.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: electr_peter on January 22, 2015, 05:39:02 pmRight answer but wrong explaination. The engine with more power at low RPM wins the drag race because it can put more energy in an object in less time. Accelleration is about energy. Not torque. Torque is defined as N/m. There is no energy and/or time relation in those units and therefore it cannot be used to compare time related performance.And yes, many IC engines used in cars have flat (relatively speaking) torque curves. Just look up some dyno charts.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:30:19 pm
content: QuoteAcceleration is dependent on the force on the tires (F), which is proportional to the Torque on the wheel (Tw), assuming the same wheel diamters (D. Tw = F*D).So everything else being equal (they are not), a car with bigger torque on the (driving) wheels will win the race.Tw, however, is a function of drive ratio (dx) and torque from the engine (Te): Tw = Te * dx.So, yes, end of the day, a car with bigger engine torque output is going to win.That discussion, unfortunately, assumes that the gearing ratio is the same. Most often, a engine with a smaller engine (thus lower Te) is geared more aggressive (high dx). Worse yet, such a car is more likely lighter. So the end result is hard to predict.Another factor working against an ICE (vs. EV) is that aggressive gearing means that engine has to revolve at high rpm (from low rpm), which takes time.The torque in an electric motor is almost instant on, in comparison.So there are multitude of factors working against an ICE in a standing still launch (drag race).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:31:18 pm
content: QuoteProbably not.QuoteThat's because your math is wrong.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:39:38 pm
content: QuoteLet me state it differently:If you have two engines with identical HP ratings but different torque curves, they will accelerate the same IF you can continuously vary the gearing.If you have two engines with identical HP ratings but different torque curve, the engine with the highest torque (at any rpm) will out-accelerate under the same gearing.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:48:26 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 04:58:48 amI am not one of those anti-science nuts. I am trained in Physics with graduate degree, so I know what qualifies as science and how science should be done. Just because some people consider science doesn't make it so.To borrow "A scientist's code of conduct" from UC Berkeley article: "Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior" [my insertion: and how money changes "scientist behavior"]http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_03- 1. Pay attention to what other people have already done- 2. Expose your ideas to testing- 3. Assimilate the evidence- 4. Openly communicate ideas and tests to others- 5. Play fair: Act with scientific integrityEnvironmental Science and Global warming failed all 5 criteria. When was the last time the data was critically discussed? etc. etc. I am not saying it won't pass. I am saying it has not yet pass.Thus, Environmental Science is not one I would call science. It totally lack the vigor required by science be it in collected data or proposed hypothesis or peers verification. Consequently, "Environmental Science" like "creation science" and many other "sciences" are on a par in substance. One wants to spend your money saving the planet, the other wants to spend your money saving the soul of the world... Bottom line is, like many other "sciences", they just want your money.That is why I would not trust anything said by the environmental groups unless and until government, tax, and government funding is taken out of the picture.Rick

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:49:18 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 22, 2015, 11:30:18 amI think you're missing the distinction between necessary versus sufficient. No one is arguing that coal was by itself sufficient - only that it was necessary. Steam engines were no doubt a key ingredient - but they alone would not have led to the industrial revolution without coal. England was already largely deforested by the late 18th century. While wood can be used to generate steam, it does not have nearly the energy density of coal. It cannot be transported in bulk as easily as coal and you need large tracts of mature forests close to where the wood is needed. That coal was a necessary driver of the industrial revolution is not even remotely controversial among historians. Human history is punctuated by sudden advances in technology and population growth only when a new external energy source becomes available. We function as part of a dissipative system that can only grow at a rate commensurate with external energy inputs.The story of ever increasing external energy inputs so far has been this: Wood -->Draft animals ---> Coal --> Oil/gas --> ?? (unfortunately Nucs and RE cannot fully replace Oil/gas)As far as the relationship between various energy inputs and the industrial revolution the chart below is useful (fromthis bookcourtesy of Gail Tverberg).

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 04:28:42 pm...not to mention us couch dwellers. Significantly smaller environmental footprint than those Earth abusers Leaf owners. Other people should recognize it and give us some of their money.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:57:47 pm
content: Steel smelting needs high quality coking coal to make in large amounts. You can use charcoal, but this needs nearly double the volume, as it is not as dense or energy rich in a blast furnace. Thus coal was the driving force in the industrial revolution, as the one basic part ( aside from rich haematite and plentiful chalk limestone) needed to make all the steel that machinery was being made from. That the UK had the coal seams that were both good quality and easy to mine with hand equipment and ponies was a leading force in the rise of industry.Only later did steel making start to use electricity for remelting scrap, after the electric industry got to the point where it could deliver the required power level using low grade coal that was not usable in steel making.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 07:06:26 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 06:55:05 pmNot having a car is considerably cheaper than having one. No road tax, for example. So, you're getting a £200 a year government grant for not owning a car. (That's if you look at a £5k grant as the same as actually giving someone £5k, which it patently isn't.)

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 07:12:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 22, 2015, 07:06:26 pmThat of course presupposes that you have good public transport infrastructure, which is not a given all over the world. There are plenty of countries where public transport is either limited, poor or lacking.Here in South Africa it is all three, and to add to that what there is ranges from shoddy to outright deadly. Most common accident report is one involving a mini bus taxi, either broken down somewhere in the middle of the road or having had an accident.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 07:35:13 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 22, 2015, 06:48:26 pmOK so you're just a climate change denial nutter.Dismissing a whole field of science because it disagrees with your political views betrays your motives.Apparently you don't understand what environmental science is. It is a field of Chemists, Physicists, Biologists, Geologists and Geographers doing research in their fields as it applies to the environment. Do you not consider those sciences?QuoteScience by its very nature is a public endeavor. It has always been publicly funded. See the 5 principles you cited - they all depend on public and open sharing of knowledge. While some science is funded by private companies - by its nature it is usually not shared openly and the financial incentives create huge conflicts of interests. Trust me I deal with this on a daily basis. Drug and medical device company funded research is fraught with this problem.How would you propose science be funded?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 07:40:21 pm
content: QuoteThen why are you guys so worried about income inequality?Think about those millions of taxes you are NOT paying in capital gains, your yachts, your Caribbean trips, or wages to your maids, landscapers, etc.As a matter of fact, the more I think about, the more I think you should pay the 1% for at least half of those costs.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:04:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 22, 2015, 06:21:21 pmExplanation is correct. See below.QuoteAcceleration is about force and mass, not energy (Force = Mass * Acc). Torque unit is N * m (Newton * meter), not N / m (Newton over meter).QuoteTorque, power, energy, RPM, time - all those units are directly related in example of ICE and drag racing. Power and torque curves w.r.t. to RPM show engine performance in different, but completely exchangeable ways. If you know power curve - divide by RPM and you know torque. If you know torque curve - multiply by RPM and you know power.Physics 101: energy is not pushing a car. What is pushing the car? Car is pushed by force. Where is this force coming from? Force is a torque. Engine generates torque, torque is transmitted via gearbox to wheels (with some transmission ratio - torque can be higher or lower at wheels than engine torque) and to the road [torque is converted to linear force].What is energy? Energy = Force * Distance ~ Torque * Transmission ratio * Number of rotationsWhat is power? Power = Force * Distance / Time ~ Torque * RPMBack to drag racing example.EDIT: Example about drag race assumes that all conditions (friction, mass, tyres, gearing, etc.) are the same except engine torque at low RPM./EDITCar with higher low end torque will accelerate faster because it is pushed with higher force. This also means that at first moment this car will get more instantaneous energy (power) than the other and wins.Example can be viewed from torque perspective (more torque -> more force -> more acceleration -> more speed) or from power perspective (higher torque at the same RPM -> more power -> more work done in the same time -> more speed).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:17:10 pm
content: QuoteIt is both true and untrue at the same time.sure, the car is pushed by the friction between the driving wheels and ground (thus torque at wheel, which is proportional to the engine's torque output).On the other hand, between two points in time, that force has accelerated the car and the car has gained kinetic energy (it is going faster). That change in kinetic potential is the direct result of the work output from the engine.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:30:54 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 07:35:13 pmThat's a sure way to avoid an honest discussion. You must have your motives.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:41:38 pm
content: Quote from: electr_peter on January 22, 2015, 08:04:50 pmNot necessarily. Torque = power / rpm. A motor with a constant 1w power has an arbitrary max torque at an arbitrary low rpm. (just measure at as low RPM as needed, when you reduce the rpm by half, the torque is doubled due to the constant power). This motor will do very purely though in a 0-60 because it has no power.What counts is the integral of the motor's power over the 0-60 time which is exactly the work dannyf mentioned.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 08:42:26 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 08:30:54 pmGetting the thread locked probably one of them

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 09:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 08:30:54 pmAn honest discussion about climate change? Your kidding, right.No honest discussion possible if facts and science are ignored or dismissed out of hand.And no - getting the thread locked is not my intent. In fact if you read the whole post it really had nothing to do with climate change.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 09:17:08 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 08:41:38 pmI edited post to be clearer about drag racing example as it seems to be misinterpreted.QuoteSame or more torque than competition overfull RPM range-> more force -> more acceleration -> more speed -> more fun (in case all other conditions are the same).QuoteTo be pedantic, drag race is usually understood as a race ina fixed distance, not as a race to a fixed speed. In a fixed distance race you could lose (in theory) even if your car (same mass, same tyres, etc. except torque curve) got more energy during race than the other car.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 09:24:49 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 09:03:25 pmThat's what I thought, you have no intention for a honest discussion and doge it by name calling.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 09:32:05 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 09:24:49 pmReally? You mean like the countless times the issue has been discussed here with multiple referenced facts presented that are ignored? Do you really think that needs to be rehashed again? Try the search button. What purpose would it serve? No one here is going to be convinced of anything - especially when the discussion is made political and not based on science.I did not raise the issue in this thread. I was responding to a post and simply pointed out hypocrisy where I saw it. It was not the primary topic of the post.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 09:44:19 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 09:32:05 pmIt's OK if you don't want to discuss it but the name calling ('climate change denial nutter') was unnecessary.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 10:00:01 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 09:44:19 pmOk, thanks for pointing that out. I assume then you'll not be doing any name calling yourself and pointing it out everytime others do it as well?Getting back to the topic of my post. Should science be publicly funded? If not, how should it be?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 10:37:51 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 22, 2015, 10:08:16 pmBut I think it's an important topic that once raised should be addressed. If one claims to be pro-science but also not trust any research that is publicly funded then they should present alternatives. Surely no one can argue that science funded by for profit corporations will be open to full disclosure and scientific discourse, never mind unbiased?There are some limited alternatives. Private non profit foundations do exist. For example when I was doing neuroscience in the 1980s/1990s, I knew several scientists who had funding through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. However, such large private funding sources are rare and still puny relative to the overall budgets needed to fund widespread research across the sciences. As the system exists now - without public funding, scientific research would collapse.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:24:57 pm
content: Wait a minute...wait a minute...wait a minute...I need more popcorn....

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:32:21 pm
content: QuoteIf you think it is important, then you answer it.Just because some weirdo somewhere asked a question the said weirdo considers important doesn't obligate others to answer it.Me? I like to go back to travel in comfort and style in my el cheapo Leaf that I paid twice the price to acquire,

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 11:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 10:00:01 pmI am not calling names, I am just describing people ;-)Seriously, I am trying not to insult people, here and other places just because they have other views. You may have your own conclusion if I succeeded or not.Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 10:00:01 pmI see significant difference between tax payers money going, without political bias and agenda, to non profit basic research (e.g. universities) and tax payers money and other benefits going to companies and their customers. I think that the criticism of the EV industry that you see in these forums relates to the second kind.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:16:44 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 22, 2015, 11:51:38 pmThat is not how funding of basic science research works. Universities do not really fund research. They may employ scientists with modest teaching salaries and provide lab space but the funding of lab equipment (very costly), materials, travel, post doctoral fellows, research assistants, and in some cases graduate students is largely from grant money - in the US mostly through the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health. This is why any University professor that fails to attract grant money will, even if they keep their job, be relegated to status of "lecturer" and will not be doing much, if any research.And - in addition to that, the majority of the top research Universities are publicly funded!In any case, my original point was in response to a poster who proclaimed that they would not trust research unless "government funding was taken out of the picture!"

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:31:23 am
content: QuoteThat's one of the primary reasons our higher ed is so messed up.QuoteSo?QuoteSo?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:43:22 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 23, 2015, 12:16:44 amGovernments are controlled by political creatures and naturally they try to use whatever means they can control to influence their agenda. That's the human nature and is not surprising.Take NASA for example, it reports to the president and gets political cues from him."... and third, and perhaps foremost, he  wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"NASA Administrator, 2010http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 01:00:39 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2015, 12:43:22 amI'm not sure how, if true, encouraging the NASA chief - a public figure - to engage in public relations relates to science or is relevant to the question.Despite all the noise some make about science being influenced by government funding -there is no credible evidence that this occurs in any significant way.. Elected government officials are so far removed from the decision making level of grant funding that the claim they control it is completely unfounded. Grant funding occurs over multi-year cycles that do not correspond to election cycles. Scientists political leanings span the entire spectrum Scientific consensus does not change with election cycles.That's not to say that like any human endeavor, the potential for biases is not there - but science by it's nature averages any individual biases out through the process of repeatability, peer review, open discourse, etc until eventually consensus is reached, or not. Initial new findings are always subject to question and close scrutiny - sometimes the result is rejection of the findings, sometimes, after much confirmatory research, consensus. The process often takes decades.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 01:06:25 am
content: QuoteSimplistic and naive view: what if those "individual biases" are subject to the same systemic biases, because of a common factor - government funding.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 01:51:37 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 23, 2015, 01:00:39 amIn an ideal world yes, and in some disciplines of science more than others, but in politically hot areas such as climate research and forecast the politics intermixed with science, scientists becomes activists and are emotionally invested in the outcome, skeptics are intimidated and ridiculed, and being in sync with the prevailing dogma improves one's chances of getting published and receiving grants.I saw recently on youtube an episode of the Andrew Bolt show (can't find it now) where a scientist said something very interesting, 'only retired (climate) scientists express skepticism' because they do not depend on the system anymore. You can find many references for intimidation among scientists, here is an arbitrary examplehttp://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18395-intolerance-global-warming-fanatics-intimidate-swedish-scientistThe weakest link in science are the humans ;-)

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 04:23:42 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 22, 2015, 11:25:54 amInteresting - thanks for the detailed reply. So it's basically analogous to what we call leasing in the USA. I wonder if there might perhaps be some kind of consumer laws that make USA leasing a non-starter in Europe.As far as the shrewdness of making a car payment vs investing, criticizing a loan is something I don't quite understand the mentality of. Living on credit to finance an extravagant lifestyle is a bad idea, but taking a 0% loan to pay for a necessity isn't. We are all going to be dead in 100 years, if not sooner, so while scrimping on every penny to achieve financial goals later in retirement is a valid option, so is being comfortable, living within your means and investing in tools that help you be more profitable today - like a carAt 0%, one would be foolish not to take the loan (assuming the quantity of money is the same as if one paid for the car outright).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 04:28:29 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2015, 11:41:27 amHow is it any different than in the USA?I've never seen non-recourse car loans here, so if you finance a car and don't pay, and it is repossessed and sold, you are still on the hook for the deficiency balance which can be collected against your assets and income, including your home, your bank accounts, your paycheck and more. And the lender can press the issue with a notice to show cause, which can ultimately lead to Sheriffs confiscating property for auction to satisfy the deficiency.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 05:07:06 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 07:35:13 pmIn my view, public funds is appropriate only for theoretical research, not in applied science and absolutely not appropriate in manufacturing and installation. It is no longer science by the time it gets to manufacturing let alone installation.Electricity, AC current, the transistor were all invented in the private sector. It did not impeded our ability to use transistors, or to leverage electricity the moment it was invented. Competitors soon enough figure out how to do it themselves, and then how to do it better.What does impeded progress is with public funds it generally removed competition - it is government's nature to spread the pork where it is most politically advantageous. Particularly bad is when public funding cross national boundaries. We removed competition not nationally but internationally.When nations compete, progress will be made. When companies compete, progress will be made. These "international this, international that" is a huge impediment to progress:Had there not been a space race between nations, human likely would not have set foot on the moon. Instead, nations took up the challenge. America did it first and did so in less than 10 years.Quote from: mtdoc on January 22, 2015, 07:35:13 pmYou should read my post again. It has nothing to do with who participated and in what field they are. It has to do with this (global warming) field's lack of vigor in data collection and analysis.Chemist (or Physicist, or whatever) needs government grant, I get it, I understand. But their participation in something doesn't make it science or not science unless they applied their normal vigor to this field.It is the vigor of the method. How was data collected? How was it analyzed. What were the criticism and short comings of the method/data/proposals and how was it handled. None of those were done. The global warming data has not been critically judged and debated. It has been reviewed by "friendly forces" only. That is not vigor.We need to allow and support scientist to play devil's advocate, support to the same degree we allow and support the "friendly" side.The devil's advocate must exist to shake a theory down - when a theory can withstand the shaking, that is when the data gains integrity and that is when it get polished and groom to be a theory with firm footing.Thanks for merely calling me a "nutter". We actually have politicians proposing that there should be punishment for non-believers of global warming. Well, "nutter" is a far cry better than labeling non-believers as "heretics" as Roman Catholic Church (and other religion) has done so in history.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 05:20:48 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2015, 05:07:06 amI have no dog in this fight but I just read the above and what you say is patently false.Science lives and dies based on peer review. There are no authorities in science whose opinions are taken as fact, and the best way to gain critical acclaim as a scientist is to go against "the herd" and be right. It happens all the time - many scientists who are considered great had ideas that were considered stupid/whacky at first. But truth quickly prevails in science.Also, the claims that there is are conspiracies in science to keep funding flowing are simply without any merit.People with inherent biases never admit them, they will attack that which goes against their preconceived ideas and support that which agrees with it, without any thought to the accuracy or legitimacy of what they are supporting or attacking. When someone clings to an idea that's been debunked, it's almost always due to that staunch refusal to allow their own preconceived ideas to be challenged.I would urge you to do unbiased review on the science of global warming. It really is a fact and is indisputable, in a scientific context. There is some debate about the cause of it, but clinging to the conspiracy/money-grants/no-peer-review stuff is as incorrect as the 6000 year old earth folks.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 05:52:41 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2015, 01:51:37 amSorry but science doesn't work that way. It just doesn't. Of course scientists are human. They are fallible and some even corruptible. But the truth is that in most cases a scientist has much more to gain by going against the consensus - assuming they can prove their claims - than by going with it.I really see no point in rehashing the AGW issue but since it's the example you use lets look at it. Lots of climatologists have set out to show there is no relationship between burning fossil fuels and global warming. They have failed. Many scientists who started out skeptics became believers once they actually looked at the data.Whether discussing climate change or the link between fossil fuels and human health, It's not like these are a new areas of research where a few isolated, influential scientists might hold disproportionate sway. These issues both have decades of research by thousands of scientists from across the globe and across the political spectrum who have looked at these issues and come to the same conclusions - despite in many cases trying to disprove the consensus.What's more likely? - that thousands of scientists from across the globe, some politically on the right, some on the left (but most probably moderate) are colluding to reach the same conclusions (for what motive?) or that a politically motivated (and partly fossil fuel industry funded) media campaign continually tries to sow doubt among its faithful (and vocal) disciples.?QuoteYou're not going to convince anyone by citing stories from blatantly right wing political media sites. But even if true it's a weak argument - because some scientist somewhere felt intimidated by some colleague then it must be that all the thousands are being intimidated..Yeah right.And why is it that the only science that is accused of being systemically biased is that which challenges a group of blatantly partisan political and mega-corporate interests?QuoteNot sure what the point is with that statement. Humans are imperfect, yes. Science is the best system we have of smoothing out those imperfections in our attempt to better understand the physical world. Do you have a better idea on how to do it? Religion?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 06:08:27 am
content: BTW- once again - a prime example of a renowned scientist who was a climate change skeptic who became convinced once he actually looked at the data. And ironicallysome of the funding of his failed attempt to disprove AGW came from Charles Koch. So much for biases or funding dictating scientific results

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 06:26:04 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2015, 05:07:06 amAs far as I know Electricity and AC current were not invented but discovered. Big difference. And no, Galvani and Volta were not "in the private sector". Granted, Tesla was working privately when he developed applications for AC current but this became public quickly only because of the immediate need to compete with Edison's DC applications.As far as developing the transistor - the basic science research that allowed its development was publicly funded I believe. No one is arguing that commercial application of basic science into products should not be done by private industry.Based on your post, I'm not sure you understand the difference between scientific research and applied science.You can't seriously be arguing that the vast body of scientific knowledge has not been primarily publicly funded, are you?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 06:35:12 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 23, 2015, 05:52:41 amFor a starter, understanding the limitations of science, especially when it is politicized and scientists become activists with emotional investment in the outcome. One example is the consistent gap between the global warming forecasts and reality.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 06:54:17 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2015, 06:35:12 amSo, basically ignore all of the above and just repeat the same old unsubstantiated claim. ok. got it.QuoteReferences?Predictions about the exact degree (but not direction) of future temperature changes are imprecise and no one would claim otherwise - there are too many variables. But this has nothing to do with the facts of AGW.You might as well argue that because I cannot predict exactly how much the temperature of the heatsink attached to a power mosfet will rise at a specific point in time in a variable external environment then the fact that it's rise is due to current passing through it is false and how hot it gets has nothing to do with the amount of current.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:03:39 pm
content: QuoteNot mention that it allows to travel in comfort and style,, and to claim proudly that you paid 32Kgbp for a car worth half of that.QuoteFor Nissan, yes.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:04:45 pm
content: QuoteYou can't seriously be arguing that the vast body of scientific knowledge has been primarily publicly funded, are you?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 12:07:26 pm
content: QuoteThat's an important point that some people here failed to comprehend.That's not to mention how useful such research may be. Our universities are overloaded people who are more interested in getting grants than teaching young people. It is really a fleecing of taxpayers and young kids.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 03:38:34 pm
content: All reasonable discourse was lost about 10 pages ago. You can't argue with someone whose mind is made up already. Their belief is based on ideology rather than facts or evidence. This exists on BOTH sides of the argument.If sufficient evidence was presented that showed that climate scientists were involved in a major conspiracy to cover up cooling or minimal change (& not a silly CRU email) then I'd change my mind. And I'm sure many other reasonable minds would.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 04:09:22 pm
content: I'd hoped to avoid it but yes, it seems that we've headed down the same pointless path. Wash, rinse, repeat, facts and logic be damned. Yes, it does get boring. I agree to disagree.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2015, 04:38:49 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 23, 2015, 04:09:22 pm+1.It looks exactly the same from here. ;-)

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 08:27:52 pm
content: Who needs electric cars: