Alternative Fuels Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

Prompted by some thoughts in the Global Warming Discussion Thread I've decided to make a thread for all our hybrids, electric car, hydrogen and other alternative fuel discussion.

It's quite a contentious issue and I'm aware there are some people who dislike all this alternative fuel stuff but I ask those people to at least keep an open mind here and contribute constructively to the thread, rather than just posting something thoughtful like "hybrids suck lulz!". If you're an asshat, you can leave right away.

So... alternative fuels

I've been thinking about them a fair bit recently. I'm quite interested in electric cars, hybrids etc although I do understand the technology is in it's infancy as far as mass production goes, and it's all hampered a little by who is willing to make the first move out of the car companies, the public, or the governments who'll be funding an electric infrastructure. To this end, a few car manufacturers have already comitted to making production EVs (Renault Nissan, Smart) all of which will be appearing in the near future. A few countries have also said they're willing to provide the infrastructure or the money for companies to fill their car parks with charging points (including even the UK), so the ball is starting to enter the public's court.

I think it's quite brave and fairly noble of the manufacturers setting definite production goals with their electric cars, but at the same time I think that the passenger car market is the wrong place to start, in some ways.

How often have you been walking along and passed a taxi or van with it's engine idling away even though they're parked and likely to be parked for some time? It happens all the time here, and it's easy to make out from the telltale diesel rattle that powers most taxis and commercial vehicles.

Would it not make more sense for these vehicles to be the target for alternative fuels? At the very least they should be fitted with stop-start systems as standard so that when they're sitting in neutral with the handbrake on the engine isn't running. There you go, hundreds of thousands of stationary vehicles around the country that suddenly won't be producing any emissions. HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) should certainly have this feature, although I'm sure the starter motor would have to be quite hefty.

Make them electric too then? A more difficult point, perhaps as (infrastructure aside) it mainly comes down to the range thing. I reckon most electric powertrains now are capable of around a 100 mile range at the least, which is probably more than enough for small businesses and in the UK, probably even Royal Mail delivery drivers and other multiple-stop delivery vans. I don't live in a particularly big city, but I'd be very surprised if many vehicles that stayed within the city centre all day could rack up more than 100 miles. I spent most of a day driving a VW Transporter van around a while back, helping my flatmate move house, going to the supermarket, doing an Ikea run, and despite this I only managed 21 miles.

Range in a city wouldn't be too bad anyway. Electric motors seem to use the most energy when flat out and very little at anything less, and of course at city speeds aerodynamic drag doesn't play a major part either, so perhaps even 100 miles is a pessimistic estimate.

Anyway, your thoughts? I'll leave my ramble there for now, I'm essentially just raising a few points that came to mind the other day.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

The problem I see with alternative-fuel cars is that yes, if you buy one you're saving the planet (or so Al Gore would have you believe), but other than that there's not really that much of an incentive to buy one. To me, the dream alternative-fuel car would have to be something along the lines of the Infiniti Essence Concept. Petrol powerhouse for the track and the fun bits for driving (The Essence was planned to have a detuned Nissan GT-R 3.8L V6 for those who didn't know), and an electric motor for the city.

 

[Spencer]

I was told by my geology teacher here @ Elmhurst College that water vapor is the most dangerous greenhouse gas because it can hold the most heat. I think this would eliminate the desire to have hydrogen powered cars that have the by-product of water vapor.

Electric cars have promise if they can create batteries that are light enough with enough capacity. I think the gents on Top Gear had the right idea going with diesel. Imagine a very small 4 cylinder diesel engine with say Audi technology that uses low compression and low horsepower figures that recharges the batteries would be extremely efficient and allow less electricity to be used along with the ability to use low emission diesel. The one downside of batteries is the nickel mining and the production of lithium-ion batteries. If you happen to look @ the nickel mines and foundries in Russia, the vegetation around those places is gone because of the mining. If you've ever seen the area around a plant making lithium-ion batteries, there's acid rain and very little vegetation around those plants as well. The workers in those areas also lose 15-20 years off their lives just because they are in that profession with the fumes and chemicals

What would be best IMO for the normal person would be a combination of technologies.

An aerodynamic shaped car with the technology shown here: http://www.motortrend.com/features/...logue_aerodynamic_drag_improvement/index.html

along with a small clean TDI I4 engine that's maybe a liter or so that recharges maybe 2,000 (less than half the number in the Tesla. I would also like to see the car use solar panels in the roof (like the Prius) and perhaps the top of the mirrors that helps power some of the interior. Then the car could use regenerative braking for whatever is needed.

Ethanol I think should be keep to a small percentage of cars and used for racing. I've always been for people buying electric cars so that my cars have more gasoline to use.

One point I would like to make about Al Gore is that one chart he uses with the temps of the Earth and CO2 levels. If you notice, the temps rise before the CO2 levels rise.

 

[Tornado]

I was told by my geology teacher here that water vapor is the most dangerous greenhouse gas because it can hold the most heat.

It would be if water vapor didn't condense and leave the atmosphere.

 

[ExigeEvan]

There was a big push for LPG amongst urband vehicles like Taxis at one point, and then the government raised the tax on LPG and it wasn't so appealing.

The other thing is that to introduce Stop-Go technology to Taxi fleets takes a huge leap of faith. Taxi drivers drive what they know works. Skoda Octavias/Superbs are massive in the taxi fleets in my area because they're built on known VAG platforms with engines they know are reliable. If Stop-Go technology gets brought in too early and failures start to appeal then taxi fleets will step away from them and not go back.

I personally think Electricity is the best option for those seeking commuter transport. Maybe small, lightweight secondary engines or generators.

I'm undecided on long distance travel. The IC engine is probably not viable unless ethanol production can sustainably sky-rocket. Algae-based production maybe?

 

[Spencer]

Algae-based production maybe?

I saw that on the History Channel, that looks very interesting.

 

[Northstar]

I think the auto industry should get behind one of the alternatives and go for it. It seems like they are on a never ending cycle of different fuel sources. It was electric in the late 90's, hybrids in the early 2000's, than it went to hydrogen, followed by a short ethanol stint, a return to hybrids, now back to electric. Not to mention the various other fuels created for diesel powered engines.

I think this has been what has been holding alternative fuel cars back so much. It's hard for a consumer to fork out $40,000 on technology that may not even be supported in a year or two.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I think the auto industry should get behind one of the alternatives and go for it. It seems like they are on a never ending cycle of different fuel sources. It was electric in the late 90's, hybrids in the early 2000's, than it went to hydrogen, followed by a short ethanol stint, a return to hybrids, now back to electric. Not to mention the various other fuels created for diesel powered engines.

I think this has been what has been holding alternative fuel cars back so much. It's hard for a consumer to fork out $40,000 on technology that may not even be supported in a year or two.

You can't really blame the auto-manufacturers too much.

Electric power in the 90's was doomed because the battery technology just wasn't there. Tiny, short-range vehicles were all that could really be made.
Hybrids are the easiest way to claim you're green, and that's what the demand was for at the time.
Hydrogen technolgy and infrastructure just isn't there yet. The power required to make hydrogen seems largely dependant on the development of fusion power plants, and they're still a way off. Though hopefully within the next 50 years they will make the mainstream.

Now electricity is back in demand simply because the infrastructure is there and the technology is in a better position to meet the specifications. It's still largely a stop-gap but it is showing to be a proving ground.

 

[niky]

The big problem is still batteries, batteries, batteries... Industrial grade deep-cycle batteries are too heavy... hybrid-style nickel and lithiums are too expensive.

If electrification of some areas pushes through... then that solves two problems... range and weight... in one go. You'll still have to find a proper way to bill the users of these ports... and you will be charging them more (in a perfect world) than if they would be charging at home because of the need to maintain that infrastructure over the long haul.

-

Hybrids suck... because they represent the worst of both worlds... not as efficient as pure ICE on the highway (and by pure ICE, I mean an internal combustion powered car with the exact same engine and aerodynamic specs minus the heavy hybrid hardware) and still uses more gas than electrics in the city.

One way to do this would be to erect large carparks at the city perimeter (if these didn't exist already) or near electric stations (as they do with train stations) and have people rent or lease electrics on the spot from there. Part of the rent will cover the parking of your gasoline car, and part will cover the use of the electric. It's a business model that makes a lot of sense, and it could work today, with the technology we already have. Who needs extended range or expensive batteries if you're only leasing for an hour at a time?

-

For big vehicles... diesel, biodiesel and veggie oil diesel are still the best answer. You need a lot of power to move those loads around. A pneumatic stop-start / assist system would take care of idling emissions concerns, then you could have extra batteries (non-hybrid pack... just regular deep-cycles) to run an electric AC compressor and vent fans.

-

I think the problem is the traffic infrastructure built around modern gasoline cars is not very friendly to the alternatives. We could all be driving 100 mpg family vehicles right now if speeds were lower, allowing crash requirements to be relaxed and weight to go down. A tiny 250cc turbodiesel could do everything you need to do short of heavy hauling on a daily basis if it wasn't required to merge onto the freeway at 60 miles an hour from a dead stop.

-

As for fluctuating alternatives... manufacturers waffle because it's so expensive to adopt one technology or another... Electrics and hybrids cost a mint. Even those based on Chinese cars... once you factor in the cost of a brand new battery pack that will just about meet user needs in the US... cost between $30,000 - $40,000 (and the $30,000 car is based on a gasser that doesn't meet US crash standards and is worth just $10k! )

Hydrogen storage is still very, very expensive.

-

LPG is different. It started from the grassroots. Now government involvement is starting to kill it off. Shame. An LPG-only car would cost almost exactly the same as a gasoline-powered car. The only price and weight penalty would be in the thick-walled fuel cell. The Koreans are latching onto LPG hybrids because it's a quick and easy way to "go green" and the refueling infrastructure is already in place in many markets.

-

I think eventually, we might be reliant on biofuels from algae farms... or maybe even bioelectric cells... though I imagine sitting on the side of the road and waiting for a few days for your battery to recharge after feeding it some cow manure might not be appealing to many people.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Hybrids suck... because they represent the worst of both worlds... not as efficient as pure ICE on the highway (and by pure ICE, I mean an internal combustion powered car with the exact same engine and aerodynamic specs minus the heavy hybrid hardware) and still uses more gas than electrics in the city.

I think you're looking at hybrids the wrong way. They offer highway performance that pure-electrics can't match and produce inner-city efficiency that ICE can't match. They are a complete compromise in those departments addmittadley, but to look at them in comparison to electric and ICE independantly is unfair.

One way to do this would be to erect large carparks at the city perimeter (if these didn't exist already) or near electric stations (as they do with train stations) and have people rent or lease electrics on the spot from there. Part of the rent will cover the parking of your gasoline car, and part will cover the use of the electric. It's a business model that makes a lot of sense, and it could work today, with the technology we already have. Who needs extended range or expensive batteries if you're only leasing for an hour at a time?

Two issues. One, this idea sort of already exists. Instead changing cars however you get on a bus that is extremely regular and almost drops you at the front door of the work place. My relatively small city has 3 of these and they have been quite a success. Secondly is space. To be useful these power planst would need to be near high population areas, never popular. Also, you'd still have to find space to park these cars winthin the city.

I think the problem is the traffic infrastructure built around modern gasoline cars is not very friendly to the alternatives. We could all be driving 100 mpg family vehicles right now if speeds were lower, allowing crash requirements to be relaxed and weight to go down. A tiny 250cc turbodiesel could do everything you need to do short of heavy hauling on a daily basis if it wasn't required to merge onto the freeway at 60 miles an hour from a dead stop.

I think this is where British motorways differ. Most, though not all, junctions are built around a roundabout and most, again not all, have the junction above the motorway so you gain more speed as you're heading down the slip onto the motorway. I've never seen a smart car struggling on a motorway, ever.

 

[homeforsummer]

Some nice points, which I'll address with my thoughts in a second. Firstly though, I'd ask that we keep names like Al Gore out of this discussion. I don't want to politicise it as that just starts political debate on the issue rather than technological debate, which is what I'm more interested in. Al Gore is equally as bad in his own way as far-right morons glorifying excessive consumption. Neither are welcome here.

The other thing is that to introduce Stop-Go technology to Taxi fleets takes a huge leap of faith. Taxi drivers drive what they know works. Skoda Octavias/Superbs are massive in the taxi fleets in my area because they're built on known VAG platforms with engines they know are reliable. If Stop-Go technology gets brought in too early and failures start to appeal then taxi fleets will step away from them and not go back.

I can see what you mean, and it was something I thought about as I was talking about it. That said, stop/start technology is creeping into more and more cars as standard now - it always takes me by surprise a little to hear BMWs re-starting at traffic lights, a lot of 3-Series and 1-Series seem to have stop/start now. Reliability remains to be seen but I can't see major manufacturers taking too half-hearted an approach to it to badly engineer the system.

And those Octavias may gain it before long anyway, as VW are producing more and more vehicles with the technology.

Do you agree though that it's the vehicles that spend the longest time at a standstill that would benefit the most from the tech?...

I personally think Electricity is the best option for those seeking commuter transport. Maybe small, lightweight secondary engines or generators.

I agree, and it raises a point I've been waiting to make but didn't in my first post.

I think that one of the things car enthusiasts are worried about is electric vehicles taking over completely and removing us of the rush, the sound and the feel of ICEs, forgetting of course that it'll be many, many decades before electric cars are prolific.

I'd like to ask the question though, do you really need all cars to be petrol powered? I'd not like to envisage the day where I could walk into a Mazda showroom and not be able to buy a petrol MX5, but what about the Mazda 2? Do you really mind if the city car was electric? How about the Mazda 5? Do you need a revvy petrol or rumbly diesel in a people mover, or would it make more sense for it to be electric?

Put it this way, do petrolheads care if non-sporty cars are electric, as surely that leaves more oil for the fun stuff?...

Take the Smart for example, here's a car that should never have had an ICE in the first place. Nicolas Hayek of Swatch always wanted it to be powered by electricity, but Daimler-Benz couldn't see a market for it at the time (1994 - the Smart company has been around 15 years now!). So the Smart got a petrol engine with a gearbox that everyone hates, and normal petrol/diesel traits of good performance aren't really abundant there, so electric power seems perfect for the car. Range is a non-issue as the vast majority of Smarts are confined to the city. No nasty gearbox, so power and torque are one seamless band. It's quieter, it doesn't produce any emissions from the tailpipe, is economical in an environment that ICEs most suffer (city driving) and it's a doddle to drive. Is an electric Smart the perfect Smart?...

Hybrids suck... because they represent the worst of both worlds... not as efficient as pure ICE on the highway (and by pure ICE, I mean an internal combustion powered car with the exact same engine and aerodynamic specs minus the heavy hybrid hardware) and still uses more gas than electrics in the city.

I'm not sure hybrids are necessarily such a bad thing. They represent a convenient stop-gap between technology that people are used to (internal combustion) and one that they aren't (electric propulsion). The hybrid seems like a very good way of weaning people off ICEs and onto electric cars. People obviously seem to have got used to the Prius's method of electric-only at light throttle openings below 30mph - if they hadn't got used to it, Toyota would have moved to a system more like Honda's where both are running the whole time. Consumer pressure would have seen to that.

As to highway economy, I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that both the Prius and the current (and especially the older gen) Insight are still better at a cruise than most petrol cars? Sure, they're a fair way behind diesels, but then diesels excel at long distance. As to why nobody (apart from these guys) has tried a diesel-electric hybrid, I'm not sure, as it would surely be the best of both worlds at the moment.

As for hybrids using more gas than electrics in the city - given the limited choice of pure electrics, that doesn't seem like too bad a compromise for now.

One way to do this would be to erect large carparks at the city perimeter (if these didn't exist already) or near electric stations (as they do with train stations) and have people rent or lease electrics on the spot from there. Part of the rent will cover the parking of your gasoline car, and part will cover the use of the electric. It's a business model that makes a lot of sense, and it could work today, with the technology we already have. Who needs extended range or expensive batteries if you're only leasing for an hour at a time?

Good point. If I recall correctly there are some companies leasing out electric vehicles at the moment, so it may only be a small step to begin what you describe, a kind of "park and ride" but with electric cars instead of public transport.

I think the problem is the traffic infrastructure built around modern gasoline cars is not very friendly to the alternatives. We could all be driving 100 mpg family vehicles right now if speeds were lower, allowing crash requirements to be relaxed and weight to go down. A tiny 250cc turbodiesel could do everything you need to do short of heavy hauling on a daily basis if it wasn't required to merge onto the freeway at 60 miles an hour from a dead stop.

That's what Volkswagen's 1L will find out, I guess. We'll see if people are prepared to make the compromise in performance for economy that beats anything apart from electric cars.

The Alge option a few people have touched on is interesting. I recall hearing that Alge is the most abundant organism on the planet and apparently the oils in natural alge could be a substitute for hydrocarbons.

 

[niky]

The hybrid issue is one of extreme compromise. I've driven one and I liked it... a lot. But if the free market were allowed to take its course, a hybrid would still cost about 7k-10k US$ more than a comparable gasoline car.(A Prius without tax breaks costs Camry money, mind you) We're looking for a viable global alternative, and a pricey hybrid isn't. For developed countries and countries willing to give them a tax break, they'll appeal to a lot of upper-middle class buyers... but in the end, they're still just a stop-gap measure, and are out of reach for the masses, who are the ones we need to target if we're going to curb pollution in the future and ensure petroleum supply security.

I completely disagree with hybrid tax incentives. It covers up some real issues with hybrids. I'd rather see all tax incentives placed on a fuel tax based on the pollution created by said fuel, and let's see where the chips fall.

The current market (hybrid tax breaks... E10 subsidies) creates an artificial advantage for certain technologies, and may be hampering our ability to find a viable long-term solution.

-

RE: infrastructure... I'm thinking of vehicles even more handicapped in the power department than the SMART. Vehicles which would take 40 seconds to hit 100 km/h (or even be limited to 80), but which would get fuel economy figures of over 40-50 mpg per passenger. For that you'd have to accept lower speed limits in some areas, and rethink our need for passive safety. Why would we need incredibly high roof-crush standards for vehicles that are light and unlikely to roll-over? Why have crash standards in general set so high for vehicles that will only cruise at 60-80 km/h?

Cars, in their current size and form, will be very difficult to make more efficient... whatever fuel we are using.

I've actually driven a car with a mere 250ccs of displacement. It was Chinese, so yes, it was utterly woeful... and no, we don't know what it does from 0-100 km/h because it starts to overheat at 80... but I can dig the idea of a small vehicle with a tiny displacement and footprint (both in terms of road footprint and resource use) which could contribute greatly to the future of motoring.

 

[homeforsummer]

The hybrid issue is one of extreme compromise. I've driven one and I liked it... a lot. But if the free market were allowed to take its course, a hybrid would still cost about 7k-10k US$ more than a comparable gasoline car.(A Prius without tax breaks costs Camry money, mind you) We're looking for a viable global alternative, and a pricey hybrid isn't. For developed countries and countries willing to give them a tax break, they'll appeal to a lot of upper-middle class buyers... but in the end, they're still just a stop-gap measure, and are out of reach for the masses, who are the ones we need to target if we're going to curb pollution in the future and ensure petroleum supply security.

At the moment though, electric cars are too expensive, too. I've looked for figures for the Mitusbishi i-Miev electric car, and purchase price figures unofficially vary from between £12.5k and as much as £20k before government subsidies. When the petrol one costs under £10k, that's a lot of money for essentially the same car with a different engine.

In comparison, a hybrid is a nice price compromise too.

Much of the electric car's success will come down to price, I reckon. All technologies have their early adopters, but the profit margins are lower in the car industry than they are with say, laptops, so it'll need a lot of people willing to commit to electricity for it to be a success any time soon.

RE: infrastructure... I'm thinking of vehicles even more handicapped in the power department than the SMART. Vehicles which would take 40 seconds to hit 100 km/h (or even be limited to 80), but which would get fuel economy figures of over 40-50 mpg per passenger. For that you'd have to accept lower speed limits in some areas, and rethink our need for passive safety. Why would we need incredibly high roof-crush standards for vehicles that are light and unlikely to roll-over? Why have crash standards in general set so high for vehicles that will only cruise at 60-80 km/h?

I agree with this, but at the same time I don't think that even the open-minded amongst us would be prepared to put up with performance that's lacking too much. You'd essentially be asking people to go back to the performance of small cars from the 50s, or earlier. I do think more variation in speed limits is a good idea - there are areas on my commute that I don't go much above 20mph anyway, for example, and I'm not the only person doing so - the traffic flows well at 20mph, but the danger margin is smaller (lots of schools about, shops, loads of crossings, parked cars on either side etc) so people don't mind doing 20mph instead of the posted 30mph.

Cars, in their current size and form, will be very difficult to make more efficient... whatever fuel we are using.

We are though starting to see manufacturers comitting to making smaller and lighter cars, using smaller engines etc... so maybe it's happening.

I've actually driven a car with a mere 250ccs of displacement. It was Chinese, so yes, it was utterly woeful... and no, we don't know what it does from 0-100 km/h because it starts to overheat at 80... but I can dig the idea of a small vehicle with a tiny displacement and footprint (both in terms of road footprint and resource use) which could contribute greatly to the future of motoring.

I'd really like to try a car with a very small engine to see how much of a compromise you'd really have to make in the city. I've not even driven a smart yet, nor any of the Kei cars that have been officially imported into the country. The slowest, smallest engine car I've ever driven was my old Fiesta, and that was a 1.3 with 60bhp. Both of which were easily enough to make more than "fair" progress in a city environment.

 

[niky]

Compared to some of what I've driven... a 60 hp 1.3 liter subcompact is a firecracker.

Lowest I've driven is 250cc... Lowest I've driven that is even remotely capable of modern road speeds is about 800cc (but 600cc Keis can hit speeds of 120-140 km//h, also).

The biggest compromises are in terms of space and perceived safety. A small-engined ultra-lightweight vehicle weighing not more than 500 kilograms will never be as "safe" as a modern 800-1000 kg subcompact or supermini (not without expensive carbon-fiber or composite construction), but it's definitely safer than a bicycle or a motorcycle.

And downsizing makes electrics even more sensible. Less weight... less engine required... less battery required... which means even less weight...

If it actually gets off the ground... I think the Aptera could show the way forward for modern cars. They're running into some start-up trouble at the moment... which is a shame... the ultra-light three-wheeled Aptera is an idea whose time may soon be upon us (whatever motivation will power it)... as people get used to the idea of efficiency and minimalism being more important than bunker-like safety and luxury.

 

[Joey D]

For alternative fuels I like hydrogen the best, yes it's going to have some huge growing pains but the thing about hydrogen is that it isn't possible to run out of the stuff. This means in a 100 or so years we don't need to fumble about looking for something else to replace a dwindling supply. Now I realise that oil isn't going to just run out tomorrow, but I do think it will eventually get so expensive that it won't be practical to run our cars off of it.

For the time being though, I think diesel hybrids are the way to go. Petrol hybrids are fairly useless and still only get about the same fuel economy as a small diesel engine. Have a small diesel engine which charges batteries and you'll have a pretty efficient car. It works pretty well for trains so I can't see why it wouldn't work for cars. Although Americans are allergic to diesel's so it probably wouldn't fly here.

Another thing car makers need to do it put lighter weight materials in their vehicles. The time has passed when you just throw a bunch of steel together to make a vehicle. We have alloys and various other materials now which are often stronger while being significantly lighter. My car is one of the smallest cars on US roads, yet it still it quite the porker. It easily could stand to lose 500lbs.

And finally consumers need to actually want to switch to efficient vehicles. For whatever reason Americans tend to forget that fuel can easily climb over $4.50 per gallon in a short amount of time. I believe I even made a thread about this. Fuel prices went up and people bought fuel efficient cars, then they dropped back down to $2.00 a gallon and people flocked to SUV's and trucks again...something a majority of people do not need.

And this is not even addressing the mind set that you need a big car with a big honkin Detroit V8 under the bonnet that screams AMERICA &%!^%!#^! YA! as you drive along. I can't even begin to count the amount of people that have asked me how I can drive on the freeway with such a small engine. I don't really understand this way of thinking to be honest, but whatever.

 

[homeforsummer]

If it actually gets off the ground... I think the Aptera could show the way forward for modern cars. They're running into some start-up trouble at the moment... which is a shame... the ultra-light three-wheeled Aptera is an idea whose time may soon be upon us (whatever motivation will power it)... as people get used to the idea of efficiency and minimalism being more important than bunker-like safety and luxury.

Unfortunately Aptera seem to be having some management issues at the moment, but I really hope the project pulls through because it's - by a huge margin - the most distinctive production car in recent memory and if the fuel efficiency claims are to be believed it could be ground-breaking. Not to mention that it's ridiculously aerodynamic, very stable and has an incredibly strong safety cell.

For the time being though, I think diesel hybrids are the way to go. Petrol hybrids are fairly useless and still only get about the same fuel economy as a small diesel engine. Have a small diesel engine which charges batteries and you'll have a pretty efficient car. It works pretty well for trains so I can't see why it wouldn't work for cars. Although Americans are allergic to diesel's so it probably wouldn't fly here.

I think the appeal of petrol hybrids is their similarity to the sort of cars that everyone has been used to forever, so you can still have the smooth power in something like the Lexus RX, and sporting appeal in something like the upcoming Honda CR-Z. I like diesels, but even I'd admit that you can't beat a good petrol for sounds and feel.

And this is not even addressing the mind set that you need a big car with a big honkin Detroit V8 under the bonnet that screams AMERICA &%!^%!#^! YA! as you drive along. I can't even begin to count the amount of people that have asked me how I can drive on the freeway with such a small engine. I don't really understand this way of thinking to be honest, but whatever.

And I managed fine with half the power on a significantly more crowded motorway network with traffic that seems to sit at 80-85mph, and on roads that much of the time are only dual-carriageways rather than having three or four full lanes. Having lots of power is nice, but certainly not a necessity, even on today's roads.

 

[Joey D]

I think the appeal of petrol hybrids is their similarity to the sort of cars that everyone has been used to forever, so you can still have the smooth power in something like the Lexus RX, and sporting appeal in something like the upcoming Honda CR-Z. I like diesels, but even I'd admit that you can't beat a good petrol for sounds and feel.

A lot of people just use their cars as transportation though so sound and feel really isn't that important. Sure there are going to be enthusist that want something more, but offer the masses some practical and efficient and they might eventually go towards it. Like myself, I honestly do not car what my car sounds like...as long as it isn't loud. Diesel are pretty quite now, go with that and you're golden.

And I managed fine with half the power on a significantly more crowded motorway network with traffic that seems to sit at 80-85mph, and on roads that much of the time are only dual-carriageways rather than having three or four full lanes. Having lots of power is nice, but certainly not a necessity, even on today's roads.

At 118hp I can cruise down the freeway just fine and my car is capiable of triple digit speeds just fine. Even in my car buying thread people kept telling me the MINI was slow and I seem to remember someone at some point said it was dangerous. I don't understand the obsession with needing 400hp in a car you drive to and from work and nothing else.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I can see what you mean, and it was something I thought about as I was talking about it. That said, stop/start technology is creeping into more and more cars as standard now - it always takes me by surprise a little to hear BMWs re-starting at traffic lights, a lot of 3-Series and 1-Series seem to have stop/start now. Reliability remains to be seen but I can't see major manufacturers taking too half-hearted an approach to it to badly engineer the system.

And those Octavias may gain it before long anyway, as VW are producing more and more vehicles with the technology.

Do you agree though that it's the vehicles that spend the longest time at a standstill that would benefit the most from the tech?...

I've yet to notice any stop-start cars yet. Though I'll admit my driving is alot less at this time of year. Perhaps I'll cycle round the city for abit listening out But yes I agree that Taxi's would definetley benefit from such systems, unless of course Taxi drivers prefer sitting on the brakes rather than handbrake and neutral...

I'd like to ask the question though, do you really need all cars to be petrol powered? I'd not like to envisage the day where I could walk into a Mazda showroom and not be able to buy a petrol MX5, but what about the Mazda 2? Do you really mind if the city car was electric? How about the Mazda 5? Do you need a revvy petrol or rumbly diesel in a people mover, or would it make more sense for it to be electric?

Put it this way, do petrolheads care if non-sporty cars are electric, as surely that leaves more oil for the fun stuff?...

It's a point well shown by Jeremy Clarkson and James May. At the end of the previous TG season JC spoke of how he believes the ICE will be a thing of the past and the thrill of driving will die. JM however has raised it several times that the ICE won't die, it'll simply become a hobby. Much like older work-on-at-home ICE's are today. I think it's partly due to JM's collection of classic cars and bikes that he appreciates this concept more.

Is an electric Smart the perfect Smart?...

It certainly would have benefited the image of small electric vehicles early in it's production as it is far more stylish than other EV around.

RE: infrastructure... I'm thinking of vehicles even more handicapped in the power department than the SMART. Vehicles which would take 40 seconds to hit 100 km/h (or even be limited to 80), but which would get fuel economy figures of over 40-50 mpg per passenger. For that you'd have to accept lower speed limits in some areas, and rethink our need for passive safety. Why would we need incredibly high roof-crush standards for vehicles that are light and unlikely to roll-over? Why have crash standards in general set so high for vehicles that will only cruise at 60-80 km/h?

Any small car that would be legal for the motorway would have to be, in my opinion, atleast capable of 65mph. That's because we have trucks driving at 56mph and to hold them up or be unable to pass them wouldn't work.

The safety point isn't really valid. The fact is that most hatchbacks/sedans aren't going to roll unless they hit something. And that goes true for smaller cars aswel.

The biggest compromises are in terms of space and perceived safety. A small-engined ultra-lightweight vehicle weighing not more than 500 kilograms will never be as "safe" as a modern 800-1000 kg subcompact or supermini (not without expensive carbon-fiber or composite construction), but it's definitely safer than a bicycle or a motorcycle.

The problem with size in the last decade has been crumple zones. Crumple Zones vastly decrease injuries in accidents but they work on the principle that bigger is better. The more "disposable" space you have the more energy you can dissipitate This is why small cars like Clio's have been creeping up for generations.

The Smart car is a good example of what happens when you have no crumple zones. The safety cell in it is massively strong, but I bet whiplash injuries are quite common in them.

The other issue is the smaller you make a car the harder it'll be to get out of after an accident. I've seen the smart handle this very well with frontal impacts, but what about side impacts? Start making cars tandem-seating and you'll have even more issues.

For alternative fuels I like hydrogen the best, yes it's going to have some huge growing pains but the thing about hydrogen is that it isn't possible to run out of the stuff. This means in a 100 or so years we don't need to fumble about looking for something else to replace a dwindling supply. Now I realise that oil isn't going to just run out tomorrow, but I do think it will eventually get so expensive that it won't be practical to run our cars off of it.

But hydrogen doesn't exist on it's own. It basically needs to be manufactured and that's very energy intensive.

Another thing car makers need to do it put lighter weight materials in their vehicles. The time has passed when you just throw a bunch of steel together to make a vehicle. We have alloys and various other materials now which are often stronger while being significantly lighter. My car is one of the smallest cars on US roads, yet it still it quite the porker. It easily could stand to lose 500lbs.

Thanks to the aerospace industry CF did skyrocket in price. However, because of this it's also getting cheaper to manufacter. We're already seeing CF trickle down from motorsport to supercars and no day-to-day sportscars (BMW M3 coupe's roof). Another 5 years, at most, and it'll be on generic road cars easily.

 

[Joey D]

But hydrogen doesn't exist on it's own. It basically needs to be manufactured and that's very energy intensive.

It's not that much different from what we have now. We drill in the Middle East for the oil, then we put it on a boat and ship it to the refiners half a world away, then it's trucked even further to stations all over the country.

I have to imagine we could overcome the challenges of hydrogen production, we manage to get oil from some unusual places at enormous cost and using a ton of technology.

Thanks to the aerospace industry CF did skyrocket in price. However, because of this it's also getting cheaper to manufacter. We're already seeing CF trickle down from motorsport to supercars and no day-to-day sportscars (BMW M3 coupe's roof). Another 5 years, at most, and it'll be on generic road cars easily.

It doesn't have to be carbon fibre though, there are a ton of plastics that can be used as well as other metal alloys. And once something starts being massed produced, there won't be any issues with cost.

 

[homeforsummer]

A lot of people just use their cars as transportation though so sound and feel really isn't that important. Sure there are going to be enthusist that want something more, but offer the masses some practical and efficient and they might eventually go towards it. Like myself, I honestly do not car what my car sounds like...as long as it isn't loud. Diesel are pretty quite now, go with that and you're golden.

I agree that lots of people don't care about sound per se, but many would probably be a little uneasy in the absence of it, as even non car-enthusiasts are so used to petrol characteristics and diesel ones slightly less so that it's comforting to have a hybrid as it still feels like a regular car for the most part. Even if it only runs on electricity around town... which is why I reckon hybrids are a good interim, as they allow people the benefits of both types of propulsion (and the negatives, incidentally).

In the States especially, people love their petrol engines. So a petrol hybrid makes a lot of sense in the weaning-people-off-it sort of way.

At 118hp I can cruise down the freeway just fine and my car is capiable of triple digit speeds just fine. Even in my car buying thread people kept telling me the MINI was slow and I seem to remember someone at some point said it was dangerous. I don't understand the obsession with needing 400hp in a car you drive to and from work and nothing else.

It goes without saying that I agree, though I also hold the opinion that in a free country people should be able to drive whatever the hell they like. Even if the rest of the world think they're stupid for doing so. Again, I think that hybrids would be a useful compromise here, as people could have their walloping V8 torque on the highway or when flooring it, but in regular driving around town it'd be electric only and not using gallons of fuel just to move.

I've yet to notice any stop-start cars yet. Though I'll admit my driving is alot less at this time of year. Perhaps I'll cycle round the city for abit listening out But yes I agree that Taxi's would definetley benefit from such systems, unless of course Taxi drivers prefer sitting on the brakes rather than handbrake and neutral...

The stop/starters I've heard have all been when walking around. It's hard to make out the sound in traffic when my own car is a bit noisy But a lot of small BMWs and also MINIs seem to have stop/start as standard now, as do a bunch of Citroens and Peugeots.

JM however has raised it several times that the ICE won't die, it'll simply become a hobby. Much like older work-on-at-home ICE's are today. I think it's partly due to JM's collection of classic cars and bikes that he appreciates this concept more.

I'd tend to agree with JM. I'd like to hear the opinions of some electro-sceptics on the matter. If electricity is powering cars they'd not really choose to drive for "fun" anyway (city cars, small family cars, minivans etc), do they really mind the world "going electric" as long as it stayed away from performance cars?

It certainly would have benefited the image of small electric vehicles early in it's production as it is far more stylish than other EV around.

I agree. It's changed the image of city cars as it is, which used to be horrid little things right the way between the 70s and the late 90s (Mini excepted). And any tiny car at the moment is described as "the next Smart". Once it goes electric and the sales start coming, it could be one of the instrumental players.

It's not that much different from what we have now. We drill in the Middle East for the oil, then we put it on a boat and ship it to the refiners half a world away, then it's trucked even further to stations all over the country.

Maybe in the States, much of the UK's oil comes from the North Sea and is therefore our own In that respect, fuel sold in the UK probably has a lower carbon footprint (stupid as that may sound) than fuel in the US, as it's being sold closer to source. A bit like buying local spring water...

 

[niky]

The main difference in hydrogen is storage. It's the monumental hurdle that has held up hydrogen cars for over twenty years.

It's not that much different a problem from electrics... but while battery technology and its advancement is of interest to many industries aside from the automotive one... hydrogen storage isn't... fuel cells maybe, but then, the expense of a fuel cell, even compared to the relatively expensive batteries used in modern devices, is quite high.

-

RE: Mini: 118 hp is plenty. You've got a 1.6 liter car that's about as quick, in real-world terms, as the 2 liters around it. Helps that the Mini is a relatively light car, but yes, it's a porker compared to older stuff... and that wonderful rear suspension (lovely, lovely car) makes packaging quite cramped.

 

[Casio]

It's all about infrastructure. To me the most logical thing to power the cars of the future is electricity. Range isn't really an issue anymore, a car with a 100 mile range would probably suit 90% of people, provided they could plug-in and charge at home/work daily.

Anyone that has a modern smartphone accepts the fact that they have to charge their phones every night, people just need to make that jump to cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thread digging time.

Just thought I'd add a couple of articles I've written on a couple of the electric cars I've driven recently, since it's relevant to the thread.

- 2011 Nissan Leaf Prototype: Quick Drive Impressions
- 2011 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive: Quick Drive

Been quite an interesting experience. Not driven the production Nissan Leaf yet but the Versa-based prototype was very smooth and quiet, and felt pretty solid. Definitely a 'proper' car, as I think many people still think of electric cars as all being like the G-Wiz, crummy and rattly.

The Smart was good fun. It's actually better as an EV than it is as a petrol or diesel. It's smoother since there's no jerky gearbox, and it handles and rides better because all the weight is lower down, so it's naturally more stable so they've tuned the handling. Bit more chuckable and more grip.

Again, feels like a proper car. Would be great in the city, where the 80 mile range is more than enough.

 

[Jim Prower]

I've been thinking about my dislike of electrics, and basically, every time, I come to the same conclusion...

I'm just a prick who is morbidly afraid of change.

So, yeah. I'm even too scared to change my fear of change.

 

[Keef]

I've been thinking about my dislike of electrics, and basically, every time, I come to the same conclusion...

I'm just a prick who is morbidly afraid of change.

So, yeah. I'm even too scared to change my fear of change.

One reason I don't like electric cars is because I find engine sound to be an integral part of the driving experience.

 

[Jim Prower]

but is that really necessary from a transportation standpoint?

That's one thing I worry about with Electric cars...that automotive enthusiasm will become a thing of the past. Or at least change to something more like computer enthusiasm.

 

[niky]

Electrics should be fun: More instant torque than a diesel, more revs even than a rotary. All that's missing is the sound, but heck... gasoline cars nowadays need specially engineered exhausts just to add character to the exhaust note.

 

[homeforsummer]

One reason I don't like electric cars is because I find engine sound to be an integral part of the driving experience.

I definitely understand this viewpoint and I love the rasp from my Miata's exhaust, or the thunderous sound coming from a C63 AMG at Mercedes-Benz World where I was testing the Smart at the weekend, but...

...when you're stuck in traffic, which is where an electric car is in its element, is engine sound necessary? Or even welcome? Ditto the motorway. Engine sound is great on a track or on a country road blast but for commuting I'd argue that it's actually undesirable (unless your commute happens to take in the aforementioned country road or track, in which case you're a jammy git).

And since the sort of driving that EVs excel at is the boring stuff (i.e. low speeds), total silence and smoothness seems quite appealing.

Also, to answer Jim's point, it's something I'm fairly sure James May has spoken about in the past. When everyone is driving around in electric cars day to day, gasoline cars will become a "hobby". I think he uses the example of horses, which were once used for distance transportation and are now used for recreation and sport. I even think that's quite an appealing future. I reckon there'd be nothing better than a weekend blast in a noisy gasoline "fun" car after a week commuting in comfort and silence in an electric car.

Essentially, "car people" will still have access to petrol cars, and everyone else will be more than happy driving EVs since they don't care about (or even positively dislike) stuff like changing gear, engine noise and doing oil changes.

 

[Ibonibo]

i wait for hydrogene.

batteries is as bad as fuel to the enviroment it's just putting the problem on an other level.
It's like the EU banning old light bulbs and replacing them quicksilver/ mercure/ radon infested ones. If such a light bulb brakes. You need to get out of the room, air it for 15 min, and slowly clean up without a "vacuum?"cleaner.
It's pure poison and that now multiples times in every household it's just taking the CO2 problem and replacing it with an other of which the normal Joe has no idea of.

For me batteries is the same.
Sweden has hydrogene and produces it for more than 20 years.
Hell in highschool in chemisty we even produced hydrogene with hydrolyse.

Honda clarity and the topgear report about it shows how it needs to go.

But not enough profit for multiple companies there. Batteries will boost economie 10x more. So we go with that.

Also, to answer Jim's point, it's something I'm fairly sure James May has spoken about in the past. When everyone is driving around in electric cars day to day, gasoline cars will become a "hobby".

That was said by Jay Leno and it was not about electic cars but it was the report about the Honda Clarity

As James may said : the futur can not be that we take a step back from current standards. That's the case of E cars. (drive 200 km, charge 5 hours) How are you supposed o go into holidays??
+ you need less weight to get a +- good range on Ecars, meaning plactic (carbon will not be affordable for average Joe), meaning a coffin on tries (honestly a crash in a plastic car and 500kg of batteries at your back, i doubt the security side)

For everyone who hasn't seen that Topgear report. Look it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMjOxTnu_wc
Probably the most serious report in Topgear history

 

[niky]

Hydrogen is not a step forwards, but a step sideways.

The most economical method of hydrogen production right now is to "crack" it out of natural gas. In other words... you're taking a "fossil fuel" and stripping the carbon from it (carbon which you then emit into the atmosphere) and keeping the hydrogen.

Even if you source hydrogen from solar-powered production facilities, you're still adding steps to the process (solar - electric - electrolysis) and you still need to compress it for storage (hydrogen storage pressures are a magnitude of an order higher than those needed for liquified propane). Compression costs energy.

For much less energy, you could use solar and wind power to simply charge a battery.

The environmental impact of batteries is overblown. And they're recyclable. They may use rare earth elements, but guess what? Incredibly expensive hydrogen fuel cells do, too... and they cost much more.

People think hydrogen is the way forward because it's so easy to produce small amounts of it in the laboratory or at home and can be used in existing internal combustion engines with few changes... but producing commercial grade hydrogen in quantities useful in automobiles is a huge problem... one that people have been banging their heads against for decades. We'll likely see mass-produced biofuels and mass-produced electrics (mass, meaning millions, not thousands) before we see a large-scale hydrogen infrastructure put in place... and both of those other options are still a ways off.