Dumb Car Questions Thread

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

Honda definitely has the most put into it. My memory may be failing me, but I think Honda's own CEO thinks the jump to EVs is too soon, but they make them due to the increasing pressure on the industry to go into them. As @TheCracker said, its far too unfeasible for mass market appeal at this stage, but some have still had an attempt. Hyundai have done some hydrogen concepts, and Toyota offer the Mirai in very limited numbers.

 

[TheCracker]

I suppose the trouble is, as hydrogen cars have a similar range to petrol/diesel cars and the fuelling of them is essentially a similar process and time-scale, it would make sense to slowly fade out petrol stations selling petrol/diesel and start implimenting hydrogen sales. In simplistic terms, you'd just replace the pumps and fuel storage like-for-like without redesigning the concept of those fuel filling stations, as you do really with EV charging stations. Some petrol stations will and are getting revamped as EV charging stations, but the footprint of these outlets doesn't financially make much sense i wouldn't have thought. Without a total redesign having just 20 cars sat for 30-60 minutes to refuel, when previously they were having maybe 120 cars pass through an hour (based on a 10 pumps / 10 EV charging points layout) you are going to massively slash your profits unless you can make 5-6 times the profit off the fuel you're selling.

 

[Liquid]

I suppose the entire culture of refueling a car will have to change. Excuse me if I really do sound dumb on this one but I haven't driven regularly since 2013, but the idea of "stopping for fuel on the way" is going to be a thing of the past? A 60 second activity becoming a 30+ minute activity is going to mean everyone will have to rethink their journey planning. New charging stations surely need to have some bonus ameneties to pass the time away.

I wonder if hydrogen would be equally as time consuming?

 

[r_outsider]

I suppose the entire culture of refueling a car will have to change. Excuse me if I really do sound dumb on this one but I haven't driven regularly since 2013, but the idea of "stopping for fuel on the way" is going to be a thing of the past? A 60 second activity becoming a 30+ minute activity is going to mean everyone will have to rethink their journey planning. New charging stations surely need to have some bonus ameneties to pass the time away.

I wonder if hydrogen would be equally as time consuming?

I'd imagine it should be more or less the same as propane or natural gas, really, which isn't any more time consuming than liquid fuels, really.

 

[Exorcet]

And thinking about @Exorcet mentioning unsprung downforce gives me the heebie-jeebies remembering the first F1 wings in '68 and '69 (and the Chaparral 2E in the US,) where the wing's supports were fixed directly to the suspension uprights, and failures had disastrous consequences in F1.

It can be a double edged sword indeed. The increased effectiveness of downforce also means increased effectiveness of lift if the wing ends up with the wrong angle of attack. There is the also the matter of actually designing and constructing your aero system, which is a lot more complex when you can't just bolt it to the body.

I suppose the entire culture of refueling a car will have to change. Excuse me if I really do sound dumb on this one but I haven't driven regularly since 2013, but the idea of "stopping for fuel on the way" is going to be a thing of the past? A 60 second activity becoming a 30+ minute activity is going to mean everyone will have to rethink their journey planning. New charging stations surely need to have some bonus ameneties to pass the time away.

I wonder if hydrogen would be equally as time consuming?

I don't actually see that big of a change for me personally, unless there are no charging stations at home or work. Routine refueling may actually be totally eliminated if my car can just recharge when parked. When I take longer trips I usually stop for some time to eat or rest, so the charge time probably won't extend my trips.

There is also the possibility of induction charging on the road which could lead to EV's having huge ranges.

 

[wfooshee]

As for how long before we see them, who knows. California (of course) has a limited hydrogen distribution system and has had some fuel-cell cars available in very limited areas, I supposed a "let's-see-how-this-works" program. I know of several companies developing hydrogen ICE cars but I know of no commitments for availability.

I have seen hydrogen proposed as both a fuel for fuel cells, generating electricity for electric drive and as internal combustion engines not much different than what we use for gasoline.

Fuel-cell cars would still have batteries, but they don't need anywhere near the size battery pack that a non-fuel-cell EV needs, the fuel cell charges the battery and supplies power to the motor, and the battery can be tapped for higher energy into the motor than the fuel cell can deliver alone.

Hydrogen internal combustion uses an engine like we're all familiar with, and the exhaust even sounds close to what we're used to.

The problem with hydrogen is it's hard to get. It may be the most abundant element on Earth, but its atoms are always bonded with others into compounds, like water. Producing hydrogen is itself energy-negative; it takes more energy to get it than the hydrogen contains, so whatever powers your hydrogen production may not be as green as one would hope.

I saw someone above mention that it has to be stored cold, but that's not true; it simply has to be stored at very high pressure. Rockets store it cryogenic fuel because they couldn't lift a tank strong enough to store it at something like 10,000 psi.

The advantage of hydrogen over pure electric is that refueling is on par with gasoline refueling, and nowhere near the time required for charging a battery. The disadvantage relative to both EV and petroleum fuel is cost and infrastructure, and of course proponents promise that both will get better with wide adoption. I'm no civil engineer, but personally, I think (purely a guess) that a hydrogen infrastructure would be much easier to build than rebuilding the electrical grid so every family can have two or three or four electric cars.

As for refueling, it looks to be on par with filling a gas tank. No need to plan your stops around meals or some other place to kill time.

I just saw @Exorcet's mention of induction charging on the road. How does that work, exactly? If you can insert energy into an EV as it travels, why not just power it like that? (Simplistic question, I know, but I'd never seen that referred to before.)

 

[Exorcet]

I just saw @Exorcet's mention of induction charging on the road. How does that work, exactly? If you can insert energy into an EV as it travels, why not just power it like that? (Simplistic question, I know, but I'd never seen that referred to before.)

Somehow I missed this mention, but the idea is the same as induction used for charging phones or cooking on induction stoves. You just need a source to produce a magnetic field and generate current in the battery with that instead of along a wire. You could skip the charge and power the vehicle directly with this on paper, but then you'd be limited in where you could go and you'd also need a lot more charging infrastructure. If the vehicle has a battery, then it can store energy for use in areas where induction isn't available. Within cities where chargers would be common, batteries would eliminate the need to place chargers on every street.

What would a practical induction system look like or what scale of infrastructure is needed to accomodate this technology? I don't know enough to discuss that in detail, but I imagine that something like having chargers at busy stoplight intersections may be feasible. Public transport like busses may incorporate them into their stops. Lining an entire highway with chargers should be possible, but I don't know if there is enough payoff to outfit entire roads for charging.

 

[TheCracker]

What would a practical induction system look like or what scale of infrastructure is needed to accomodate this technology? I don't know enough to discuss that in detail, but I imagine that something like having chargers at busy stoplight intersections may be feasible. Public transport like busses may incorporate them into their stops. Lining an entire highway with chargers should be possible, but I don't know if there is enough payoff to outfit entire roads for charging.

Realistically, the infrastructure would be hellishly expensive and i would imagine, inefficient.

 

[TexRex]

Are beadlock-"capable" wheels anything more than a gimmick? Are they just simulators without any functionality?

With beadlocks, the tire mounts to the outside edge of the outside end of the wheel rim (the inside end--closest to the vehicle centerline--is conventional) and the beadlock ring bolts to the wheel to sandwich the bead and keep it pressed against the rim so that it doesn't release due to extreme low tire pressures.

If a wheel holds the tire without the beadlock ring, how could it ever function as a true beadlock?

 

[wfooshee]

My understanding is that beadlocks are intended for offroad use, where tire pressures are intentionally reduced, almost flattened, for situations like digging out of mud or sand, maybe rock-crawling. I'm not an offroader at all, but I've seen it discussed (and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!) They have no practical purpose on ordinary road wheels.

 

[Neddo]

When I found out that Maserati will have ended QP totally and Ghibli (V8s) by December 2023, I went to wikipedia (english, german and intalian) pages and it seems that V6 and hybrid (Ghibli only) variants are still produced. Are they actually being produced or its just remaining stock? Other news sources say only V8 sedans and Levante are axed not all versions. One bunch of sites say that QP and Ghibli are done in 2024, another bunch give another year for Ghibli. Global official site has both sedans for configuration, and italian website has pages available for two sedans together with SUVs and GT/GC. It is just so confusing to me when there is so much conflicting information

 

[TexRex]

Dumb automotive question.

Could anyone explain to me the difference between all wheel drive and four wheel drive? I thought they were the same but I remember reading or hearing somewhere that they're different systems.

Functionally the same in a normal car...

The terms get thrown around but there is a functional difference between systems. What follows is my understanding of the distinctions, but that understanding may be flawed.

Typically*, an AWD system is one which may be engaged continuously (even permanently, which is to say it's not selectable) regardless of surface conditions while, typically*, a 4WD/4x4 system is not engaged continuously and should only be selected for appropriate surface conditions.

[*These terms may be interchanged, but it's been my experience that these are the common definitions for each.]

The primary issue is steering. Under cornering load, the outside front wheel needs to rotate faster than the others because of the greater distance it needs to cover. With a rigid connection between front and rear axles, you get wheel slip and/or driveline binding under cornering load because the wheels cannot rotate at different speeds. The front differential accounts for speed variance between the steering wheels conventionally.

In 4WD/4x4, sometimes termed "part-time," the engaged system is a rigid connection and so it should only be used when surface conditions are such that contact breaks (slippery or loose due to snow or lack of paving). The transfer case which directs power to the wheels that are conventionally un-powered is engaged and typically the conventionally un-powered axle is separately engaged (through a locking differential or locking hubs) so that they may freewheel and aren't unnecessarily burdened by driveline mass when the system isn't engaged.

In AWD, sometimes termed "full-time," the engaged system is a loose connection, as by one-way "sprag" clutch or viscous coupling, so that power is only transferred when there's a variance between front and rear axle speeds, as under surface slip. When a sprag clutch is utilized, the single direction in which it operates allows the front wheels to over-run the rears and it only actually engages when the rear wheels over-run the fronts (surface slip). When a viscous coupling is equipped, the coupling slips.

 

[Liquid]

At what point does the word crossover lose its meaning and what crossovers are just becomes the norm?

It feels like a redundant term given how common and popular that body style is now.

 

[Tornado]

Body on frame SUVs and station wagons are basically dead as mainstream vehicles, yeah; but there are still enough people buying sedans/hatchbacks and pickup trucks for Wal-Mart runs that I think it still applies.

 

[MIE1992]

I understand that the McLaren F1 was unique for a couple reasons. One was that it had a throttle body for each cylinder, but can someone explain how a throttle body works and the pros/cons of having one for each of the twelve cylinders? Next was that the F1 was the first road car with a carbon fiber monocoque, and I understand that a monocoque in general is a bit like an eggshell, wherein the structural integrity comes from the exterior structure. Not only do I implore someone to correct me if that comparison is wrong in even the slightest, seemingly-pedantic way, but I also would like to know how to explain the concept of a car's monocoque to others.

 

[Greycap]

One was that it had a throttle body for each cylinder, but can someone explain how a throttle body works and the pros/cons of having one for each of the twelve cylinders?

More even air distribution for each cylinder. When only one throttle body is used it's never the same distance from every intake valve which leads to pressure differences, resulting in fuel amount differences, and power differences between cylinders. Things that don't matter a bit in a normal car but in the world's most expensive supercar they do.

 

[TheCracker]

Next was that the F1 was the first road car with a carbon fiber monocoque, and I understand that a monocoque in general is a bit like an eggshell, wherein the structural integrity comes from the exterior structure. Not only do I implore someone to correct me if that comparison is wrong in even the slightest, seemingly-pedantic way, but I also would like to know how to explain the concept of a car's monocoque to others.

It's kind of like an eggshell. You generally see very little of a car's monocoque from the outside. The door/window pillars and maybe the roof - where as with an eggshell that whole structure is completely external. A car's monocoque encloses the passenger section and then the mechanicals and exterior panels hang off it.

 

[Tornado]

Also prior to that the prevailing way to build a chassis was tube framing, which was extremely labor intensive and also inherently compromised in terms of interior space and ingress/egress.


This breakdown is kind of old (it doesn't talk about how Jaguar does their aluminum chassis structure, for example) but it's a good primer up through the early 2000s:

AutoZine Technical School - Chassis

AutoZine Technical School - Chassis

 

[wfooshee]

A monocoque body is pretty much any in which the body actually is the structure of the car, rather than coachwork mounted to a frame like back in the 70s and earlier cars, or a pick-up truck. Most modern cars are monocoque, with steel or aluminum unibody construction, making the body shell the actual structure of the vehicle, with mechanical bits attached to that, rather than bodywork sitting on a frame that holds the mechanical bits. In unibody cars, the suspension and engine won't actually attach to the car, but to a subframe which in turn is attached to the car's structure, where in the true monocoque of a racing machine (which the F1 was,) those bits also attach directly to the body of the car.