Hybrids - Toyota vs Honda [Archive] - Honda Acura Drivers Club of America

C. E. White

05-29-2007, 06:25 AM

"M. MacDonald" <mmacdon@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:WUMaf.134$W4.30594@okeanos.csu.net...
>: Honda says its technology is fuel
> : efficient and cheaper, but that may not be enough to wow drivers.
>
> Honda missed the point.
>
> Their hybrid just too ugly - and the blame falls partly on that funky
> looking, fender-covered thing they tried to peddle (the Insight??).

That may be true for the Insight, but the Civic and Accord Hybrids look just
like regular Accords and Civics.

Persoanlly, I think the Toyota system is superior, although I remain
unconvinced that I really care that much about hybrids in general. However,
I think the size of the Prius, and the very positive press are major factors
contributing to it sales sucess. Also the distinctive, if unual styling
lets the world know that the driver really cares about the environment. The
enviromentalist driving a Civic Hybrid might not get noticed....

Insight (CVT) - 57 City / 56 Hwy / 56 combined
Insight (manual) - 60 City / 66 Hwy / 63 combined
Civic Hybrid - 49 City / 51 Hwy / 50 combined
Prius - 60 City / 51 Highway / 55 combined
Accord Hybrid (2005) - 29 City / 37 Hwy / 32 combined
Ford Escape (FWD) - 36 City / 31 Hwy / 33 combined
Toyota Highlander Hybrid (FWD) - 33 City / 28 Hwy / 30 combined
Toyota Camry (4 cylinder, 5 sp manual) - 24 City / 34 Hwy / 28 combined

Ed

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:25 AM

Perhaps they don't want to stand out as not being a very astute buyer who
fell for the hybrid hype? ;)

mike hunt

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2kNaf.4128$2y.1107@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "M. MacDonald" <mmacdon@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:WUMaf.134$W4.30594@okeanos.csu.net...
>>: Honda says its technology is fuel
>> : efficient and cheaper, but that may not be enough to wow drivers.
>>
>> Honda missed the point.
>>
>> Their hybrid just too ugly - and the blame falls partly on that funky
>> looking, fender-covered thing they tried to peddle (the Insight??).
>
> That may be true for the Insight, but the Civic and Accord Hybrids look
> just like regular Accords and Civics.
>
> Persoanlly, I think the Toyota system is superior, although I remain
> unconvinced that I really care that much about hybrids in general.
> However, I think the size of the Prius, and the very positive press are
> major factors contributing to it sales sucess. Also the distinctive, if
> unual styling lets the world know that the driver really cares about the
> environment. The enviromentalist driving a Civic Hybrid might not get
> noticed....
> Ed
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:25 AM

I suppose the reason is the Civic buyer can get a better perspective on the
premium price one must pay to buy a hybrid when looking at the came car with
the different power plants. That premium will buy nearly ALL of the fuel
for a conventional powered Civic. In the case of the Prius most buyers do
not think to compare it to the Corolla for size, price, and fuel mileage.
To say nothing of the fact dealers never mention the huge battery
replacement cost somewhere down the line.

mike hunt

"Steve" <nmvc@kytr.inv> wrote in message
news:vm5nm1lgt0plq6fmmi1phd8jo6vv17ouj7@4ax.com...
>
> Excerpts from
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959057.htm
>
>
> While the Toyota Prius sells in eight days, the Honda Accord hybrid
> takes some two months to exit the lot. The Honda Civic hybrid is no
> Prius either - it takes 36 days to move.
>
> Clearly, the Prius's conspicuous display of uber-greenness is key to
> its success. But it also features a radically new driving experience.
> It's quite a thrill to hit the accelerator and slip along in near
> silence.
>
> Not so for Honda hybrids. Because the gasoline engine is working most
> of the time - getting an electrical boost during acceleration - it
> drives much like a regular car. Honda says its technology is fuel
> efficient and cheaper, but that may not be enough to wow drivers.
>
>
>
> ************************************************** *
>
> Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.
>
> ...Robert Benchley

Brent Secombe

05-29-2007, 06:25 AM

In article <vm5nm1lgt0plq6fmmi1phd8jo6vv17ouj7@4ax.com>, Steve
<nmvc@kytr.inv> wrote:

> Excerpts from
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959057.htm
>
>
> While the Toyota Prius sells in eight days, the Honda Accord hybrid
> takes some two months to exit the lot. The Honda Civic hybrid is no
> Prius either - it takes 36 days to move.
>
> Clearly, the Prius's conspicuous display of uber-greenness is key to
> its success. But it also features a radically new driving experience.
> It's quite a thrill to hit the accelerator and slip along in near
> silence.
>
> Not so for Honda hybrids. Because the gasoline engine is working most
> of the time - getting an electrical boost during acceleration - it
> drives much like a regular car. Honda says its technology is fuel
> efficient and cheaper, but that may not be enough to wow drivers.

Thank you for the exerpts, Steve.

A reason why my wife & I opted for the Prius is that it is such a
*usable* car. The premium MSRP buys you an intelligently designed
transportation system, not just an ordinary car with a modified
propulsion package.

All the hybrids have been pared down in various weight-saving ways, but
sometimes I have to wonder at the decisions. The hybrid Accord, e.g.,
has no spare tire. In its place you get a can of puncture-sealer to
spray in through the valve stem. Fine if your tire picked up a nail,
uselss if it hit road debris; fine if you're in a metropolitan area,
infuriating if the nearest help is the gas station you passed a long
time ago.

There are good ways to save weight. It's instructive to test a hybrid's
body panels with a magnet.

Brent.

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Steve wrote:
> Excerpts from
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959057.htm
>
>
> While the Toyota Prius sells in eight days, the Honda Accord hybrid
> takes some two months to exit the lot. The Honda Civic hybrid is no
> Prius either - it takes 36 days to move.

The Accord hybrid is almost as bad of an idea as the 8 cylinder powered
VW Passat was (not quite that bad though). Pushing an Accord into
Acura TSX pricing levels really makes no sense.

Now Diesel powered Accords and Civics getting better than hybrid fuel
economy in the real world and selling for no more that a $999 premium
over the gasoline engine car ... that would be a great idea!

John

Sapper

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Not if you live in NY or CA though!

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Xaf.4029$dU6.3327@trnddc03...
> Steve wrote:
>> Excerpts from
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959057.htm While
>> the Toyota Prius sells in eight days, the Honda Accord hybrid
>> takes some two months to exit the lot. The Honda Civic hybrid is no
>> Prius either - it takes 36 days to move.
>
>
> The Accord hybrid is almost as bad of an idea as the 8 cylinder powered VW
> Passat was (not quite that bad though). Pushing an Accord into Acura TSX
> pricing levels really makes no sense.
>
> Now Diesel powered Accords and Civics getting better than hybrid fuel
> economy in the real world and selling for no more that a $999 premium over
> the gasoline engine car ... that would be a great idea!
>
> John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Supposedly the low-sulfer fuels will be rolled out in 2006 which should
solve the emissions regulations problems for diesels. Even so, there
are a whole lot of vehicles sold in the other 48 states!

John

Sapper wrote:
> Not if you live in NY or CA though!
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:i1Xaf.4029$dU6.3327@trnddc03...
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>Excerpts from
>>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959057.htm While
>>>the Toyota Prius sells in eight days, the Honda Accord hybrid
>>>takes some two months to exit the lot. The Honda Civic hybrid is no
>>>Prius either - it takes 36 days to move.
>>
>>
>>The Accord hybrid is almost as bad of an idea as the 8 cylinder powered VW
>>Passat was (not quite that bad though). Pushing an Accord into Acura TSX
>>pricing levels really makes no sense.
>>
>>Now Diesel powered Accords and Civics getting better than hybrid fuel
>>economy in the real world and selling for no more that a $999 premium over
>>the gasoline engine car ... that would be a great idea!
>>
>>John
>
>
>

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

When we were shopping for a new car three years ago, we only looked at
hybrids. There were four Prius on the lot, and no Civic hybrids to even test
drive, so the choice was pretty much made at that point.

We couldn't be happier. The only repair we've done in those three years is
replacement of a broken windshield. The transmissionless Prius is a joy to
drive; my wife wouldn't have a manual (she knows how but doesn't like it).
There is 50K miles left on the hybrid system warranty (including the
battery... the hybrid system warranty is 10 yrs/150K miles in about half a
dozen states but only 8 yr/100K in AZ). We average upper 40s mpg in real
world driving, more around town where we do the most driving. It's clean,
quiet, comfortable, responsive and superbly maneuverable. What's not to
like?

On the diesel front, count me out. I just got a new work truck last month -
a TDi F350 Super Duty. As a work vehicle there's a lot to like. It gets
easily double the fuel economy of my previous gasser. On the highway, the
power is phenomenal... at 25 psi boost I'm not surprised! Off the line is a
whole different story. Making a left turn across traffic requires great
patience and sometimes the kindness of strangers. I wish I had four feet:
one for the accelerator, one for the clutch, and two more to do the Fred
Flintstone thing. Add in the clatter and smell and it just isn't something
I'd want in a family car.

Mike

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:

> On the diesel front, count me out. I just got a new work truck last month -
> a TDi F350 Super Duty.

A modern automotive diesel powerplant, as about half the new cars sold
in Europe use, is a much different story than the converted tractor
motor Ford is using.

John

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

The International engine that Ford uses in its light trucks turns a lot
faster then any either one of them us in their farm equipment. ;)

mike hunt

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:F3ubf.8839$dU6.6667@trnddc03...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> On the diesel front, count me out. I just got a new work truck last
>> month - a TDi F350 Super Duty.
>
> A modern automotive diesel powerplant, as about half the new cars sold in
> Europe use, is a much different story than the converted tractor motor
> Ford is using.
>
> John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Mike Hunter wrote:
> The International engine that Ford uses in its light trucks turns a lot
> faster then any either one of them us in their farm equipment. ;)
>
>
> mike hunt
>

Even so, it is at nothing approaching the sophistication level of the
best modern European car diesels.

John

High Tech Misfit

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

John Horner wrote:

> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> The International engine that Ford uses in its light trucks turns a lot
>> faster then any either one of them us in their farm equipment. ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> Even so, it is at nothing approaching the sophistication level of the
> best modern European car diesels.
>
> John

Pay no attention to "Mike Hunter". He is a notorious pro-Ford liar and
troll in the Toyota newsgroup (to which this thread had been cross-posted).

Cranky Dude

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:41:31 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>I suppose the reason is the Civic buyer can get a better perspective on the
>premium price one must pay to buy a hybrid when looking at the came car with
>the different power plants. That premium will buy nearly ALL of the fuel
>for a conventional powered Civic. In the case of the Prius most buyers do
>not think to compare it to the Corolla for size, price, and fuel mileage.
>To say nothing of the fact dealers never mention the huge battery
>replacement cost somewhere down the line.
>

You know, I've heard this comment about battery life and huge battery
replacement cost before. So I'm curious, just how long is the life
expectancy of a hybrid battery? Would that mean that the resale value
of a used hybrid would drop faster with time than a similar model
non-hybrid?

CD

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Cranky Dude wrote:

>
> You know, I've heard this comment about battery life and huge battery
> replacement cost before. So I'm curious, just how long is the life
> expectancy of a hybrid battery? Would that mean that the resale value
> of a used hybrid would drop faster with time than a similar model
> non-hybrid?
>
> CD
>

It is a good question and one which I suspect the car makers know the
answer to, but are keeping quiet about. The battery technology being
used is a larger implemenation of the same rechargeable battery types
already deployed in laptops, cordless power tools, digital cameras, cell
phone and the like. I have had more laptop batteries totally fail to
take a charge than I would care to think about. They typically work
great at first, but months or years down the line need to be replaced at
a high cost.

With cordless power tools (drills, etc.) it is often cheaper to buy a
whole new one than it is to replace the power packs. Typically a couple
of years of moderate use is all it takes for those battery packs to be
worthless.

Lithium batteries, for example, are generally rated for 300-500
charge-discharge cycles before being useless. Typically as the number of
cycles adds up, the capacity deteriorates.

See: http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm

Nicad batteries are generally considered usefull for around 700
carefully managed cycles.

See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html

I believe that the Prius and other presently available hybrids use Nicad
for this longer cycle life, even though Lithium batteries offer a
higher power density.

There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so
only time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there
are going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them
the second owners of these vehicles.

John

notbob

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

On 2005-11-07, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so
> only time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there
> are going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them
> the second owners of these vehicles.

A google search using hybrid battery replacement reveals much. The
consensus of many critics seems to be that hybrids, for the price, are
not yet cost effective and are now just a "feel good" car for well off
tree huggers.

nb

Steve

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>A google search using hybrid battery replacement reveals much. The
>consensus of many critics seems to be that hybrids, for the price, are
>not yet cost effective and are now just a "feel good" car for well off
>tree huggers.

The hybrids have never been cost effective, pretty much everyone
agrees on that.

=====================

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.

....G.K. Chesterton

C. E. White

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JkNbf.3914$Bx.3718@trnddc01...
> Cranky Dude wrote:
>
>>
>> You know, I've heard this comment about battery life and huge battery
>> replacement cost before. So I'm curious, just how long is the life
>> expectancy of a hybrid battery? Would that mean that the resale value
>> of a used hybrid would drop faster with time than a similar model
>> non-hybrid?
>>
>> CD
>>
>
> It is a good question and one which I suspect the car makers know the
> answer to, but are keeping quiet about. The battery technology being used
> is a larger implemenation of the same rechargeable battery types already
> deployed in laptops, cordless power tools, digital cameras, cell phone and
> the like. I have had more laptop batteries totally fail to take a charge
> than I would care to think about. They typically work great at first,
> but months or years down the line need to be replaced at a high cost.
>
> With cordless power tools (drills, etc.) it is often cheaper to buy a
> whole new one than it is to replace the power packs. Typically a couple
> of years of moderate use is all it takes for those battery packs to be
> worthless.
>
> Lithium batteries, for example, are generally rated for 300-500
> charge-discharge cycles before being useless. Typically as the number of
> cycles adds up, the capacity deteriorates.
>
> See: http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm
>
> Nicad batteries are generally considered usefull for around 700 carefully
> managed cycles.
>
> See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html
>
> I believe that the Prius and other presently available hybrids use Nicad
> for this longer cycle life, even though Lithium batteries offer a higher
> power density.
>
> There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so only
> time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there are
> going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them the
> second owners of these vehicles.

The Prius does not use NiCads. It uses nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
batteries. And the Prius system only discharges htem to about 80% of
capacity. These batteries have very good life, and the limited dicharge
enhances this further. I believe that in normal usage, you can expect the
battery to last 150,000-200,000 miles.

http://www.peve.panasonic.co.jp/catalog/e_kaku.html
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=135399&page=1
http://www.lubbockautos.com/autonews/toyota/062204.shtml

Ed

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

No matter how one choose to spin it, the Prius will need a new battery pack
at some point in its life and the cost at that time will be so high, in
comparison to the value of the vehicle, that its value with spent batteries
will by virtually nothing. Who is going to foolish enough to replace a
$4,000 battery pack in a $4,000 vehicle?

mike hunt

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:YqQbf.6122$m81.3588@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:JkNbf.3914$Bx.3718@trnddc01...
>> Cranky Dude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You know, I've heard this comment about battery life and huge battery
>>> replacement cost before. So I'm curious, just how long is the life
>>> expectancy of a hybrid battery? Would that mean that the resale value
>>> of a used hybrid would drop faster with time than a similar model
>>> non-hybrid?
>>>
>>> CD
>>>
>>
>> It is a good question and one which I suspect the car makers know the
>> answer to, but are keeping quiet about. The battery technology being
>> used is a larger implemenation of the same rechargeable battery types
>> already deployed in laptops, cordless power tools, digital cameras, cell
>> phone and the like. I have had more laptop batteries totally fail to
>> take a charge than I would care to think about. They typically work
>> great at first, but months or years down the line need to be replaced at
>> a high cost.
>>
>> With cordless power tools (drills, etc.) it is often cheaper to buy a
>> whole new one than it is to replace the power packs. Typically a couple
>> of years of moderate use is all it takes for those battery packs to be
>> worthless.
>>
>> Lithium batteries, for example, are generally rated for 300-500
>> charge-discharge cycles before being useless. Typically as the number of
>> cycles adds up, the capacity deteriorates.
>>
>> See: http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm
>>
>> Nicad batteries are generally considered usefull for around 700 carefully
>> managed cycles.
>>
>> See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html
>>
>> I believe that the Prius and other presently available hybrids use Nicad
>> for this longer cycle life, even though Lithium batteries offer a higher
>> power density.
>>
>> There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so
>> only time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there
>> are going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them
>> the second owners of these vehicles.
>
> The Prius does not use NiCads. It uses nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
> batteries. And the Prius system only discharges htem to about 80% of
> capacity. These batteries have very good life, and the limited dicharge
> enhances this further. I believe that in normal usage, you can expect the
> battery to last 150,000-200,000 miles.
>
> http://www.peve.panasonic.co.jp/catalog/e_kaku.html
> http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=135399&page=1
> http://www.lubbockautos.com/autonews/toyota/062204.shtml
>
> Ed
>

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JkNbf.3914$Bx.3718@trnddc01...
> There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so only
> time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there are
> going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them the
> second owners of these vehicles.
>
I can't predict the future, but although a number of 2001 Prius are
approaching 200K miles the HV batteries so far have been supremely reliable.
It's instructive to Google "honda transmission fail" and look over some of
the 391K hits. Why they fail, which ones fail, what to do about the failed
ones... and then to Google "prius battery fail." It returns 70K hits
presently, and the only one I see offhand ( http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x ) that
purports to be a failed battery is clearly bogus: the complainant says the
battery released sulfur dioxide in large amounts when it failed, but there
is no sulfur in the NiMH battery Toyota uses. The rest are mainly
speculation about how long the battery might last. If you are in California
or a handful of other states, Toyota will pay the full replacement cost for
10 years or 150K miles. In the other states it is 8 years or 100K miles. Not
sure about Canada.

Mike

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:X6adnX0SI7QAhO3eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> No matter how one choose to spin it, the Prius will need a new battery
> pack at some point in its life and the cost at that time will be so high,
> in comparison to the value of the vehicle, that its value with spent
> batteries will by virtually nothing. Who is going to foolish enough to
> replace a $4,000 battery pack in a $4,000 vehicle?
>
> mike hunt

I don't think that is a safe conclusion at all. With a number of Prius
approaching the 200K mile and 5 year mark, there have been few enough
outright battery failures that validating them is difficult (obvious hoaxes
are common). It is more likely as Toyota indicates; most will never need a
replacement battery. If somebody does need one, used batteries are often
offered for $400-$1000 US on ebay, courtesy of road accidents. To test the
battery, the multi-function display includes a diagnostic screen that
reports individual cell health (one of those secret sequence things) and the
cells are individually replaceable.

Every vehicle dies of something. I've scrapped a Mercury Capri because it
needed a new driveshaft (integral u-joints!) and the price was over $200. To
assume HV batteries will be the death of most hybrids is quite a stretch,
especially given their track record.

Mike

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

In article <QdudnW6t05YXuO3eRVn-vA@sedona.net>
michaeltnull@cybertrails.com "Michael Pardee" writes:

> [re Prius main battery] To test the battery, the multi-function
> display includes a diagnostic screen that reports individual
> cell health (one of those secret sequence things) and the cells
> are individually replaceable.

Can you pass on the sequence, please? I'd love to have it handy
for my UK-spec T4 Prius (new Aug 2005), for occasional checking.

More generally: there are so many ignorant people, ready to make
sweeping and ignorant statements about hybrids that I've learned
to disregard them, or (for fun) pick out the weasel-phrases used
to insure against contradiction. The bleeding things work, now.
I am assuming Toyota (with Honda, and whoever else undertakes to
manufacture advanced vehicles) do accelerated life testing &c &c
with a view to ensuring customers don't get mightily cheesed off
before they've had value for money. Time, not ignorant opinion,
will tell.

FWIW my Toyota dealer tells me today that the UK price for a new
main Prius battery (w/o labour charges or taxes) is GBP 1321.35,
which I hope helps to focus the discussion. (Side note: earlier
this year I posted a substantially lower price, also supplied by
my dealer; but I think he must have misunderstood the question.)
I would expect this price to fall as design refinements are made
and production ramps up -- what to, who knows.
--
Andrew Stephenson

Elmo P. Shagnasty

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

In article <1131470940snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,
ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

> More generally: there are so many ignorant people, ready to make
> sweeping and ignorant statements about hybrids that I've learned
> to disregard them, or (for fun) pick out the weasel-phrases used
> to insure against contradiction. The bleeding things work, now.

But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
the same problems?

They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to re-use on
acceleration. There's only one place where that works: city driving.

The requirement for braking came from the burning of petrol to create
acceleration in the first place. Must we burn petrol to create the
acceleration? Can anything else solve that problem?

They're also more expensive to make and to buy. That's a problem in and
of itself. If we're trying to save on petrol, can we use any other
motive source for acceleration?

If so, can that other motive source be purchased cheaper than the hybrid?

For example: can a diesel engine solve the problem better/cheaper/more
reliably than a hybrid?

Can I run a diesel and spend less money, or no more than the same money,
as a hybrid? Let's say I spend the exact same amount of money per mile
to motivate the diesel as the hybrid. Now it comes down to maintenance
and reliability. Is the diesel cheaper or more expensive to maintain?
What about the reliability--can I get the diesel fixed cheaper? What
happens when I go out in the country somewhere--can I rely on the magic
black box of software that the hybrid depends upon, or will a diesel be
more reliable because it doesn't depend on a computer just to run?

There are so many questions to ask yourself once you dig down.

I prize reliability and simplicity. The Toyota hybrid fails the
simplicity test horribly, the Honda hybrid much less so, the diesel
virtually not at all.

And frankly, it's all about MY pocketbook. Which one, over 200K miles,
cost me the least out of pocket to buy, maintain, repair, and insure?

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

You forgot one very impotent part of that equation....REPLACEMENT cost. The
hybrids, all of them, cost more to buy than conventionally power vehicles of
the same size and equipment. They will cost more to replace as well.
Especially if the batteries are depleted. The fact is the premium one pays
to acquire a hybrid will generally buy ALL of the fuel, used by a comparable
conventionally power vehicle, for three to four years. For the average new
car buyer in the US that replaces their new vehicle with another new vehicle
in three to four years that can mean all of the fuel for as long as they
generally own their vehicles. Personally I hope more buyers choose hybrids
to save the planet, that will stretch the supply of fuel for those of use
that prefer high powered, safer, large vehicles. The only problem I see is
if the consumption of fuel, in total, is going down the price of fuel will
rise for those that have trouble buying fuel at todays prices evn for hybrid
owners. ;)

mike

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > And frankly, it's all about MY pocketbook. Which one,
over 200K miles,
> cost me the least out of pocket to buy, maintain, repair, and insure?
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

My satellite phone has the same type of battery as used in the Pruis. It is
about the size of a thick postage stamp and it costs $52 to replace. ;)

mike hunt

"Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1131470940snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
> In article <QdudnW6t05YXuO3eRVn-vA@sedona.net>
> michaeltnull@cybertrails.com "Michael Pardee" writes:
>
>> [re Prius main battery] To test the battery, the multi-function
>> display includes a diagnostic screen that reports individual
>> cell health (one of those secret sequence things) and the cells
>> are individually replaceable.
>
> Can you pass on the sequence, please? I'd love to have it handy
> for my UK-spec T4 Prius (new Aug 2005), for occasional checking.
>
> More generally: there are so many ignorant people, ready to make
> sweeping and ignorant statements about hybrids that I've learned
> to disregard them, or (for fun) pick out the weasel-phrases used
> to insure against contradiction. The bleeding things work, now.
> I am assuming Toyota (with Honda, and whoever else undertakes to
> manufacture advanced vehicles) do accelerated life testing &c &c
> with a view to ensuring customers don't get mightily cheesed off
> before they've had value for money. Time, not ignorant opinion,
> will tell.
>
> FWIW my Toyota dealer tells me today that the UK price for a new
> main Prius battery (w/o labour charges or taxes) is GBP 1321.35,
> which I hope helps to focus the discussion. (Side note: earlier
> this year I posted a substantially lower price, also supplied by
> my dealer; but I think he must have misunderstood the question.)
> I would expect this price to fall as design refinements are made
> and production ramps up -- what to, who knows.
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Wanna bet the replacement cost is prorated, not fully covered by the
warranty?

mike hunt

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:PL-dnfEPE5YHg-3eRVn-tA@sedona.net...
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:JkNbf.3914$Bx.3718@trnddc01...
>> There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so
>> only time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there
>> are going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them
>> the second owners of these vehicles.
>>
> I can't predict the future, but although a number of 2001 Prius are
> approaching 200K miles the HV batteries so far have been supremely
> reliable. It's instructive to Google "honda transmission fail" and look
> over some of the 391K hits. Why they fail, which ones fail, what to do
> about the failed ones... and then to Google "prius battery fail." It
> returns 70K hits presently, and the only one I see offhand (
> http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x ) that purports to be a failed battery is clearly
> bogus: the complainant says the battery released sulfur dioxide in large
> amounts when it failed, but there is no sulfur in the NiMH battery Toyota
> uses. The rest are mainly speculation about how long the battery might
> last. If you are in California or a handful of other states, Toyota will
> pay the full replacement cost for 10 years or 150K miles. In the other
> states it is 8 years or 100K miles. Not sure about Canada.
>
> Mike
>

notbob

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

On 2005-11-08, Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

> to acquire a hybrid will generally buy ALL of the fuel, used by a comparable
> conventionally power vehicle, for three to four years.

Probably closer to 8 years, the life expectency of a hybrid battery
pack.

> For the average new
> car buyer in the US that replaces their new vehicle with another new vehicle
> in three to four years that can mean all of the fuel for as long as they
> generally own their vehicles.

Or longer.

> Personally I hope more buyers choose hybrids
> to save the planet....

I'm not. It's a diversion from hydrogen technology. Besides, battery
production is an incredibly toxic industry. Your trading one plague
for another.

nb

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

In article <elmop-811E23.13304108112005@nntp2.usenetserver.com>
elmop@nastydesigns.com "Elmo P. Shagnasty" writes:

> In article <1131470940snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,
> ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
>
> > More generally: there are so many ignorant people, ready to make
> > sweeping and ignorant statements about hybrids that I've learned
> > to disregard them, or (for fun) pick out the weasel-phrases used
> > to insure against contradiction. The bleeding things work, now.
>
> But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
> the same problems?

At the risk of turning this into one of those endlessly circling
threads, I'll try to go through your points, which are reasonable
but based (in a couple of places at least) on insufficient facts.

All of the following is AFAIK, okay?

At this stage in the development of hybrids and advanced vehicle
design in general, the industry is having to play catch-up after
decades of, frankly, unforgivable negligence. Now that pressure
is on to make best use of resources, they are seeking answers.

So these vehicles are, to some extent, test beds. The initial
experiments have been done at the factory and have reached the
stage where the product is deemed good enough to be released for
long-term market testing. As with ANY product, there will be
imperfections, which we hope will be removed by re-design.

The main problems the Prius (and, I assume, competing designs) is
_trying_ to solve seem to fall into at least three areas: better
conversion of the fuel (petrol/gas/&c) into a form useful within
the vehicle (eg, movement, light, heat, communications); reduced
waste of same thereafter; improved control generally to make the
car more efficient (re: energy) and a good drive (eg, responsive,
surer-footed on slippery surfaces, positive steering+braking).

On top of those perfomance-related issues, there is the question
of improving the vehicle's green credentials. Now, I know that
for some people "green" is a red-rag-to-a-bull trigger word. By
it, I mean "how to reduce the amount you throw away needlessly".
Manufacturers are learning to waste less whilst building the car,
waste less whilst it's working, recover more when it's scrapped.
It's not a political question, unless we insist on making it so.
Saving makes such bleeding obvious sense, I'll stop beating that
drum right there.

> They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to
> re-use on acceleration. There's only one place where that
> works: city driving.

Well, no, they already solve more problems than that. The Prius
uses several tricks to cut fuel consumption. The regenerative
braking is significant, certainly; but the greater effiiency of
the Atkinson engine (less power for the same capacity, but much
greater efficiency) is the first major plus. Then, yes, waste
due to braking counts for a lot. On top of that, the electric
motor does a better job of start/slow/stop movement than a plain
old ICE would, as technology stands now. Finally, there is the
control system, which works behind the scenes, choosing optimal
strategies as best it can.

> [...]
>
> They're also more expensive to make and to buy. That's a
> problem in and of itself. If we're trying to save on petrol, can
> we use any other motive source for acceleration?

A dangerous generalisation. The Prius has bits conventional cars
lack, yes (eg: battery, electric generator and motor, inverter,
planetary gear), but lacks some conventional parts (eg: clutch,
gearbox); and some parts are simplified or smaller (eg: 1.5 litre
petrol engine, 45 litre fuel tank, lightweight transmission). A
slew of parts are entirely conventional and can benefit from past
developments and existing production methods (eg: wheels+tyres,
suspensions, hydraulic brake components (augmented by regen.),
lights, seating, steering, structure parts, body panels, paint
and plastics bits). Get the idea? It's a trade-off.

And, to repeat something that really shouldn't need repeating, in
an age when we trust horrendously complex gadgets with our lives
every hour: complexity does not have to mean unreliability. The
Prius braking system, for example, is full of feedback loops that
cope with small failures. Go look it up: Toyota are fairly free
with their literature and sent me detailed techical info.

> If so, can that other motive source be purchased cheaper than
> the hybrid?

It'll be something that surprises us -- count on it.

> For example: can a diesel engine solve the problem
> better/cheaper/more reliably than a hybrid?

Time will tell. My money is on someone developing a diesel that
can be fitted into a hybrid, thereby gaining the best of both.

> There are so many questions to ask yourself once you dig down.

Indeed. I totally agree with you there.

> And frankly, it's all about MY pocketbook. Which one, over
> 200K miles, cost me the least out of pocket to buy, maintain,
> repair, and insure?

One of the nice aspects of a free market is that _you_ can choose
not to participate in the Great Experiment. With more of us out
there, trying alternative solutions, we may find a better way a
lot sooner. So go for it. Or not. Thus far, I like my Prius.
It cost me significantly less (purchase price) and serves me more
to my taste than some quite swanky cars I looked at.
--
Andrew Stephenson

Elmo P. Shagnasty

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

In article <1131480732snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,
ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

> > But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
> > the same problems?
>
> At the risk of turning this into one of those endlessly circling
> threads, I'll try to go through your points, which are reasonable
> but based (in a couple of places at least) on insufficient facts.
>
> All of the following is AFAIK, okay?

Good discussion, thanks.

> Now, I know that
> for some people "green" is a red-rag-to-a-bull trigger word. By
> it, I mean "how to reduce the amount you throw away needlessly".
> Manufacturers are learning to waste less whilst building the car,
> waste less whilst it's working, recover more when it's scrapped.

That pretty much sums it up. "Green" isn't a car, it's a holistic
philosophy.

> Finally, there is the
> control system, which works behind the scenes, choosing optimal
> strategies as best it can.

Personally, I have trouble evaluating the control system in a vacuum. I
need to evaluate the benefits of the control system against the cost of
the fact that the control system is incredibly complex--and complexity
brings its own set of problems to the table.

Now we're into the law of unintended consequences.

> The Prius has bits conventional cars
> lack, yes (eg: battery, electric generator and motor, inverter,
> planetary gear), but lacks some conventional parts (eg: clutch,
> gearbox);

Many cars can use less complex transmissions as well. That they don't
choose to is another matter.

> And, to repeat something that really shouldn't need repeating, in
> an age when we trust horrendously complex gadgets with our lives
> every hour: complexity does not have to mean unreliability.

Pull back a bit, and see what happened when a hurricane hit our
incredibly complex and teetering on the edge energy market.

Complexity puts you that much closer to the edge.

> > For example: can a diesel engine solve the problem
> > better/cheaper/more reliably than a hybrid?
>
> Time will tell. My money is on someone developing a diesel that
> can be fitted into a hybrid, thereby gaining the best of both.

That's such a simple concept, I'm amazed it hasn't been done. Didn't I
read in Car and Driver magazine some time ago that an idling diesel
engine consumes virtually no fuel? This was in regard to big rig
trucks, but still. The question came up about why truck drivers don't
shut their engines off in situations where car drivers would, and that
was the answer.

> Thus far, I like my Prius.
> It cost me significantly less (purchase price) and serves me more
> to my taste than some quite swanky cars I looked at.

Frankly, if anyone can do it it'll be Toyota.

I find it mildly humorous that Ford has licensed Toyota hybrid
technology for their Escape...

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

hybrids don't just work by capturing braking energy.

They run a more fuel efficient cycle with a longer expansion stroke.
The Miller/Atkinson cycle. They can do this because acceleration is
supplemented by the battery. They also have a smaller engine b/c it
can use batteries to accelerate.

By using the Miller cycle they get a higher % of energy out of the gas
and into the drivetrain.

It's very ingenious.

Hydrogen is probably never going to "be here". You need a fuel source
to get hydrogen. Hydrogen is very hard to transport (harder than
natural gas which is difficult enough) and there are no cheap "fuel
cells". The advantages of a liquid fuel are great.

I think the next step is using a smaller gas engine and a
larger/cheaper battery that you can plug in. You could plug it in for
an hour a night and that would take you maybe 30-40 miles. On longer
trips and under acceleration the gas engine would turn on. That way
you'd be replacing gas with electricity, which can come from
nuclear/coal/wind whatever.

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-811E23.13304108112005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
> the same problems?
>
> They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to re-use on
> acceleration. There's only one place where that works: city driving.
>
Regenerative braking is very far down on the list of values in
hybridization. The essential purpose is to use the primary power source more
efficiently. Putting a 240 hp engine in a passenger car to cruise around
town at 35 mph is extremely inefficient. Using a 50 hp engine to do that is
far more efficient, but responsiveness suffers badly. We are in the infancy
of hybridization now, but as the power technology advances a 50 hp hybrid
can be more efficient than a 50 hp conventional car and provide better
responsiveness than a 240 hp conventional car. The difference is made up by
stored electric power.

In actuality, a car would have to be pretty small to warrant only a 50 hp
engine. The design becomes straightforward, though. The power necessary to
climb a 6% grade at the prevailing maximum speed (75 mph in the US) at
maximum gross weight is exactly the engine power needed. For a mid-size car
that is in the 100 hp range, maybe slightly less.

The side effects of running the engine at higher power levels are valuable,
too. Hybridization increasingly separates the engine from the driver
control, so there are no issues with suddenly mashing the accelerator.
Emissions are much easier to control as the engine comes under computer
control.

I can understand why there isn't a lot of enthusiasm for the current
generation of hybrids. Not only do they have a limited track record, the
level of hybridization is not enough to knock anybody's socks off. (Well,
mostly not. See Honda's DualNote
http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2001/auto/DUALNOTE/ for a glimpse of what is
possible.)

Mike

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:n02dnUi0CLdClOzeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> My satellite phone has the same type of battery as used in the Pruis. It
> is about the size of a thick postage stamp and it costs $52 to replace.
> ;)
>
>
> mike hunt
>
Your battery has the same basic chemistry, but is a very different animal.
In portable electronics the most important design characteristics are power
density, light weight, barely affordable replacement cost, and short,
spectacular life. The last two are economic considerations. In the Prius
power density and light weight are not very important at all, the
replacement cost is what it is (since it is not designed to be replaced),
and the life is designed to match the life of the rest of the car. If you
were willing to have a much larger and heavier battery that used only a
third of its potential capacity, and a very sophisticated and expensive
charger that was always connected to a charging source when the battery was
in use, your battery could easily outlast your satellite phone. I doubt you
would like it, though.

Mike

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:ck2dnfJ60v3MluzeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Wanna bet the replacement cost is prorated, not fully covered by the
> warranty?
>
> mike hunt

Nope - 100% covered.

Mike

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

So you would like us to believe the useful life of a Pruis is 8yr 100K? A
Corolla that can be had for 5,000 less will easily last to 200k or more,
don't you think All the more reason one would be better off buying a
Corolla ;)

mike

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:cLGdnfHveeaTtOzeRVn-rw@sedona.net...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:n02dnUi0CLdClOzeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> My satellite phone has the same type of battery as used in the Pruis. It
>> is about the size of a thick postage stamp and it costs $52 to replace.
>> ;)
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
> Your battery has the same basic chemistry, but is a very different animal.
> In portable electronics the most important design characteristics are
> power density, light weight, barely affordable replacement cost, and
> short, spectacular life. The last two are economic considerations. In the
> Prius power density and light weight are not very important at all, the
> replacement cost is what it is (since it is not designed to be replaced),
> and the life is designed to match the life of the rest of the car. If you
> were willing to have a much larger and heavier battery that used only a
> third of its potential capacity, and a very sophisticated and expensive
> charger that was always connected to a charging source when the battery
> was in use, your battery could easily outlast your satellite phone. I
> doubt you would like it, though.
>
> Mike
>

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:NHydnV8_052qrezeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> So you would like us to believe the useful life of a Pruis is 8yr 100K?
> A Corolla that can be had for 5,000 less will easily last to 200k or more,
> don't you think All the more reason one would be better off buying a
> Corolla ;)
>
> mike

No - the *warranty* is 8 yr/100K miles. Engine warranties (like the one in
the Corolla) are typically 3 yr/36K miles, but I'm sure you expect more.

Mike

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

C. E. White wrote:

>>See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html
>>
> The Prius does not use NiCads. It uses nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
> batteries. And the Prius system only discharges htem to about 80% of
> capacity. These batteries have very good life, and the limited dicharge
> enhances this further. I believe that in normal usage, you can expect the
> battery to last 150,000-200,000 miles.

We shall see. NiMH batteries typically have a reduced charge cycle
lifetime compared to NiCADs. That is one reason NiMH never caught on in
power tools where a contractor might cycle a battery several times per day.

Lifetime in cars is going to be highly variable depending upon usage
patterns and random manufacturing variations.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-811E23.13304108112005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>
>>But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
>>the same problems?
>>
>>They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to re-use on
>>acceleration. There's only one place where that works: city driving.
>>
>
> Regenerative braking is very far down on the list of values in
> hybridization. The essential purpose is to use the primary power source more
> efficiently. Putting a 240 hp engine in a passenger car to cruise around
> town at 35 mph is extremely inefficient. Using a 50 hp engine to do that is
> far more efficient, but responsiveness suffers badly. We are in the infancy
> of hybridization now, but as the power technology advances a 50 hp hybrid
> can be more efficient than a 50 hp conventional car and provide better
> responsiveness than a 240 hp conventional car. The difference is made up by
> stored electric power.

One problem with that is the fact that the stored electric power
eventually runs down. It would not be fun to be in the passing lane on
a long uphill section of road going around a vehicle only to discover
that your battery storage has just been exhausted and that the available
torque is suddenly reduced 50%. Yikes!

One thing hybrids bring into the equation is a significant depenence on
near term prior history to a degree which conventional engines do not.

John

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Iedcf.54339$An6.619@trnddc08...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>> news:elmop-811E23.13304108112005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>>
>>>But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
>>>the same problems?
>>>
>>>They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to re-use on
>>>acceleration. There's only one place where that works: city driving.
>>>
>>
>> Regenerative braking is very far down on the list of values in
>> hybridization. The essential purpose is to use the primary power source
>> more efficiently. Putting a 240 hp engine in a passenger car to cruise
>> around town at 35 mph is extremely inefficient. Using a 50 hp engine to
>> do that is far more efficient, but responsiveness suffers badly. We are
>> in the infancy of hybridization now, but as the power technology advances
>> a 50 hp hybrid can be more efficient than a 50 hp conventional car and
>> provide better responsiveness than a 240 hp conventional car. The
>> difference is made up by stored electric power.
>
> One problem with that is the fact that the stored electric power
> eventually runs down. It would not be fun to be in the passing lane on a
> long uphill section of road going around a vehicle only to discover that
> your battery storage has just been exhausted and that the available torque
> is suddenly reduced 50%. Yikes!
>
> One thing hybrids bring into the equation is a significant depenence on
> near term prior history to a degree which conventional engines do not.
>
> John

It's all a matter of design. In your example, a properly designed hybrid
will not run out of passing power because the engine power was enough to
maintain full legal speed, while passing power is available because it was
not needed to reach the cruising speed. A major reason multi-hundred
horsepower engines are used in passenger cars today is to provide that
margin, in spite of the economy penalty the vast majority of the time.

Even in the previous generation Prius - the one we have - our battery has
never dropped to "empty" (actually something like 50% charge) although we
live at 7000 feet and have made trips with ful load to Washington state and
the LA area. I've never heard anybody complain about that happening, either.
It just isn't a problem.

Mike

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m9dcf.54217$An6.8868@trnddc08...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>>See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html
>>>
>> The Prius does not use NiCads. It uses nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
>> batteries. And the Prius system only discharges htem to about 80% of
>> capacity. These batteries have very good life, and the limited dicharge
>> enhances this further. I believe that in normal usage, you can expect the
>> battery to last 150,000-200,000 miles.
>
> We shall see. NiMH batteries typically have a reduced charge cycle
> lifetime compared to NiCADs. That is one reason NiMH never caught on in
> power tools where a contractor might cycle a battery several times per
> day.
>
> Lifetime in cars is going to be highly variable depending upon usage
> patterns and random manufacturing variations.
>
> John

The Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997, 8 years ago. I don't have
solid information, but AFAIK no reports have come out about failures of
those batteries.

As you say, we shall see.

Mike

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Iedcf.54339$An6.619@trnddc08...
>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>>news:elmop-811E23.13304108112005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>But what problems do they solve, and what other solutions are there for
>>>>the same problems?
>>>>
>>>>They solve exactly one problem: recapturing braking energy to re-use on
>>>>acceleration. There's only one place where that works: city driving.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Regenerative braking is very far down on the list of values in
>>>hybridization. The essential purpose is to use the primary power source
>>>more efficiently. Putting a 240 hp engine in a passenger car to cruise
>>>around town at 35 mph is extremely inefficient. Using a 50 hp engine to
>>>do that is far more efficient, but responsiveness suffers badly. We are
>>>in the infancy of hybridization now, but as the power technology advances
>>>a 50 hp hybrid can be more efficient than a 50 hp conventional car and
>>>provide better responsiveness than a 240 hp conventional car. The
>>>difference is made up by stored electric power.
>>
>>One problem with that is the fact that the stored electric power
>>eventually runs down. It would not be fun to be in the passing lane on a
>>long uphill section of road going around a vehicle only to discover that
>>your battery storage has just been exhausted and that the available torque
>>is suddenly reduced 50%. Yikes!
>>
>>One thing hybrids bring into the equation is a significant depenence on
>>near term prior history to a degree which conventional engines do not.
>>
>>John
>
>
> It's all a matter of design. In your example, a properly designed hybrid
> will not run out of passing power because the engine power was enough to
> maintain full legal speed, while passing power is available because it was
> not needed to reach the cruising speed. A major reason multi-hundred
> horsepower engines are used in passenger cars today is to provide that
> margin, in spite of the economy penalty the vast majority of the time.
>
> Even in the previous generation Prius - the one we have - our battery has
> never dropped to "empty" (actually something like 50% charge) although we
> live at 7000 feet and have made trips with ful load to Washington state and
> the LA area. I've never heard anybody complain about that happening, either.
> It just isn't a problem.
>
> Mike
>
>

I wasn't talking about the Prius, I was talking about your hypothetical
vehicle which you say would have a much smaller conventional engine than
does a Prius.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:26 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:

> The Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997, 8 years ago. I don't have
> solid information, but AFAIK no reports have come out about failures of
> those batteries.
>
> As you say, we shall see.
>
> Mike
>
>

Clearly not every Prius owner is a happy owner. Look here:

http://www.epinions.com/auto_Make-2002_Toyota_Prius/display_~reviews/sec_~opinion_list/pp_~2

High Tech Misfit

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

John Horner wrote:

> Clearly not every Prius owner is a happy owner. Look here:
>
> http://www.epinions.com/auto_Make-2002_Toyota_Prius/display_~reviews/sec_~opinion_list/pp_~2

But out of those 18 polled, only 1 reported a premature battery failure.

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10qcf.23701$Q27.19230@trnddc02...
>> It's all a matter of design. In your example, a properly designed hybrid
>> will not run out of passing power because the engine power was enough to
>> maintain full legal speed, while passing power is available because it
>> was not needed to reach the cruising speed. A major reason multi-hundred
>> horsepower engines are used in passenger cars today is to provide that
>> margin, in spite of the economy penalty the vast majority of the time.
>>
>> Even in the previous generation Prius - the one we have - our battery has
>> never dropped to "empty" (actually something like 50% charge) although we
>> live at 7000 feet and have made trips with ful load to Washington state
>> and the LA area. I've never heard anybody complain about that happening,
>> either. It just isn't a problem.
>>
>> Mike
>
> I wasn't talking about the Prius, I was talking about your hypothetical
> vehicle which you say would have a much smaller conventional engine than
> does a Prius.
>
> John

Right - the basic principle is to size the engine for the largest continuous
output power required. Making it smaller will cause exactly what you
describe (running out of power on long, hard uphill slopes) while making it
larger is just a waste. Making a hybrid with a 50 hp engine (as I used as an
earlier example) works just fine in the flatlands but would get a poisonous
reputation for more general use. I used 50 hp as an example for the
illustration of moving a car around in town in comparison with using a 240
hp engine. I realize in looking back that confused the issue. Sorry about
that. It is useful to note that the driver wouldn't necessarily notice the
difference in performance between a 50 hp engine and a 100 hp engine except
for the hill climbs.

Mike

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1v7a6mtio38sy$.dlg@hightech.misfit...
> John Horner wrote:
>
>> Clearly not every Prius owner is a happy owner. Look here:
>>
>> http://www.epinions.com/auto_Make-2002_Toyota_Prius/display_~reviews/sec_~opinion_list/pp_~2
>
> But out of those 18 polled, only 1 reported a premature battery failure.

That is the link I posted somewhere above as a tinyURL. Note the battery
failure post is awry; there is no sulfur in the hybrid battery (NaOH
electrolyte, not H2SO4). The 12V aux battery, which does have a fairly high
failure rate, is an AGM battery. It can produce sulfur dioxide, while the
hybrid battery can't.

Still, no car makes everybody happy.

Mike

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:52:22 -0500, High Tech Misfit <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>John Horner wrote:
>
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> The International engine that Ford uses in its light trucks turns a lot
>>> faster then any either one of them us in their farm equipment. ;)
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>
>> Even so, it is at nothing approaching the sophistication level of the
>> best modern European car diesels.
>>
>> John
>
>Pay no attention to "Mike Hunter". He is a notorious pro-Ford liar and
>troll in the Toyota newsgroup (to which this thread had been cross-posted).

Its true about the diesels though. Diesels sold in the US are
antiquated, lumbering beasts from the late 70s and early 80s. a modern
european diesel is not smokey, clattery, or similar. The nearest
you'll get to a euro diesel at the moemnt, is the one in the Golf, or
the one in the Dodge (actually Mercedies) Sprinter cargo van. Only
ford diesel i've been impressed with over the years, was the 1.9 they
used to have in the Ford Fiesta Cargo. The one they've put the the
s-type Jag's meant to be good though.

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle going
from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The Pruis
uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because electric
motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that is
why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The reason is domestics
sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that are
equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much larger
percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a manual
tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
grades, particularly long grades. Most drivers of automatics are want to
run their cars in the lower gears to stay on the tongue curve. Follow a
Corolla equipped with a manual tranny up a long grade and it will quickly
drop off the prevailing speed, unless the drive reverts to lower gears.
Follow one with an automatic and you will see it runs out of gears trying to
maintain speed, and the speed quickly drops off, because few drivers are
willing to run their engines at the much higher RPMs in lower gears needed
to maintain the prevailing speed.

mike hunt

"Michael Pardee" . Sorry about
> that. It is useful to note that the driver wouldn't necessarily notice the
> difference in performance between a 50 hp engine and a 100 hp engine
> except for the hill climbs.
>
> Mike
>

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:DZCcnRFQXs6Axe_eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
> going from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The
> Pruis uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because
> electric motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That
> is why most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
> vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that
> is why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The reason is
> domestics sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their
> vehicles that are equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand
> Japanese brands which use the same engines in cars sold in other countries
> that have a much larger percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual
> tyrannies. With a manual tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on
> the tongue curve to climb grades, particularly long grades. Most drivers
> of automatics are want to run their cars in the lower gears to stay on the
> tongue curve. Follow a Corolla equipped with a manual tranny up a long
> grade and it will quickly drop off the prevailing speed, unless the drive
> reverts to lower gears. Follow one with an automatic and you will see it
> runs out of gears trying to maintain speed, and the speed quickly drops
> off, because few drivers are willing to run their engines at the much
> higher RPMs in lower gears needed to maintain the prevailing speed.
>
> mike hunt
>
In a serial hybrid (which does not yet exist in mass production) there are
no gearing issues because the engine only drives a generator, and the
electricity powers the car. We don't have the power electronics yet for
serial hybrids, but another decade should get us there.

(Getting back to the subject line...) Presently, Honda's hybrids are what
are usually called parallel hybrids. The power train is conventional except
that the engine is assisted (Honda calls it Integrated Motor Assist, or IMA)
by the electrics. Toyota uses an inventive scheme they call
"series-parallel," where a part of the engine torque is directed to the
wheels and part is used to generate electricity to power the electric motor.
That's why the Prius has no transmission per se (and can't have one), just a
skewed differential and a pair of motor/generators. They call it an
Electronic CVT. On hard uphill climbs the engine runs up to the maximum
engine speed (4500 rpm in the pre-2004s, 5000 rpm in the current ones IIRC)
and puts out full rated power with a minimum of drama, completely
independent of the car's speed. At lesser power requirements the hybrid
computer adjusts the load on the generation part to control the load on the
engine, so all aspects of the engine operation are under computer control:
mixture, ignition and valve timing, throttle and load... even whether the
engine is running or not.

Mike

notbob

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

On 2005-11-09, st-bum <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hydrogen is probably never going to "be here". You need a fuel source
> to get hydrogen.

How do you figure? You need a power source, not a fuel souce. The
power is electrical. It can be generated from wind power and solar
power. The current hydrogen research being subsidized by the Bush
administration is indeed planning on the oil industry being the
primary source of this "fuel" you mention. Otherwise they wouldn't be
subsidizing it. That's one of the main reasons hydrogen has been put
on the back burner for 30 years. Anyone with a windmill, the
production equipment, and a storage tank can produce hydrogen. No
profit there.

> Hydrogen is very hard to transport (harder than
> natural gas which is difficult enough) and there are no cheap "fuel
> cells".

Hydrogen can be pressurized and stored just like propane. It is no
more dangerous than gasoline. In fact, in some ways it's safer. After
gasoline's initial explosion, the liquid gas remains and burns
furiously. Once hydrogen explodes, that's it. It's all gone. Fuel
cells are unnecessary. Hydrogen will burn in reciprocating combustion
engines just like other flammable gas (natural, propane). All this
was known 30 years ago. The boogie-man scare tactics and
disinformation are all oil industry bullshit.

nb

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:cqg4n1dp7h97srenfp85ts1rfqfidove80@4ax.com...
> Its true about the diesels though. Diesels sold in the US are
> antiquated, lumbering beasts from the late 70s and early 80s. a modern
> european diesel is not smokey, clattery, or similar. The nearest
> you'll get to a euro diesel at the moemnt, is the one in the Golf, or
> the one in the Dodge (actually Mercedies) Sprinter cargo van. Only
> ford diesel i've been impressed with over the years, was the 1.9 they
> used to have in the Ford Fiesta Cargo. The one they've put the the
> s-type Jag's meant to be good though.

Diesels are a great fit for trucks. Hybridization just doesn't help when the
vehicle is expected to provide a lot of power for a long time, hauling loads
around. (IMA could move it off the line a little quicker, though.)

In spite of my complaint about the lack of off-the-line go power, the turbo
diesel is nearly ideal for the job. The power on the road is outstanding
(for a 10,000 GVWR truck) and the fuel economy is right at twice what the
old gasser was giving me. Not only does that translate to a money saving, it
means twice the range. No ignition to fail... I like it.

Mike

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Hydrogen is less dense than propane or natural and takes alot more
energy to pressurize it (and higher pressures). Because of the higher
pressures, hydrogen tanks on a car would have to have very heavy and
thick steel.

As for burning hydrogen in a car, it would be negate the benefits of
hydrogen. The point of a fuel cell is the high efficiency. Burning it
in an engine would negate that.

You could make a case for combining hydrogen with coal to make diesel
fuel. The ease of transport alone would make it worthwhile.

A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum. Converting
it to hydrogen at 50% efficiency would make it $4 a gallon equivalent.
And that's not counting the capital equipment to make the conversion.
Then you have the pressurization and transport losses. Oil companies
have no fear of "hydrogen". If anything they would encourage the gov't
to fund it. It's pie in the sky. What they would fear is coal to oil
technologies and conservation.

notbob

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

On 2005-11-10, st-bum <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
> heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum.

Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
monopolize for their own gain.

This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in
storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily
with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles. It's all bunk. So
what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too.
It's the pollution that's important.

Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today. But, there's
no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
a damn thing in 30 years.

nb

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:0b6dnYOwtq9YAO_enZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> On 2005-11-10, st-bum <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
>> heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum.
>
> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
> monopolize for their own gain.
>
Oil is also free. It is the harvesting of these things that costs money.
Wind turbines are still fairly expensive to buy and maintain, and the land
is rarely free. The electric company I work for has an 86 KW solar site on a
couple million dollars worth of land... go figure.

> This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in
> storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily
> with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles. It's all bunk. So
> what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too.
> It's the pollution that's important.
>
The storage problems may be solvable, but not yet. At a recent alternative
energy fair I saw a 3/4 ton pickup with 150 mile range, courtesy of the
three large hydrogen tanks that overfilled the bed.

> Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
> in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
> kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
> technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today. But, there's
> no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
> throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
> doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
> a damn thing in 30 years.
>
I canna change the laws of physics. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium,
and as it stands is one of the least efficient of the front-runners. Methane
from hydrates is a more viable alternative to petro fuels, but its time has
not come, either.

Mike

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Wind is free, but steel in a wind tower isn't. Generators isn't free.
The photovoltaic cells aren't close to free.

There's actually been a lot of research in wind and solar over the
years, billions of dollars worth. Countless physicists and engineers
have devoted their lives to research and development. So I don't think
it's fair to say they haven't done anything in 30 years.

The price of electricity from wind has fallen alot. I think 30 years
ago it would have been 30-40 cents per kwh, instead now its 5,
supposedly. Electronics are cheaper due to miniaturization. I don't
think the same thing is true for wind machines. They are more
efficient not and bigger but technology can only go so far.

There's alot of research in it, if it were easy to make money doing it,
it would be here.

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:n02dnUi0CLdClOzeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> My satellite phone has the same type of battery as used in the Pruis. It
is
> about the size of a thick postage stamp and it costs $52 to replace. ;)
>

Proving exactly what?

Most of the battery-powered devices around my house (headlamps,
walkie-talkies, portable radios, alarm clocks, GPS receives) use the same
type of battery as in the Prius. They're about a buck each. I get them at
Target or some big-box store and recharge them until the kids accidentally
throw them out instead of swapping them out.

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:DZCcnRFQXs6Axe_eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
going
> from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The Pruis
> uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because
electric
> motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
> most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
> vehicles.

They're not underpowered. You might try surprising us with facts for a
change. But I doubt you will.

I drove through CO, UT, AZ and NM last spring in my '01 Sienna. 5
passengers and camping equipment and it never dowhshifted on all the
freeways through the mountains (Eisenhower tunnel and Raton pass included).
Next time, I'll keep track of the Aerosaurs, Windstoppers and Freeloaders I
breeze by as they're sucking wind in the Rockies.

> Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that
is
> why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.

Actually, you'll find that the 2005 Sienna 3.3L-V6 develops its greatest
torque at a lower RPM than the Freestar's 3.9L-V6 does.* It just provides
more maximum HP at higher revs because the torque doesn't fall off as fast
at higher RPMs with the Toyota engine as it does with the Ford. I suppose
the Toyota engine is designed more carefully and machined to closer
tolerances, so it's not shaking itself to pieces at >5000rpm.

> The reason is domestics
> sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that are
> equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
> use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much
larger
> percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a manual
> tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
> grades, particularly long grades. Most drivers of automatics are want to
> run their cars in the lower gears to stay on the tongue curve. Follow a
> Corolla equipped with a manual tranny up a long grade and it will quickly
> drop off the prevailing speed, unless the drive reverts to lower gears.
> Follow one with an automatic and you will see it runs out of gears trying
to
> maintain speed, and the speed quickly drops off, because few drivers are
> willing to run their engines at the much higher RPMs in lower gears needed
> to maintain the prevailing speed.
>
> mike hunt

* - Source: Edmunds.com.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/sienna/100604394/specs.html?
tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Toyot a*
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/specs.html?
tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*

Oh, look, the Toyota develops more power than the bigger Freestar engine,
too:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/specs.html?
tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*

What else did Edmunds have to say about the Freestar?
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/
researchlanding.html

"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel economy than
those of competing minivans, low-grade interior materials, hard-to-remove
second-row seats..."

By the numbers...
Vehicle Curb Weight Power lb/hp MPG
Sienna 4140lbs 215 19.3 Decent
Freestar 4275lb 201 21.2 Sucky

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:36:07 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>news:cqg4n1dp7h97srenfp85ts1rfqfidove80@4ax.com...
>> Its true about the diesels though. Diesels sold in the US are
>> antiquated, lumbering beasts from the late 70s and early 80s. a modern
>> european diesel is not smokey, clattery, or similar. The nearest
>> you'll get to a euro diesel at the moemnt, is the one in the Golf, or
>> the one in the Dodge (actually Mercedies) Sprinter cargo van. Only
>> ford diesel i've been impressed with over the years, was the 1.9 they
>> used to have in the Ford Fiesta Cargo. The one they've put the the
>> s-type Jag's meant to be good though.
>
>Diesels are a great fit for trucks. Hybridization just doesn't help when the
>vehicle is expected to provide a lot of power for a long time, hauling loads
>around. (IMA could move it off the line a little quicker, though.)
>
>In spite of my complaint about the lack of off-the-line go power, the turbo
>diesel is nearly ideal for the job. The power on the road is outstanding
>(for a 10,000 GVWR truck) and the fuel economy is right at twice what the
>old gasser was giving me. Not only does that translate to a money saving, it
>means twice the range. No ignition to fail... I like it.

They're great for cars too. Hell, the fastest 3-series BMW, is a
diesel. UK cops use diesels for their intermediate speed cars (volvo
station wagons for the high speed ones) they're comming on in leaps
ond bounds there, compaired to the US held back by its recaltrecent
truckers, and their reluctance to upgrade tractor-trailer units.

>
>Mike
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline and
certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for the
one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as a
major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but suggest
using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy source
is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries
like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been
holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
environmentally friendly fuels. ;)

mike hunt

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message

>> Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
>> in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
>> kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
>> technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today. But, there's
>> no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
>> throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
>> doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
>> a damn thing in 30 years.
>>
> I canna change the laws of physics. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium,
> and as it stands is one of the least efficient of the front-runners.
> Methane from hydrates is a more viable alternative to petro fuels, but its
> time has not come, either.
>
> Mike
>

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Sorry its a bit late, just catching up after a bit...

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:49:13 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Cranky Dude wrote:
>
>>
>> You know, I've heard this comment about battery life and huge battery
>> replacement cost before. So I'm curious, just how long is the life
>> expectancy of a hybrid battery? Would that mean that the resale value
>> of a used hybrid would drop faster with time than a similar model
>> non-hybrid?
>>
>> CD
>>
>
>It is a good question and one which I suspect the car makers know the
>answer to, but are keeping quiet about. The battery technology being
>used is a larger implemenation of the same rechargeable battery types
>already deployed in laptops, cordless power tools, digital cameras, cell
>phone and the like. I have had more laptop batteries totally fail to
>take a charge than I would care to think about. They typically work
>great at first, but months or years down the line need to be replaced at
>a high cost.
>
>With cordless power tools (drills, etc.) it is often cheaper to buy a
>whole new one than it is to replace the power packs. Typically a couple
>of years of moderate use is all it takes for those battery packs to be
>worthless.
>
>Lithium batteries, for example, are generally rated for 300-500
>charge-discharge cycles before being useless. Typically as the number of
>cycles adds up, the capacity deteriorates.
>
>See: http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm
>
>Nicad batteries are generally considered usefull for around 700
>carefully managed cycles.
>
>See: http://www.directron.com/batteryterms.html
>
>I believe that the Prius and other presently available hybrids use Nicad
> for this longer cycle life, even though Lithium batteries offer a
>higher power density.

Problem is, lithiums are dangerous. When punctured, they have a
distressing tendency to, at best burn, at worst explode. Well, if you
live somewhere like the sahara, you might be ok, but moisture in the
Air + punctured cell n(such as after a crash) = BOOM. thats why. Its
well documented in RC aircraft. Oh, also their chargers are MUCH more
expensive and complex. and generally have worse charge/discharge
curves. Can't go by 'Ah rating' alone (since thats determined by a
20hour discharge)

>
>There are no 5-10 year old Nicad laden cars on the road right now, so
>only time will tell. My guess is that somewhere around 2009-2010 there
>are going to be a bunch of surprised and angry customers, many of them
>the second owners of these vehicles.
>
>John

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but you
just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs The Freestar
develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia. Much better
attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same high
HP to tongue disparage

mike hunt

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dku735$7lo$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:DZCcnRFQXs6Axe_eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
>> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
> going
>> from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The
>> Pruis
>> uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because
> electric
>> motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
>> most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
>> vehicles.
>
> They're not underpowered. You might try surprising us with facts for a
> change. But I doubt you will.
>
> I drove through CO, UT, AZ and NM last spring in my '01 Sienna. 5
> passengers and camping equipment and it never dowhshifted on all the
> freeways through the mountains (Eisenhower tunnel and Raton pass
> included).
> Next time, I'll keep track of the Aerosaurs, Windstoppers and Freeloaders
> I
> breeze by as they're sucking wind in the Rockies.
>
>> Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
>> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that
> is
>> why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.
>
> Actually, you'll find that the 2005 Sienna 3.3L-V6 develops its greatest
> torque at a lower RPM than the Freestar's 3.9L-V6 does.* It just provides
> more maximum HP at higher revs because the torque doesn't fall off as fast
> at higher RPMs with the Toyota engine as it does with the Ford. I suppose
> the Toyota engine is designed more carefully and machined to closer
> tolerances, so it's not shaking itself to pieces at >5000rpm.
>
>> The reason is domestics
>> sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that
>> are
>> equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
>> use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much
> larger
>> percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a
>> manual
>> tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
>> grades, particularly long grades. Most drivers of automatics are want to
>> run their cars in the lower gears to stay on the tongue curve. Follow a
>> Corolla equipped with a manual tranny up a long grade and it will quickly
>> drop off the prevailing speed, unless the drive reverts to lower gears.
>> Follow one with an automatic and you will see it runs out of gears trying
> to
>> maintain speed, and the speed quickly drops off, because few drivers are
>> willing to run their engines at the much higher RPMs in lower gears
>> needed
>> to maintain the prevailing speed.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> * - Source: Edmunds.com.
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/sienna/100604394/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Toyot a*
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*
>
> Oh, look, the Toyota develops more power than the bigger Freestar engine,
> too:
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*
>
> What else did Edmunds have to say about the Freestar?
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/freestar/100542582/
> researchlanding.html
>
> "Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel economy than
> those of competing minivans, low-grade interior materials, hard-to-remove
> second-row seats..."
>
> By the numbers...
> Vehicle Curb Weight Power lb/hp MPG
> Sienna 4140lbs 215 19.3 Decent
> Freestar 4275lb 201 21.2 Sucky
>
>
>

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle going
> from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The Pruis
> uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because electric
> motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
> most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
> vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that is
> why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The reason is domestics
> sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that are
> equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
> use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much larger
> percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a manual
> tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
> grades, particularly long grades.

<snip>

Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and
it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a
certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).

There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque
and power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and
automatic transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's
automatic transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which
gives them even more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between
engine speed (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think
that you actually understand the function of a torque converter
either. It is essentially and infinitely variable transmission which
goes between the engine and the main transmission and provides for a
range of ratios between the two. Modern ones also include an
electrically activated lockiing clutch to disable the converter under
cruise conditions and thus get rid of the high amount of power loss in
the little buggers.

In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor
design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar
has far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional
1960s style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very
similar to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts
a turbo version of it in the Saabs.

Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I
will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the
local drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is
only now starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the
torque curve as Honda has been doing for years.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

notbob wrote:

> Hydrogen can be pressurized and stored just like propane. It is no
> more dangerous than gasoline. In fact, in some ways it's safer. After
> gasoline's initial explosion, the liquid gas remains and burns
> furiously. Once hydrogen explodes, that's it. It's all gone. Fuel
> cells are unnecessary. Hydrogen will burn in reciprocating combustion
> engines just like other flammable gas (natural, propane). All this
> was known 30 years ago. The boogie-man scare tactics and
> disinformation are all oil industry bullshit.
>

Just because your dream system hasn't happened is not evidence that the
boogie man exists or that he is THE OIL INDUSTRY. Saps like you fell
for the fish carburator nonsense as well.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

notbob wrote:

> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
> monopolize for their own gain.
>

Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

I'm all for development of alternative energy sources, but the problems
are mostly technical and economic, not a matter of conspiracies.

Why don't you work on some of the real challenges instead of filling
your mind with nonsense?

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:27 AM

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
> that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
> available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline and
> certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for the
> one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as a
> major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but suggest
> using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
> That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy source
> is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries
> like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been
> holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
> environmentally friendly fuels. ;)
>
> mike hunt
>

I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).

The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!

John

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:efSdnWoLjJ4kJO7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but
you
> just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
> proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
> alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
> its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs

So? It still develops more power than the Freestar and the torque to do it
comes on at lower RPMs. Ford would love to declare a higher HP number for
the Freestar, no matter what the RPM, but their crappy engine's power output
falls off dramatically above 4600RPM as it starts to shake itself apart.

> The Freestar
> develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
> its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia.

So the Toyota downshifts if necessary. Except that I haven't noticed that
mine ever downshifts on the freeway, unless I really want to accelerate.
It's not underpowered.

If the Ford's maximum HP and maximum torque are, as you point out, close
together, that describes an engine with a narrow power band - one that would
require more frequent shifting.

> Much better
> attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
> reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
> vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
> other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same high
> HP to tongue disparage
>

So you say, but you never bring out any facts and figures to support your
allegations. Fact is, you're a blowhard.

> mike hunt
>

Don't think the Freestar's engine is junk? Don't take my word for it.
Check with Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford/freestar/100412870/researchlanding.html
"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than most
competitors..."

jim beam

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

John Horner wrote:
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to
>> be, that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total,
>> is available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace
>> gasoline and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude
>> oil. Except for the one that is currently being used, more and more
>> throughout the world as a major source of energy with the notable
>> exception of the US, but suggest using more of THAT energy source
>> drives the environuts well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost,
>> unlimited and yes even renewable energy source is nuclear power.
>> Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries like Japan,
>> China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been holding
>> down an even greater increase in demand for other less environmentally
>> friendly fuels. ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
>
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
>
> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet.

well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into
tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and
frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste
if we have no intention of reprocessing!

others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and
transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long
term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst
possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and
mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything
intelligent!!!

> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

jim beam

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

notbob wrote:
> On 2005-11-10, st-bum <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
>>heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum.
>
>
> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
> technologies are still in their infancy,

they're not in their infancy - the energy is just very "un-dense" and
that makes it apita to use.

> but there's a reason for
> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
> monopolize for their own gain.
>
> This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in
> storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily
> with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles.

excuse me - what pressures do you think it's transported at? and how
does that compare with the pressure necessary to store sufficient to run
a car 300 miles at a reasonable volume? do the math.

> It's all bunk. So
> what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too.
> It's the pollution that's important.
>
> Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
> in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
> kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
> technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today.

there's several problems with hydrogen:

1. it typically takes more enery to produce than you get back out - not
really a good idea is you want to quote green credentials as a reason
for use.

2. it's extremely dangerous. that may not bother you, but it bothers me.

3. it's extremely hard to use. have you ever heard of diffusion? how
about hydrogen cracking?

no, hydrogen is great political propaganda, but it ain't no practical
solution.

> But, there's
> no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
> throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
> doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
> a damn thing in 30 years.
>
> nb

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BcRcf.19270$6M6.7819@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
> > Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
> > throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
> > that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
> > available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline
and
> > certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for
the
> > one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as
a
> > major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but
suggest
> > using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
> > That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy
source
> > is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in
countries
> > like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has
been
> > holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
> > environmentally friendly fuels. ;)
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
>

A broken clock is right twice a day - Mike isn't right even that regularly.

> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet.

And it's hardly a trivial problem. But it does come down to relative risk.
As
we recognize the risks inherent in burning fossil fuel, the nuclear option
looks more attractive even to some envrionmentalists. And some - I'm one -
have favored it for many years. The reason it's not more popular than it
is: it's going to be brought to you by the same people that ran Enron and
similar operations. We should trust them? I'd be much happier if you gave
the business over to the US Navy. They have an impressive safety record
that hasn't been compromised by greed or politics.

> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

The "Environmental Lobby" hasn't a tenth the cash available to the "Oil/Gas
Lobby." The only reason the Enviros have as much support and visibility as
they do is that the science is generally on their side. Oily cash can only
go so far. Contrary to what most people believe, there's a fair amount of
consensus among climatologists and atmospheric scientists that rising
levels of CO2 are attributed to man's activities (deforestation and fossil
fuel use) and that this will lead to SOME change.

We're gambling for very high stakes. Covering our bets, by slowing the
rates of human-induced change would make sense to me. The fossil fuel
industries won't give up their short-term profits, so they put up cash to
fight the science.

It's a matter of priorities. I certainly don't want people freezing to
death to save a trivial amount of oil but our priorities for the last 20
years have been to build bigger cars and houses, not to find ways to reduce,
reuse and recycle. That attitude is going to bite us in the ass.

And there's an economic reason to be out in front on environmental issues -
the country that builds the next generation of solar cells (or other energy
source) will have an economic advantage. We can be that country but it
takes investment to do it. US Corporations would rather puff up executive
salaries than hire engineers and chemists. A recent post said that India's
graduating 350,000 engineers/year to our 70,000. I believe it. And their
science is the same as ours, they can make the same advances that we can but
they're more likely to do it because they're able to put more people on it.
Why is
Toyota on its third generation of hybrid? Because it's a short-term money
maker? Hardly, they think they can own the hybrid market further down the
road. They're going for strategic advantage.

Don't limt yourself to thinking about the energy industry, either. Where
was the last big story on advances in cloning? South Korea. By the way,
they didn't achieve that by insisting Intelligent Design be taught in high
school.

Come to think of it, there's a second economic reason to be out in front on
environmental issues - reducing oil imports would reduce our balance of
trade problem. We're $66 billion in the hole this month and a projected
$700 billion for the year. To put that in perspective, that's like the
mortgage on 3 million reaonably-priced houses. Except we're probably going
to mortgage another 3 million houses next year and it's trending worse. If
we start exporting whatever alternative energy products we develop, that
will also help fix the balance of trade problem.

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:41:42 -0800, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:

>John Horner wrote:
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to
>>> be, that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total,
>>> is available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace
>>> gasoline and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude
>>> oil. Except for the one that is currently being used, more and more
>>> throughout the world as a major source of energy with the notable
>>> exception of the US, but suggest using more of THAT energy source
>>> drives the environuts well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost,
>>> unlimited and yes even renewable energy source is nuclear power.
>>> Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries like Japan,
>>> China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been holding
>>> down an even greater increase in demand for other less environmentally
>>> friendly fuels. ;)
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>
>>
>> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
>>
>> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
>> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
>> isn't handled yet.
>
>well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into
>tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and
>frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste
>if we have no intention of reprocessing!
>
>others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and
>transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long
>term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst
>possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and
>mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything
>intelligent!!!

For once I am in agreement with Jim. Reprocessing is not just safe,
its FUN!!!! :-) (Saying that, i used to work at the Sellafield nuclear
reprocessing facility).

There have been some more intruiging systems discussed, including the
'proton transmutation accelerator' which is basicaly bombarding the
waste with a proton gun, to try and do what the alchemists couldn't.
never got past planning stages, abandoned last year iirc.

>
>> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
>> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
>> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
>> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
>> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
>> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>>
>> John

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>> monopolize for their own gain.
>>
>
>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

If I remmeber correctly, It takes more energy to produce a
conventional solar cell, than the cell will produce in its lifetime.
Its only reason is for portability and utility (use ambient light,
rather than the added weight of a batery)

>
>I'm all for development of alternative energy sources, but the problems
>are mostly technical and economic, not a matter of conspiracies.
>
>Why don't you work on some of the real challenges instead of filling
>your mind with nonsense?
>
>John

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

The fact is you are the blowhard. You supplied the facts yourself but you
still don't understand the relative difference between HP and the ideal
application of tongue to HP. I'll waste no more time trying to enlighten you
on the subject.. Ford could easily develop more HP for that engine by
winding it up if they chose to, but the torgue available at the normal
driving rage of 2,000 RPMs makes for a better performing engine. If you are
satisfied with the power your vehicle has that is your opinion and your
business. The fact is those in the industry knows otherwise, Toyotas are
generally underpowered vis a
v their domestic comparators, whether you happen to agree or not. is
immaterial.

mike hunt

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dl0rrn$toa$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:efSdnWoLjJ4kJO7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but
> you
>> just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
>> proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
>> alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
>> its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs
>
> So? It still develops more power than the Freestar and the torque to do
> it
> comes on at lower RPMs. Ford would love to declare a higher HP number for
> the Freestar, no matter what the RPM, but their crappy engine's power
> output
> falls off dramatically above 4600RPM as it starts to shake itself apart.
>
>> The Freestar
>> develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
>> its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia.
>
> So the Toyota downshifts if necessary. Except that I haven't noticed that
> mine ever downshifts on the freeway, unless I really want to accelerate.
> It's not underpowered.
>
> If the Ford's maximum HP and maximum torque are, as you point out, close
> together, that describes an engine with a narrow power band - one that
> would
> require more frequent shifting.
>
>> Much better
>> attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
>> reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
>> vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
>> other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same
>> high
>> HP to tongue disparage
>>
>
> So you say, but you never bring out any facts and figures to support your
> allegations. Fact is, you're a blowhard.
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> Don't think the Freestar's engine is junk? Don't take my word for it.
> Check with Edmunds:
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford/freestar/100412870/researchlanding.html
> "Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than
> most
> competitors..."
>
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

Nuclear waste disposal is NOT a scientific problem throughout the world, it
is only a political problem in the US. Environuts are opposed to the dispose
of it in the ground from which it came, as they do in other counties. We
now store it less safely under six feet of water at the sites.

mike hunt

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BcRcf.19270$6M6.7819@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
>> that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
>> available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline
>> and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except
>> for the one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the
>> world as a major source of energy with the notable exception of the US,
>> but suggest using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts
>> well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even
>> renewable energy source is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce
>> electricity in countries like Japan, China, India and several countries
>> in Europe, is what has been holding down an even greater increase in
>> demand for other less environmentally friendly fuels. ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
>
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
>
> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time employees.
> In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious movement with
> strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers and a strong
> hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:28 AM

You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
when you come to a grade. ;(

mike hunt

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W3Rcf.19264$6M6.18583@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
>> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
>> going from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade.
>> The Pruis uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades
>> because electric motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start
>> up. That is why most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its
>> competitors vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are
>> designed to produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic
>> brands, that is why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The
>> reason is domestics sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of
>> their vehicles that are equipped with tongue converters. On the other
>> hand Japanese brands which use the same engines in cars sold in other
>> countries that have a much larger percentage of their vehicle equipped
>> with manual tyrannies. With a manual tranny the gear selector can be
>> used to stay on the tongue curve to climb grades, particularly long
>> grades.
>
> <snip>
>
> Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and
> it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a
> certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).
>
> There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque and
> power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and automatic
> transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's automatic
> transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which gives them even
> more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between engine speed
> (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think that you
> actually understand the function of a torque converter either. It is
> essentially and infinitely variable transmission which goes between the
> engine and the main transmission and provides for a range of ratios
> between the two. Modern ones also include an electrically activated
> lockiing clutch to disable the converter under cruise conditions and thus
> get rid of the high amount of power loss in the little buggers.
>
> In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor
> design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar has
> far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional 1960s
> style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very similar
> to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts a turbo
> version of it in the Saabs.
>
> Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I
> will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the local
> drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is only now
> starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the torque
> curve as Honda has been doing for years.
>
> John

Bruce L. Bergman

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>notbob wrote:

>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>> monopolize for their own gain.
>
>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)

I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
"Major Issue", where are they?

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Ray O

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

"Bruce L. Bergman" <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:q9han11in81ivoikii6v5bkbbdr0dhg42e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>notbob wrote:
>
>>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>>> monopolize for their own gain.
>>
>>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.
>
> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
>

I've read articles that said that birds occasionally flew into the blades of
the propeller-type horizontal-axis turbines. I've seen a private one near
Reno, NV close up and have driven by the ones at Tehachapi many times in the
past and have not noticed any dead birds either, but I suppose that the
occasional bird does get chopped. Even though turbine RPM may be relatively
low, the speed of the tip is pretty high due to the diameter of the blades
so a bird that is flying to a particular space which is clear one moment has
a blade coming around the next. Because of this, planners try to place wind
farms out of the path of flocks of birds.

I just happened to read about a company that is developing a vertical axis
wind turbine http://www.tmawind.com/index.htm

They are trying to develop a turbine that is more bird-friendly and does not
develop magnetic resonance that can interfere with aircraft navigation.
Their site had pictures of their turbine but I couldn't find one today. The
turbine was almost as tall as the prop-type but instead of blades, the vanes
looked like long tubes that were cut in half along the long axis, spinning
like a washing machine agitator between fixed vanes that direct the wind
into the moving vanes.

The wind-turbine-powered house I saw was built in the high desert near Reno
over 20 years ago. It had 2 turbines and a room about the size of a one-car
garage filled with lead-acid batteries. The house had 2 sets of wiring, 12
volt for lighting and 110 volt for appliances. I suppose the technology has
advanced quite a bit by now, but it was kind of irritating to watch the
picture on the TV shrink and expand, and the lights fluctuate in intensity.

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

In article <q9han11in81ivoikii6v5bkbbdr0dhg42e@4ax.com>
blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:

> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?

Not trying to be adversarial: around the Mojave/Tehachapi wind
farms I'd expect the local coyotes and other predators to have
discovered, long ago, that the Places With The Thrumming Trees
are good spots at which to catch up stunned, dead or otherwise
helpless meals: within hours, nothing to sweep up. ;-) Going
by what I have seen of the admittedly often scrawny vegetation
there over several visits, even a big bird could lie unseen by
passing road travellers. But I am willing to learn otherwise.

One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
--
Andrew Stephenson

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

Mike Hunter wrote:
> You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
> say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
> mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
> when you come to a grade. ;(
>
> mike hunt

I drive through the Sierra Nevadas frequently and the Rocky Mountains
once every few years. Our V-6 Honda is much, much better at this than
is our V-6 Oldsmobile.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?
>

USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

Google is your friend.

John

High Tech Misfit

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

John Horner wrote:

> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
>> say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
>> mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
>> when you come to a grade. ;(
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I drive through the Sierra Nevadas frequently and the Rocky Mountains
> once every few years. Our V-6 Honda is much, much better at this than
> is our V-6 Oldsmobile.
>
> John

Please don't feed the trolls.

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

In article <pan.2005.11.12.13.23.01.415158@hightech.misfit>
me@privacy.net "High Tech Misfit" writes:

> Please don't feed the trolls.

In general, I'd AOL that. In this case, Mike Hunter doesn't even
make it to "troll" status, just "loud-mouthed ignoramus". And we
seem to be creating an interesting discussion despite him. <g>
--
Andrew Stephenson

Bruce L. Bergman

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Stephenson) wrote:

>One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
>birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
>strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
>lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
>power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.

Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
balls are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.

The power lines in selected locations tend to snag more METAL birds
than live birds as they fly past, I.E. light airplanes and
helicopters. Some power lines cross small valleys and rivers
laterally from peak to peak, and the power transmission wires can be
very high over the terrain below - where a pilot following visual
flight rules would assume he has clear air. If the light is wrong,
you can't see those wires till you are right on top of them.

All it takes is the local radio station's traffic reporting plane or
the local police patrol helicopter flying too low in the wrong place,
trying to spot a traffic tie-up or follow a pursuit. If they happen
by at the same altitude as the power lines, it gets really messy.

The visibility balls on the static wire are there to show the wire
location clearly, even in low visibility conditions where the pilots
can't see the towers.

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Bruce L. Bergman

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:55:26 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>>
>> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
>> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
>> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
>> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
>> "Major Issue", where are they?
>>
>
>
>USA Today:
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
>
>Google is your friend.

Yeah, it is - and here's the top two hits I got, which
coincidentally enough show the other side:

http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf

They have a sound theory that may explain the few places that bird
strikes are concentrated in, namely the Altamont Pass near San
Francisco - agricultural pesticides are used on rodents, raptors eat
the rodents, and are drugging the raptors so stupid they're flying
into the generators - even when they are not turning at the time.

A bird flying into a stationary tower or a stationary wind turbine
blade is not the fault of the tower. It's the bird's responsibility
to spot and navigate around fixed obstacles. They have eyes. Too bad
they're connected to a brain the size of a pea.

And the other - http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

Wow - all those birds running into lighted and checkerboard-painted
radio towers, and the sides of fixed buildings....

To conclude: It's tough to be a bird.

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote:
> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)

www.sfgate.com

San Francisco Chronicle
12/19/04
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environmental Writer

Taming the Deadly Wind Farm Key Source of Renewable Energy
Often Lethal For Birds

If environmentalists and state officials have their way, the
towering windmills that dot the Altamont Pass will be replaced
and moved to prevent the killing of thousands of birds annually,
including species protected under federal and state laws.
....
With 5,000 windmills in a 50 square mile area, the Altamont Pass
is the world's largest windfarm, producing electricity to power
200,000 households annually. But it is also the worst in the
country for slaughtering birds.

Altamont Pass is a prime hunting ground for golden eagles and other
raptors, and scientists estimate _conservatively_ that the turbines
kill some 4,700 birds every year. ...

05-29-2007, 06:29 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:IbicncEdhJ8wTOneUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> The fact is you are the blowhard. You supplied the facts yourself but you
> still don't understand the relative difference between HP and the ideal
> application of tongue to HP. I'll waste no more time trying to enlighten
you
> on the subject.. Ford could easily develop more HP for that engine by
> winding it up if they chose to, but the torgue available at the normal
> driving rage of 2,000 RPMs makes for a better performing engine. If you
are
> satisfied with the power your vehicle has that is your opinion and your
> business. The fact is those in the industry knows otherwise, Toyotas are
> generally underpowered vis a
> v their domestic comparators, whether you happen to agree or not. is
> immaterial.
>
> mike hunt

Ah, the unsupported "underpowered" assertion again. Can'te leave it alone,
can you? But you can't supply any facts, either, can you? You're the
bllowhard.

The '05 Sienna has more power than the '05 Freestar. Remember what Edmunds
had to say about the Freestar:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford/freestar/100412870/researchlanding.html
"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than most
competitors..."

The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota actually
makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least adequately
powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight ratio
than ever before).

Case closed.

Of course, we're talking about normal sedans and other passenger cars, not
fuel-wasting penis-substitutes such as the Mustang GT. If you really
need your fuel-wasting penis-substitute, and consider anything less than a
fuel-wasting penis-substitute to be underpowered, well. we can't help you
there.

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has been
for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top five
to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales, including
the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
imported parts like the Camry

VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.

1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message >

> The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota actually
> makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least adequately
> powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
> them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
> these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight ratio
> than ever before).
>
>

Rich

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
> one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has been
> for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
> Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
> becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top five
> to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
> place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales, including
> the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
> imported parts like the Camry
>
> VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>
> 1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1

Wow! I never realized that the top 3 selling vehicles in America are
pick-up trucks. That's enlightening.
Rich

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

In article <he4cn15ikkbsvihp0rlbom29lkc3ausdlc@4ax.com>
blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
> Stephenson) wrote:
>
> >One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
> >birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
> >strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
> >lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
> >power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
>
> Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
> balls are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.
>
> [discussion of the US situation]

Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
plane too -- dunno.

Back to the windmills: perhaps I ought to enquire as to rates of
bird strike locally, now that more and more of the whirly things
are being installed. Mind, some are offshore, by a mile or two,
and I am guessing we can spare the odd seagull (breeding to pest
numbers).
--
Andrew Stephenson

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
that.

And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.

I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
I would think the two would be very similar.

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131860509.264966.282990@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
> that.
>
> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
>
> I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
> I would think the two would be very similar.
>
The difference is in the rpm curves. It really all hinges on the torque
anyway, as you point out, since for a given torque the hp rises in
proportion to rpm.

The low end torque is stuff I never really got a handle on, but at the high
end (where most of the controversy is anyway) it is all related to
breathing. Things like intake and exhaust design and cam considerations of
valve lift, duration and overlap can increase the useful torque at high rpms
and thereby increase the maximum power.

The torque/power debate really comes down to gearing. If we could select any
gear ratio we wanted any time we wanted, we could make good use of maximum
power and nobody would talk about torque. Back in the real world, within
each gear ratio, the torque curve determines the acceleration we feel.

Mike

Learning Richard

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Learning Richard

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Learning Richard wrote:
> st-bum wrote:
> > What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
> > that.
> >
> > And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
> >
> > I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
> > I would think the two would be very similar.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8679/motor.html

wow that page is from 1997 too

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

"Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1131853325snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
> Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
> power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
> decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
> around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
> plane too -- dunno.
>
Yes - here in the States the balls are orange, and are mandated by FAA
regulations where lines cross open expanses that helicopters might want to
cross. Interestingly, birds won't go near high tension lines (although they
sometimes build nests on 69KV poles). The "induction" apparently bothers
them as much as it bothers us. Lower voltages don't seem to affect birds
much.

Interesting to use windmills for piecework production. They are poorly
suited for public grids because they are too intermittent. Some think any
windy spot is suitable, but the requirements are daunting. The site must
have reasonably predictable winds mostly around the rated speed (presently
about 12 m/s or around 25 mph). Since the power output changes with the cube
of the wind speed, dropping the wind speed from 12 m/s to 10 m/s means a 40%
drop in output - a real budget breaker when you are contracted to deliver so
many MW. Here in the States many wind farms too often operate at a loss
because of failure-to-deliver penalties, and proposed FERC rules relating to
power hygiene (such as phase regulation... wind farms have been bad
neighbors on the grids so far) could make that worse. But for producing
hydrogen they could theoretically be made to pay off.

Mike

Elle

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote
> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
> that.
>
> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.

Re-read the chapters of the text on work, power, and torque.

> I know power is work

No. Power is work delivered per unit time.

> and torque is twisting force

> (F * r), but somehow
> I would think the two would be very similar.

Google for explanations that will probably be better than any given off the
top of one's head here or at any personal web site.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhorsepower.html isn't bad.

--
Honda home studies: http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness
--

notbob

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

On 2005-11-13, Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

> neighbors on the grids so far) could make that worse. But for producing
> hydrogen they could theoretically be made to pay off.

bingo!

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidnd0OqJeE-ereRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> On 2005-11-13, Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>> neighbors on the grids so far) could make that worse. But for producing
>> hydrogen they could theoretically be made to pay off.
>
> bingo!

Hey, they gotta be good for something! :-) I have a brother who used to
work for American Wind Power in California, but I don't think they are in
business any more.

Seriously, uses that don't care much about the unpredictable nature of wind
power are a lot more attractive than going live on the public grids. Even
pumping water for gravity storage makes sense where the water and land are
suitable. Land that has the required characteristics for real-time wind
power is amazingly scarce and can become expensive if demand increases. Land
that has a usable amount of wind enough of the time for production
enterprises is far more common.

Whether hydrogen generation is going to have enough demand for wind or solar
powered cracking to be practical remains to be seen, but I don't rule it
out.

Mike

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Thanks for that straightdope line. I knew power was work/time, just
misspoke.

That's the best explanation I've heard.

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

In article <1131860509.264966.282990@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>
kennykabuki@yahoo.com "st-bum" writes:

> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never
> understood that. [...]

At the risk of repeating what others and have said and what you
know already...

Torque is, basically, a rotational (ie, twisting) force.

HP (horsepower) is a rate of doing work, so can also be expressed
in units such as watts (the modern preference, 1 HP == 746 watts)
and BTU (if one must).

An easy way to remember the equivalence between Force, Distance
(over which the Force is used) and Work (another way of saying
Energy) is to recall that
Work = Force * Distance

So Power, the Rate Of Doing Work, is
Work / Time

Therefore the Work done by Torque is, in effect, the Force acting
at a certain Leverage distance, tracing a circular path around a
point, over a certain Time.

One final relationship:
Torque = Force * Leverage
where Leverage is the distance between the line-of-action of the
Force and the pivot point, about which the Torque is calculated.

A 15 kilo Force pushing on a lever 2 metres long exerts a Torque
at the pivot point of 15*2 kilo-force-metres (not to be confused
with kilometres). Most engineers use Newtons, not kilos-force:
Newton = Kilo * 9.81 (approx)

So that Torque would actually be (about) 294.3 Newton-metres.

Back to the original question...

Work done in 1 revolution
= 2 * pi * Leverage * Force
= 2 * pi * Torque

So rate of doing work (ie, Power)
= 2 * pi * Torque / Time_for_1_rev
= 2 * pi * Torque * Revs_per_second
= watts

Use Newton-metres here and it is a doddle to compute Power. If
you absolutely must know the HP, divide Watts by 746.

(FWIW, AFAIK: 1 Pound-force-foot == 1.355818 Newton-metres. And
for pi you can get by with 3.14159, though it goes on to many <g>
more significant digits than that.)

Grief, I hope I got that lot right. <g> If anyone knows better,
do let me know soon.
--
Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:iAidnbfkG7CdC-veUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
> one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has
been
> for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
> Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
> becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top
five
> to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
> place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales,
including
> the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
> imported parts like the Camry
>
> VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>
> 1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>
>

Having exactly what to do with your repeated unsupported allegation that
Toyotas are underpowered?

Still, with every pickup, you get highway mileage in the teens! Yippee!
And, in spite of its voracious appetite for gas, Edmunds had this to say
about the F150:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford/f150/100447759/researchlanding.html
"Feels sluggish even with larger V8."

Gee, thirsty AND slow. Who would have expected THAT from a Ford?

Get some facts and a clue and get back to us.

>
> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message >
>
> > The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota
actually
> > makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least
adequately
> > powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
> > them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
> > these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight
ratio
> > than ever before).
> >

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Considering the same vehicle weight and gearing, the vehicle with the higher
HP will go faster. Considering the same vehicle weight and HP the vehicle
that develops its torque at lower RPMs will be more powerful. Torque is
what enables a vehicle to get going from a stop more quickly and keeps it
going under load.

mike hunt

"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131908790.615823.230240@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Thanks for that straightdope line. I knew power was work/time, just
> misspoke.
>
> That's the best explanation I've heard.
>

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Thank you very much for your informative reply.

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:42:05 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Stephenson) wrote:

>In article <he4cn15ikkbsvihp0rlbom29lkc3ausdlc@4ax.com>
> blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
>> Stephenson) wrote:
>>
>> >One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
>> >birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
>> >strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
>> >lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
>> >power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
>>
>> Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
>> balls are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.
>>
>> [discussion of the US situation]
>
>Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
>power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
>decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
>around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
>plane too -- dunno.

Sorry, they're for light aircraft in the UK too.

Documents and reports should be available at your local HSE office, go
n and ask nicely. They should be able to find you the mountains of
reports on it.

>
>Back to the windmills: perhaps I ought to enquire as to rates of
>bird strike locally, now that more and more of the whirly things
>are being installed. Mind, some are offshore, by a mile or two,
>and I am guessing we can spare the odd seagull (breeding to pest
>numbers).

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

st-bum wrote:
> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
> that.
>
> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
>
> I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
> I would think the two would be very similar.
>

Torque X rotational speed = Power. To get the units right in various
systems, a conversion factor is used.

A very good discussion is available on the web at:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhorsepower.html

Power is the ability to do work. Work is needed to move a mass from one
place to another, to increase elevation, to increase velocity
(acceleration) and to overcome frictional losses like air resistance,
tire rolling resitance, etc.

Thus, for example, 200 ft. lbs. of torque at 4,000 RPM can accomplish
twice as much work as can 200 ft. lbs. of torque at 2,000 RPM. Put
another way, 400 ft. lbs. at 1,000 RPM can do the same work as does 200
ft. lbs at 2,000 RPM. For the units used in the US:

Power (HP) = [Engine Speed (RPM) x Engine Torque (ft.lbs.)] / 5252

It is really that simple.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message

>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>
>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1

2006 is certain to take away a lot of the thunder from Mr. Hunter's
argument. Large truck and SUV sales are dropping like a rock while
sedan and small crossover SUV sales are increasing.

Somewhere in the next couple of years Toyota is going to pass GM in
worldwide sales volume and will never look back. If the Delphi
bankructcy results in supply distruptions to GM, which is highly likely,
then 2006 will be the year of the changing of leadership for sure.

Years ago GM unseated Ford and has never looked back. GM did it with a
better product range and agressive salesmanship. Unfortunately Detroit
has had it's eye off the ball for too many years now.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:
> But for producing
> hydrogen they could theoretically be made to pay off.
>
> Mike
>
>

An excellent point you make sir! Wind power to add to energy storage,
be that storage hydrogen or some form of battery, makes lots of sense.
It is much harder to make wind generators put out the constant voltage,
constant phase output the grid wants to see.

John

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Michael Pardee wrote:

> Seriously, uses that don't care much about the unpredictable nature of wind
> power are a lot more attractive than going live on the public grids. Even
> pumping water for gravity storage makes sense where the water and land are
> suitable. Land that has the required characteristics for real-time wind
> power is amazingly scarce and can become expensive if demand increases. Land
> that has a usable amount of wind enough of the time for production
> enterprises is far more common.
>

Indeed. Before electric power and motors became ubiquitous, windmills
were commonly used to pump water out of wells for farms and ranches.
Their unpredictability and relatively high maintenance and repair
requirements compared to electric pumps all but eliminated wind power
from it's historic water pumping roll.

John

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top five to
drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks and SUVs
still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot more car
models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you meant to say in
my opinion? ;)

mike hunt

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>
>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>
>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>
>
> 2006 is certain to take away a lot of the thunder from Mr. Hunter's
> argument. Large truck and SUV sales are dropping like a rock while sedan
> and small crossover SUV sales are increasing.
>
> Somewhere in the next couple of years Toyota is going to pass GM in
> worldwide sales volume and will never look back. If the Delphi bankructcy
> results in supply distruptions to GM, which is highly likely, then 2006
> will be the year of the changing of leadership for sure.
>
> Years ago GM unseated Ford and has never looked back. GM did it with a
> better product range and agressive salesmanship. Unfortunately Detroit
> has had it's eye off the ball for too many years now.
>
> John

Bob Palmer

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because Chrysler,
Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda and
Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over a
billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out of
business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must buy
American" sheep.
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top five
> to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks and
> SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot more
> car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you meant to
> say in my opinion? ;)
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>
>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>
>>
>> 2006 is certain to take away a lot of the thunder from Mr. Hunter's
>> argument. Large truck and SUV sales are dropping like a rock while sedan
>> and small crossover SUV sales are increasing.
>>
>> Somewhere in the next couple of years Toyota is going to pass GM in
>> worldwide sales volume and will never look back. If the Delphi
>> bankructcy results in supply distruptions to GM, which is highly likely,
>> then 2006 will be the year of the changing of leadership for sure.
>>
>> Years ago GM unseated Ford and has never looked back. GM did it with a
>> better product range and agressive salesmanship. Unfortunately Detroit
>> has had it's eye off the ball for too many years now.
>>
>> John
>
>

Bob Palmer

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

I own a pickup and a minivan, and I notice that pickups always fall behind
on grades because of their poor wind resistance. It is why hybrid technology
is wasted on pickups and SUVs for MPG and why huge engines are wasted on
them also. You can push a billboard through the wind only so fast. It seems
like the fastest drivers on highways have Accords and Jettas.
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:DLWcnXYMp87ASOneUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as
> they say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
> mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind
> others when you come to a grade. ;(
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:W3Rcf.19264$6M6.18583@trnddc04...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
>>> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
>>> going from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade.
>>> The Pruis uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades
>>> because electric motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start
>>> up. That is why most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its
>>> competitors vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are
>>> designed to produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic
>>> brands, that is why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The
>>> reason is domestics sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of
>>> their vehicles that are equipped with tongue converters. On the other
>>> hand Japanese brands which use the same engines in cars sold in other
>>> countries that have a much larger percentage of their vehicle equipped
>>> with manual tyrannies. With a manual tranny the gear selector can be
>>> used to stay on the tongue curve to climb grades, particularly long
>>> grades.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and
>> it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a
>> certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).
>>
>> There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque and
>> power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and automatic
>> transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's automatic
>> transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which gives them even
>> more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between engine speed
>> (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think that you
>> actually understand the function of a torque converter either. It is
>> essentially and infinitely variable transmission which goes between the
>> engine and the main transmission and provides for a range of ratios
>> between the two. Modern ones also include an electrically activated
>> lockiing clutch to disable the converter under cruise conditions and thus
>> get rid of the high amount of power loss in the little buggers.
>>
>> In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor
>> design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar
>> has far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional
>> 1960s style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very
>> similar to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts
>> a turbo version of it in the Saabs.
>>
>> Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I
>> will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the
>> local drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is
>> only now starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the
>> torque curve as Honda has been doing for years.
>>
>> John
>
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Once again you are confused. The sales figures are for the F150 & F250, the
Silverado and the Ram trucks for sizes up to 8,500 GVWR. IF all light
trucks were include, the total figures would be even higher.

Trucks over 8,500 like the F250HD and the F350 are not counted in the
individual sales figures. Light trucks like the current leaders has nothing
to do with discounts, light trucks have been outselling cars since 1975 when
the majority of car went to FWD. The Ford F150 is by far the best selling
vehicle had has been for nearly thirty years. When SUVs are included light
truck sales have exceed car sales for several years.

Perhaps you might want to do some research before commenting further on a
subject of which you apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say
in my opinion.

mike hunt

"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
> Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
> truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because Chrysler,
> Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda and
> Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over a
> billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out of
> business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must buy
> American" sheep.

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top five
>> to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks and
>> SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
>> more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you meant
>> to say in my opinion? ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>>
>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>>

Bruce L. Bergman

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:17:04 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:42:05 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
>Stephenson) wrote:
>>In article <he4cn15ikkbsvihp0rlbom29lkc3ausdlc@4ax.com>
>> blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
>>> Stephenson) wrote:

>>> >One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
>>> >birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
>>> >strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
>>> >lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
>>> >power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
>>> balls are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.
>>>
>>> [discussion of the US situation]
>>
>>Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
>>power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
>>decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
>>around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
>>plane too -- dunno.
>
>Sorry, they're for light aircraft in the UK too.
>
>Documents and reports should be available at your local HSE office, go
>n and ask nicely. They should be able to find you the mountains of
>reports on it.

Now this isn't to dismiss you totally - I'm sure there are some
stupid or poor eyesight species of birds where the airplane visibility
balls are a help, especially where the wires pass several hundred
meters over a valley where they would expect to find clear air. But
they were placed there primarily for airplanes.

But if the birds are there at that altitude too, that raises the
problems of bird strikes on airplanes...

And when a Raptor (hawks, falcons, etc.) is following a pigeon and
has his mind solely on Dinner!, he's going to follow the prey bird
till one of them loses the chase. And a smart prey bird is gong to
try to lose the predator however they can - and leading him right into
the blades of a wind turbine, or the side of a building, or a cliff,
is a great way to lose your pursuer. Permanently if possible, so they
don't have to go through this whole chase scene all over again
tomorrow.

Raptors like to light on top of power poles and zap themselves
between the lines, too. Which led to them putting a bare crossarm at
the top of certain favorite poles with no wires, solely to act as a
perch. The transmission lines are on the next crossarm down.

But it's not done for the birds, it's for practical reasons - a bird
gets zapped, and the flash-over trips the circuit breaker for that
transmission line and shuts that line off for anywhere from a few
minutes to a few hours.
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

In article <tnphn19oipqnqjopvpiu114da9bpflphac@4ax.com>
blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:

> Raptors like to light on top of power poles and zap themselves
> between the lines, too. Which led to them putting a bare crossarm at
> the top of certain favorite poles with no wires, solely to act as a
> perch. The transmission lines are on the next crossarm down.
>
> But it's not done for the birds, it's for practical reasons - a bird
> gets zapped, and the flash-over trips the circuit breaker for that
> transmission line and shuts that line off for anywhere from a few
> minutes to a few hours.

Reminds me of a story my grandfather told me, of the early days
of coal mines in the north of England.

It seems one mine used to generate 10,000 volts to run its gear,
but did so several miles from the pit, which involved setting up
power lines across open countryside... Okay, you've guessed the
punchline; but ride with me for the scenery.

Now and then power would fail at the pit. A man would be sent to
walk the lines. He never seemed to find a cause. When breakers
were closed again, the system would run fine -- until next time.

One day someone was out on the moors (or whatever) and noticed a
group of rooks (or similar gregarious, prone-to-squabbling birds)
had roosted on the lines. As he watched he saw a rook, on one
line, lean across to peck at a neighbour, on the other line--

The explanation for the failures came, as it were, in a flash.

(Okay, stupid line layout. Early days of HT power transmission.)
--
Andrew Stephenson

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:V8CdnUKbB9ycXuXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Once again you are confused. The sales figures are for the F150 & F250,
the
> Silverado and the Ram trucks for sizes up to 8,500 GVWR. IF all light
> trucks were include, the total figures would be even higher.
>
> Trucks over 8,500 like the F250HD and the F350 are not counted in the
> individual sales figures. Light trucks like the current leaders has
nothing
> to do with discounts, light trucks have been outselling cars since 1975
when
> the majority of car went to FWD. The Ford F150 is by far the best selling
> vehicle had has been for nearly thirty years. When SUVs are included
light
> truck sales have exceed car sales for several years.
>
> Perhaps you might want to do some research before commenting further on a
> subject of which you apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least
say
> in my opinion.
>
> mike hunt
>

Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
opinion?"

> "Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
> > Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
> > truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
Chrysler,
> > Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda
and
> > Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over a
> > billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out
of
> > business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must buy
> > American" sheep.
>
>
> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >> How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top
five
> >> to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks
and
> >> SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
> >> more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you
meant
> >> to say in my opinion? ;)
> >>
> >> mike hunt
> >>
> >>
> >> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
> >>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> >>>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> >>>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> >>>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> >>>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
> >>>

So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion: people
like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe they think
they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and would
rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets mediocre gas
mileage.

Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.

By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed to
believe your figures?

Bo Yancey

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

dh wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:V8CdnUKbB9ycXuXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Once again you are confused. The sales figures are for the F150 & F250,
>
> the
>
>>Silverado and the Ram trucks for sizes up to 8,500 GVWR. IF all light
>>trucks were include, the total figures would be even higher.
>>
>>Trucks over 8,500 like the F250HD and the F350 are not counted in the
>>individual sales figures. Light trucks like the current leaders has
>
> nothing
>
>>to do with discounts, light trucks have been outselling cars since 1975
>
> when
>
>>the majority of car went to FWD. The Ford F150 is by far the best selling
>>vehicle had has been for nearly thirty years. When SUVs are included
>
> light
>
>>truck sales have exceed car sales for several years.
>>
>>Perhaps you might want to do some research before commenting further on a
>>subject of which you apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least
>
> say
>
>>in my opinion.
>>
>>mike hunt
>>
>
>
> Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
> opinion?"
>
>
>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
>>
>>>Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
>>>truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
>
> Chrysler,
>
>>>Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda
>
> and
>
>>>Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over a
>>>billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out
>
> of
>
>>>business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must buy
>>>American" sheep.
>>
>>
>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>>How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top
>
> five
>
>>>>to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks
>
> and
>
>>>>SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
>>>>more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you
>
> meant
>
>>>>to say in my opinion? ;)
>>>>
>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>>>>>2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>>>>>3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>>>>>4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>>>>>5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>>>>
>
> So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion: people
> like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe they think
> they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and would
> rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets mediocre gas
> mileage.
>
> Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.
>
> By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed to
> believe your figures?
>
>
Synergy beats Honda.

Bo Yancey

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

dh wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:iAidnbfkG7CdC-veUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
>>one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has
>
> been
>
>>for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
>>Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
>>becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top
>
> five
>
>>to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
>>place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales,
>
> including
>
>>the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
>>imported parts like the Camry
>>
>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>
>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>
>>
>
>
> Having exactly what to do with your repeated unsupported allegation that
> Toyotas are underpowered?
>
> Still, with every pickup, you get highway mileage in the teens! Yippee!
> And, in spite of its voracious appetite for gas, Edmunds had this to say
> about the F150:
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford/f150/100447759/researchlanding.html
> "Feels sluggish even with larger V8."
>
> Gee, thirsty AND slow. Who would have expected THAT from a Ford?
>
> Get some facts and a clue and get back to us.
>
>
>>"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message >
>>
>>>The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota
>
> actually
>
>>>makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least
>
> adequately
>
>>>powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
>>>them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
>>>these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight
>
> ratio
>
>>>than ever before).
>>>
>
>
>
>
Yea. Gotta love those offset crash test videos! Total it, and if you
survive, buy another!

Sharx35

05-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Why don't you fuck off back to your Ford ng?

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top five
> to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks and
> SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot more
> car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you meant to
> say in my opinion? ;)
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>
>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>
>>
>> 2006 is certain to take away a lot of the thunder from Mr. Hunter's
>> argument. Large truck and SUV sales are dropping like a rock while sedan
>> and small crossover SUV sales are increasing.
>>
>> Somewhere in the next couple of years Toyota is going to pass GM in
>> worldwide sales volume and will never look back. If the Delphi
>> bankructcy results in supply distruptions to GM, which is highly likely,
>> then 2006 will be the year of the changing of leadership for sure.
>>
>> Years ago GM unseated Ford and has never looked back. GM did it with a
>> better product range and agressive salesmanship. Unfortunately Detroit
>> has had it's eye off the ball for too many years now.
>>
>> John
>
>

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:50:34 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
<blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:17:04 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:42:05 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
>>Stephenson) wrote:
>>>In article <he4cn15ikkbsvihp0rlbom29lkc3ausdlc@4ax.com>
>>> blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
>>>> Stephenson) wrote:
>
>>>> >One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
>>>> >birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery balls
>>>> >strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
>>>> >lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
>>>> >power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
>>>> balls are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.
>>>>
>>>> [discussion of the US situation]
>>>
>>>Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
>>>power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
>>>decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
>>>around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
>>>plane too -- dunno.
>>
>>Sorry, they're for light aircraft in the UK too.
>>
>>Documents and reports should be available at your local HSE office, go
>>n and ask nicely. They should be able to find you the mountains of
>>reports on it.
>
> Now this isn't to dismiss you totally - I'm sure there are some
>stupid or poor eyesight species of birds where the airplane visibility
>balls are a help, especially where the wires pass several hundred
>meters over a valley where they would expect to find clear air. But
>they were placed there primarily for airplanes.

and of course, common sense might also dictate that if they can't see
the line without the balls, they can't see it WITH the balls, and just
see the balls, and are as likely to go to either side as up. I don't
recall seeing anywhere that someone has taught birds 'when you see the
balls, there's powerlines and you got to go up over them' They don't
know what the balls mean, just that they're balls.

>
> But if the birds are there at that altitude too, that raises the
>problems of bird strikes on airplanes...

yep, happens a fair bit, mainly with deaf birds, who don't hear the
aircraft - noise plays a bit part of birds lives.

>
> And when a Raptor (hawks, falcons, etc.) is following a pigeon and
>has his mind solely on Dinner!, he's going to follow the prey bird
>till one of them loses the chase. And a smart prey bird is gong to
>try to lose the predator however they can - and leading him right into
>the blades of a wind turbine, or the side of a building, or a cliff,
>is a great way to lose your pursuer. Permanently if possible, so they
>don't have to go through this whole chase scene all over again
>tomorrow.
>
> Raptors like to light on top of power poles and zap themselves
>between the lines, too. Which led to them putting a bare crossarm at
>the top of certain favorite poles with no wires, solely to act as a
>perch. The transmission lines are on the next crossarm down.
>
> But it's not done for the birds, it's for practical reasons - a bird
>gets zapped, and the flash-over trips the circuit breaker for that
>transmission line and shuts that line off for anywhere from a few
>minutes to a few hours.

Think we established elsewhere 9certainly on one of my emergency
services groups) that the line breakers nowadays reset themselves 3-4
times, before breaking perminantly, just for that reason. Seen plenty
of warning notifications that say 'even if the hot stick says the
lines off, don't assume it is, because of the breakers. Wait for grid
controller confirmation before entering the vicinity of the jump-zone'

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

That's funny. Some guys in the Ford NG tell me to go back to the GM NG when
I point out GM outsells Ford. Some guys Honda NG tell me to go back to the
Toyota NG when I point out Toyota outsells Honda They don't like to be
presented with facts that disputes their personal biases and opinions either
it seems ;)

mike hunt

"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:crhef.144234$Io.106006@clgrps13...
> Why don't you fuck off back to your Ford ng?
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top five
>> to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks and
>> SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
>> more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you meant
>> to say in my opinion? ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>>
>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>>> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>>> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>>> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>>> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>>
>>>
>>> 2006 is certain to take away a lot of the thunder from Mr. Hunter's
>>> argument. Large truck and SUV sales are dropping like a rock while
>>> sedan and small crossover SUV sales are increasing.
>>>
>>> Somewhere in the next couple of years Toyota is going to pass GM in
>>> worldwide sales volume and will never look back. If the Delphi
>>> bankructcy results in supply distruptions to GM, which is highly likely,
>>> then 2006 will be the year of the changing of leadership for sure.
>>>
>>> Years ago GM unseated Ford and has never looked back. GM did it with a
>>> better product range and agressive salesmanship. Unfortunately Detroit
>>> has had it's eye off the ball for too many years now.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

Again you are confused I don't present opinions, what I posted are fact that
are available to anybody willing to do the search. Although Toyota and
Honda have the number one and two selling individual model cars, and Ford
has the best selling individual truck GM sell more cars than Ford, Toyota
and Honda as well as more trucks than Ford, Toyota and Honda . As to fuel
mileage GM offers far more vehicles that get over 30 MPG than does Toyota.
GM even offers a full sized V8 Chevrolet that gets nearly 30 MPG. Better
do some research if you are going to continue to post on this subject

mike hunt

..
"Bo Yancey" <yakkbo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rugef.539040$x96.451271@attbi_s72...
> dh wrote:

>>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
>> opinion?"
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
>>>
>>>>Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
>>>>truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
>>
>> Chrysler,
>>
>>>>Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over a
>>>>billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out
>>
>> of
>>
>>>>business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must buy
>>>>American" sheep.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>>How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top
>>
>> five
>>
>>>>>to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
>>>>>more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you
>>
>> meant
>>
>>>>>to say in my opinion? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>>>>>>>>2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>>>>>>>>3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>>>>>>>>4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>>>>>>>>5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>>>>>>
>>
>> So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion: people
>> like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe they
>> think
>> they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and would
>> rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets mediocre
>> gas
>> mileage.
>>
>> Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.
>>
>> By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed to
>> believe your figures?
>>
>>
> Synergy beats Honda.

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:43:22 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1131860509.264966.282990@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
>> that.
>>
>> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
>>
>> I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
>> I would think the two would be very similar.
>>
>The difference is in the rpm curves. It really all hinges on the torque
>anyway, as you point out, since for a given torque the hp rises in
>proportion to rpm.
>
>The low end torque is stuff I never really got a handle on, but at the high
>end (where most of the controversy is anyway) it is all related to
>breathing. Things like intake and exhaust design and cam considerations of
>valve lift, duration and overlap can increase the useful torque at high rpms
>and thereby increase the maximum power.
>
>The torque/power debate really comes down to gearing. If we could select any
>gear ratio we wanted any time we wanted, we could make good use of maximum
>power and nobody would talk about torque.

Such as, ohhh, with a CVT? Had a few of them over the years, kinda
weird sitting there, accelerating, and getting NO change in the engine
note, as it holds at its peak torque point, Good old rubber band cars,
much more efficient than regular slushboxes too, since they dont have
so many nasty planetaries.

> Back in the real world, within
>each gear ratio, the torque curve determines the acceleration we feel.
>
>Mike
>

John Horner

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

flobert wrote:

>
> Such as, ohhh, with a CVT? Had a few of them over the years, kinda
> weird sitting there, accelerating, and getting NO change in the engine
> note, as it holds at its peak torque point, Good old rubber band cars,
> much more efficient than regular slushboxes too, since they dont have
> so many nasty planetaries.

In full throttle situations the CVT should be tunned to hold the engine
at the peak power output point, not the peak torque point.

John

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:ubecncbAUPiQlOfeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Again you are confused I don't present opinions,

Yes, you are offering opinions. Lame, unsubstantiated opinions.

> what I posted are fact that
> are available to anybody willing to do the search.

Then it should be very easy for you to provide references and sources.
Others do so.

> Although Toyota and
> Honda have the number one and two selling individual model cars, and Ford
> has the best selling individual truck GM sell more cars than Ford, Toyota
> and Honda as well as more trucks than Ford, Toyota and Honda . As to fuel
> mileage GM offers far more vehicles that get over 30 MPG than does Toyota.

If this is so, it should be very easy for you to name these vehicles. The
Cobalt comes to mind. Any others?

> GM even offers a full sized V8 Chevrolet that gets nearly 30 MPG.

If it exists and you know if it, it should be trivially easy for you to name
it. Do so.

> Better
> do some research if you are going to continue to post on this subject
>

Yes, you'd better do some research. Surprise us with a fact or two.

> mike hunt
>
> .
> "Bo Yancey" <yakkbo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Rugef.539040$x96.451271@attbi_s72...
> > dh wrote:
> >>>
> >> Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
> >> opinion?"
> >>
> >>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
> >>>
> >>>>Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is a
> >>>>truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
> >>
> >> Chrysler,
> >>>>Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales. Honda
> >> and
> >>>>Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost over
a
> >>>>billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be out
> >> of
> >>>>business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must
buy
> >>>>American" sheep.
> >>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>>How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top
> >> five
> >>>>>to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks
> >> and
> >>>>>SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a lot
> >>>>>more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you
> >> meant
> >>>>>to say in my opinion? ;)
> >>>>>mike hunt
> >>>>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
> >>>>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> >>>>>>>>2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> >>>>>>>>3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> >>>>>>>>4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> >>>>>>>>5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >> So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion:
people
> >> like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe they
> >> think
> >> they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and would
> >> rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets mediocre
> >> gas
> >> mileage.
> >>
> >> Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.
> >>
> >> By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed to
> >> believe your figures?
> >>
> > Synergy beats Honda.
>

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:FLmcncloXdpcmOfeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> That's funny. Some guys in the Ford NG tell me to go back to the GM NG
when
> I point out GM outsells Ford. Some guys Honda NG tell me to go back to
the
> Toyota NG when I point out Toyota outsells Honda They don't like to be
> presented with facts that disputes their personal biases and opinions
either
> it seems ;)
>
> mike hunt
>

Ya know, if just one guy tells you to go away, maybe it's just him and his
reaction to you. If everybody's telling you to go away... ya might just get
a clue...

Well, you wouldn't.

>
> "Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:crhef.144234$Io.106006@clgrps13...
> > Why don't you fuck off back to your Ford ng?
> >

st-bum

05-29-2007, 06:32 AM

I've noticed that with the same "small" car Toyotas seem to get about
20% better gas mileage.

The Corolla gets 40mpg and Chevy Cobalt, which has a bigger engine but
the same power output gets about 20% less.

Why is that? Is GM just that far behind technology wise? Is that why
their stock price is at 20 year lows and they lose money every quarter?

flobert

05-29-2007, 06:33 AM

On 15 Nov 2005 18:37:41 -0800, "st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've noticed that with the same "small" car Toyotas seem to get about
>20% better gas mileage.
>
>The Corolla gets 40mpg and Chevy Cobalt, which has a bigger engine but
>the same power output gets about 20% less.
>
>Why is that? Is GM just that far behind technology wise? Is that why
>their stock price is at 20 year lows and they lose money every quarter?

Tuning.

American cars/engines are tuned to bias their torque lower down the
rev range. Makes it more compatable with the ubiquitus slush-box
americans love. Result is the calculated peak power is the same,
although its a bigger engine, ANd a more inefficient engine results.

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:33 AM

Your bias is showing, again. ;)

mike

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dle00c$3ob$2@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:FLmcncloXdpcmOfeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> That's funny. Some guys in the Ford NG tell me to go back to the GM NG
> when
>> I point out GM outsells Ford. Some guys Honda NG tell me to go back to
> the
>> Toyota NG when I point out Toyota outsells Honda They don't like to be
>> presented with facts that disputes their personal biases and opinions
> either
>> it seems ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> Ya know, if just one guy tells you to go away, maybe it's just him and his
> reaction to you. If everybody's telling you to go away... ya might just
> get
> a clue...
>
> Well, you wouldn't.
>
>>
>> "Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:crhef.144234$Io.106006@clgrps13...
>> > Why don't you fuck off back to your Ford ng?
>> >
>
>

Mike Hunter

05-29-2007, 06:33 AM

I don't do homework for my own grandchildren what make you think I would do
yours? Research the EPA fuel economy guide for the facts on fuel mileage.
Search the bible of the auto industry, automtivenews.com, for sales figures.

mike

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dle009$3ob$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:ubecncbAUPiQlOfeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> Again you are confused I don't present opinions,
>
> Yes, you are offering opinions. Lame, unsubstantiated opinions.
>
>> what I posted are fact that
>> are available to anybody willing to do the search.
>
> Then it should be very easy for you to provide references and sources.
> Others do so.
>
>> Although Toyota and
>> Honda have the number one and two selling individual model cars, and Ford
>> has the best selling individual truck GM sell more cars than Ford,
>> Toyota
>> and Honda as well as more trucks than Ford, Toyota and Honda . As to
>> fuel
>> mileage GM offers far more vehicles that get over 30 MPG than does
>> Toyota.
>
> If this is so, it should be very easy for you to name these vehicles. The
> Cobalt comes to mind. Any others?
>
>> GM even offers a full sized V8 Chevrolet that gets nearly 30 MPG.
>
> If it exists and you know if it, it should be trivially easy for you to
> name
> it. Do so.
>
>> Better
>> do some research if you are going to continue to post on this subject
>>
>
> Yes, you'd better do some research. Surprise us with a fact or two.
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>> .
>> "Bo Yancey" <yakkbo@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Rugef.539040$x96.451271@attbi_s72...
>> > dh wrote:
>> >>>
>> >> Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
>> >> opinion?"
>> >>
>> >>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>>Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck is
>> >>>>a
>> >>>>truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
>> >>
>> >> Chrysler,
>> >>>>Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales.
>> >>>>Honda
>> >> and
>> >>>>Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost
>> >>>>over
> a
>> >>>>billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be
>> >>>>out
>> >> of
>> >>>>business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical "must
> buy
>> >>>>American" sheep.
>> >>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the top
>> >> five
>> >>>>>to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up. Trucks
>> >> and
>> >>>>>SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a
>> >>>>>lot
>> >>>>>more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps you
>> >> meant
>> >>>>>to say in my opinion? ;)
>> >>>>>mike hunt
>> >>>>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
>> >>>>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
>> >>>>>>>>2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
>> >>>>>>>>3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
>> >>>>>>>>4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
>> >>>>>>>>5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>
>> >> So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion:
> people
>> >> like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe they
>> >> think
>> >> they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and
>> >> would
>> >> rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets
>> >> mediocre
>> >> gas
>> >> mileage.
>> >>
>> >> Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.
>> >>
>> >> By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed
>> >> to
>> >> believe your figures?
>> >>
>> > Synergy beats Honda.
>>
>
>

Michael Pardee

05-29-2007, 06:33 AM

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:rpfkn19kmu9h8vutmlr23s6vclbdubvji6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:43:22 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1131860509.264966.282990@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
>>> that.
>>>
>>> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
>>>
>>> I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
>>> I would think the two would be very similar.
>>>
>>The difference is in the rpm curves. It really all hinges on the torque
>>anyway, as you point out, since for a given torque the hp rises in
>>proportion to rpm.
>>
>>The low end torque is stuff I never really got a handle on, but at the
>>high
>>end (where most of the controversy is anyway) it is all related to
>>breathing. Things like intake and exhaust design and cam considerations of
>>valve lift, duration and overlap can increase the useful torque at high
>>rpms
>>and thereby increase the maximum power.
>>
>>The torque/power debate really comes down to gearing. If we could select
>>any
>>gear ratio we wanted any time we wanted, we could make good use of maximum
>>power and nobody would talk about torque.
>
> Such as, ohhh, with a CVT? Had a few of them over the years, kinda
> weird sitting there, accelerating, and getting NO change in the engine
> note, as it holds at its peak torque point, Good old rubber band cars,
> much more efficient than regular slushboxes too, since they dont have
> so many nasty planetaries.
>
Of course, the Toyota hybrid system has a variation without the rubber band.
Nothing shifts, nothing engages or disengages. The engine doesn't even
exclusively provide torque to the wheels, but provides power to the hybrid
system.

Mike

05-29-2007, 06:33 AM

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:OLCdndrnH45V7ObeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I don't do homework for my own grandchildren what make you think I would
do
> yours? Research the EPA fuel economy guide for the facts on fuel mileage.
> Search the bible of the auto industry, automtivenews.com, for sales
figures.
>
> mike
>

This isn't OUR homework, this is YOUR homework. Got facts for your lame
opinions? Then post them.

I've taken the time to provide comparisons. Don't like my comparisons?
Refute them with facts of your own.

>
> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:dle009$3ob$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > news:ubecncbAUPiQlOfeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >> Again you are confused I don't present opinions,
> >
> > Yes, you are offering opinions. Lame, unsubstantiated opinions.
> >
> >> what I posted are fact that
> >> are available to anybody willing to do the search.
> >
> > Then it should be very easy for you to provide references and sources.
> > Others do so.
> >
> >> Although Toyota and
> >> Honda have the number one and two selling individual model cars, and
Ford
> >> has the best selling individual truck GM sell more cars than Ford,
> >> Toyota
> >> and Honda as well as more trucks than Ford, Toyota and Honda . As to
> >> fuel
> >> mileage GM offers far more vehicles that get over 30 MPG than does
> >> Toyota.
> >
> > If this is so, it should be very easy for you to name these vehicles.
The
> > Cobalt comes to mind. Any others?
> >
> >> GM even offers a full sized V8 Chevrolet that gets nearly 30 MPG.
> >
> > If it exists and you know if it, it should be trivially easy for you to
> > name
> > it. Do so.
> >
> >> Better
> >> do some research if you are going to continue to post on this subject
> >>
> >
> > Yes, you'd better do some research. Surprise us with a fact or two.
> >
> >> mike hunt
> >>
> >> .
> >> "Bo Yancey" <yakkbo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Rugef.539040$x96.451271@attbi_s72...
> >> > dh wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >> Why? Do you qualify YOUR lame, unsubstantiated opinions with "in my
> >> >> opinion?"
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:MfadnVXwxLKcKuXeRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Part of the reason the 3 pickups (they are not trucks-a dumptruck
is
> >> >>>>a
> >> >>>>truck, an 18-wheeler is a truck) made it to the top 3 is because
> >> >>
> >> >> Chrysler,
> >> >>>>Ford & GM used the lure of "employee discount" to pad the sales.
> >> >>>>Honda
> >> >> and
> >> >>>>Toyota used their normal discounts for this time of year. GM lost
> >> >>>>over
> > a
> >> >>>>billion in the last quarter. Analysts say both GM and Ford will be
> >> >>>>out
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>business by 2015. The only sales they will get are the typical
"must
> > buy
> >> >>>>American" sheep.
> >> >>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:cbCdnYJjdrncOOXeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>How did you arrive at that conclusion? The ONLY vehicle in the
top
> >> >> five
> >> >>>>>to drop in sales was the Camry, all the others have gone up.
Trucks
> >> >> and
> >> >>>>>SUVs still account for half of all sales combined and there are a
> >> >>>>>lot
> >> >>>>>more car models than light truck models on the market. Perhaps
you
> >> >> meant
> >> >>>>>to say in my opinion? ;)
> >> >>>>>mike hunt
> >> >>>>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>news:jHTdf.4919$%t4.4115@trnddc07...
> >> >>>>>>>"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> >> >>>>>>>>2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> >> >>>>>>>>3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> >> >>>>>>>>4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> >> >>>>>>>>5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>
> >> >> So the top two passenger cars are Toyota and Honda? Conclusion:
> > people
> >> >> like them more than they like Fords, Chevys and Pontiacs. Maybe
they
> >> >> think
> >> >> they're a better value. Maybe they hate wasting money on gas and
> >> >> would
> >> >> rather get a car that gets good gas mileage than one that gets
> >> >> mediocre
> >> >> gas
> >> >> mileage.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gee... Maybe Detroit should think about that.
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, I notice you didn't provide a reference. We're supposed
> >> >> to
> >> >> believe your figures?
> >> >>
> >> > Synergy beats Honda.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>