OT: Why General Motors is doomed

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> The batteries that do not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as
>> well.
>
> Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.

No, new technology batteries also.

"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I... don't... f'ing... believe it! But it's true!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lgn9w
>

Anyone with any sense knows that without a significant breakthrough in
battery technology, electric cars are only a sick dream. As a Saturn
Dealer, we were dealing with EV1's and they were a pain. It was a very
happy day when that program ended. (Anybody want an EV1 charging station?)

The current crop of hybrid cars - (another cruel joke played on the
unsuspecting public) are really only out there to appease the "green"
people. They too will go the way of the EV1 and dodo bird.

If people were serious about fuel emissions from cars, they would require
any car/truck made before 1995 to be scrapped. They would also change the
license fees to be 0 on a new car/truck and increase year by year. Finally,
require all gasoline vehicles to use 30% ethanol and all diesel's to use 30%
biodiesel by 2010.

Dave

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> The current crop of hybrid cars - (another cruel joke played on the
>> unsuspecting public) are really only out there to appease the "green"
>> people. They too will go the way of the EV1 and dodo bird.
>
> I don't know a single person with a Prius who isn't happy with it. Maybe
> you're referring to the American excuses for hybrid technology.
>
> Hybrid technology isn't likely to go away any time soon. Even if fuel
> cells come on line (hopefully DAFC and not hydrogen BS) it is easier and
> cheaper to create a fuel cell hybrid than a vehicle fully powered by a
> fuel cell.
>
> Mike
>
Deliberately ignoring your other post about batteries, I said "hybrid cars"
NOT hybrid technology. (Locomotives and ships use hybrid technologies.) As
for the Prius, and the other crop of hybrid cars, the people who drive them
like them - for now. Wait until they need major service or when they try to
re-sell them in the future (3-6 years).

We sell the Honda Hybrid and the main reason they buy them is, "so I can
drive in the carpool lane by myself". Not one the main three hybrids, VW,
Prius or the Civic have the horsepower of the standard engine counterpart
and the mileage difference will pay for the cost difference in a few years
of ownership.

Currently the newest - latest and greatest DAFC is only about 45% efficient
and a long way from use in our cars. The best, most efficient method is
moving to blended fuels, (Ethanol/gasoline) like Brazil has done and
converting to biodiesel for trucks. The big hurdle for ethanol fuels is
distribution and water separation systems that make it still to costly to
implement nationally. Maybe when oil crosses the $100 a barrel it will make
sense.

Dave
(Hoping for room-temperature superconductivity and a method to render
radio-active waste inert!)

Leon wrote:
...

> No secret, look at Oldsmobile. ... Arrogance will get you every time.
...

Don't think "arrogance" had anything whatsoever to do w/ the decision
to close Olds--it just no longer made any sense whatsoever to keep all
five lines as they overlapped so much and the middle ones (Olds,
Pontiac, Buick) almost completely, particular since the time of the
"entry-level" concept of Chevrolet is no longer.

It was the same decision as Chrysler made years ago to eliminate DeSoto
and subsequently, Plymouth. It appeared Ford was going to do the same
w/ Mercury for a while, but seem to have decided to reassert it
recently.

J. Clarke wrote:
> Michael Daly wrote:
...
> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
...

Coal, nuclear, hydro, wind all come to mind...

Michael Daly wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Leon wrote:
> >>> The batteries that do not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as
> >>> well.
> >> Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.
> >
> > No, new technology batteries also.
>
> Why? Is lithium the new heavy metal? NiMH are not anywhere near as bad as NiCd.
>
> Replacing a reusable battery once every few years is peanuts compared to the
> environmental cost of finding, transporting, refining and burning gas or diesel.
>
...

If you don't count the impact of the mining, smelting, processing and
manufacturing of the materials for the batteries...

George Max wrote:
> I love the environmental groups that don't talk to each other. Some
> groups hate power plants and fight tooth and nail against them.

This was my thought also. People saying hydro is going to help solve
our power needs should talk to the folks in Idaho who are continually
wanting to tear down the dams here because of the effects on the
environment, salmon and other upstream habitats. There are
environmentalists all around Hite, Utah who are NOT big fans of hydro
power...

Also, GM has 1000's of employees on full salary in job banks - some
haven't been near a auto manufacturing line in years, but the union
says they can't be fired even though GM needs to shed excess employees
off the payroll. Any company that is not allowed to make it's own
business decisions is doomed.

Matt

[email protected] wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 19:01:32 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
> >> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
> >...
> >
> >Coal, nuclear, hydro, wind all come to mind...
>
> Coal has the same if not worse problems ecologically as oil although
> we have plenty of high sulfur coal..

We also have a _lot_ of low sulfur coal as well--


> ... Nuke, hydro and wind are very
> hard to get built. We haven't built a big hydro dam since the 50s and
> a nuke plant since the 60s. I doubt there will be one in the US any
> time soon either. They are trying to take out dams and nuke plants.
> Wind is also taking a beating. None other than the Kennedys, Kerry,
> Romney and most of the rest of new england stopped a plant there. Too
> ugly.

Well, except for large hydro I think you're wrong on all the above.

There are active plans underway w/ several utilities as we speak to
site and build new nuclear stations--see Power Engineering (June issue
I believe, maybe May) for a summary story.

We're building new wind generation stations all over out here in the
midwest--a new site went on line just last month with the first
windmils and they're continuing to add an additional tower at roughly
one-1/2 per week on average.

Hydro is the least likely for additional large generation owing to
basically a lack of places to put them. There are at least a few
pumped-storage facilities still in the background in the southeast that
I'm aware of, but you're correct they probably won't be built in the
short term.

> All of this "bio" stuff is only a pork barrel projerct for farmers. We
> have more than we can sell so burn food in your car and get subsidized
> for doing it.

I disagree totally here as well...commodity prices are not skyrocketing
w/ the huge surge in ethanol. If there is a surplus of any commodity
for a given use, why should there be a reason to not use it for
something there is a use for, whether that use is energy or anything
else? While there is a small tax incentive at present to spur
investment in ethanol production, it will be phased out and unless
world oil prices decline significantly ethanol and biodiesel production
will be economically viable. No one has ever claimed they will
completely replace fossil-supplied fuels, but there certainly is no
reason not to extend existing supplies.
...

J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>
> >
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> Michael Daly wrote:
> > ...
> >> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
> >> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
> > ...
> >
> > Coal,
>
> Which also has to be transported, refined, and burned
>
> > nuclear,
>
> Ditto.
>
> > hydro,
>
> Which requires large scale construction with very significant environmental
> impact
>
> > wind
>
> So how many windmills will you need to meet the demand?
>
> > all come to mind...
>
> And none of them are free or even cheap.
> >
...

I listed current alternatives that don't consist of _burning_ oil for
central station electricity production which was the claim that I read
(and now re-reading realize isn't precisely what you meant, I see you
were actually meaning at least some oil is required for electricity
generation--that I'll agree with.

I never claimed any of the alternatives are free (or even cheap) --
although both coal and nuclear are certainly cost-competitive to oil or
gas generation at current prices and will only get more so. As noted
in another reply, there's active consideration of new nuclear
generation and I expect a new plant to be online in a relatively short
time.

" John"
>> The point of a hybrid is that the engine charges
>> the battery when there is excess capacity available. You can't charge a
>> fuel cell.

> "Michael Daly"
> No, but you can still charge a battery. You want a 200 hp fuel cell?
> That's going to be a big fuel cell. How often do you use 200hp? Rarely
> (probably never, but most drivers think and buy with their penis).
> Instead, install a fuel cell for the power you need on a regular basis and
> store extra energy in a battery for acceleration - just like a Prius with
> an Atkinson cycle engine - turns an engine that is something like 80hp
> into a power plant that accelerates like it was 40% more powerful.

Certainly some buyers think of their machismo when buying however, an
overwhelming number of SUV buyers are housewives/working mothers that need
to shuttle car loads of kids and gear around. A Prius is simply not up to
the task.

As for your attitude regarding HP, it is typical of a left wing
environmentalist. The arrogant position that your way of thinking is the
only correct one and all others must fall in line - or what - they are
stupid, numbskulls that must be taught a lesson? I happen to believe that
rational people, given good information, will generally make good choices.

I also find it ironic that the green people are quietly backing away from
their historically negative nuclear stance. Only now discovering that last
20+ years for coal/oil/gas burning power plants spew the dreaded C02 gas
into our planet's atmosphere. (Forgetting the fact that the human
population growth lines up almost exactly with C02 emissions.)

Mike - don't get me wrong, if you want to drive a Civic Hybrid, fine - just
come by sometime and I'll be happy to introduce you to one of my
salespeople. We also have the Chevrolet Hybrid pickup if you what to
protect your green image while still being able to stand and pee.

Dave




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[email protected] wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2006 05:55:05 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On 18 Jul 2006 19:01:32 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Coal has the same if not worse problems ecologically as oil although
> >> we have plenty of high sulfur coal..
> >
> >We also have a _lot_ of low sulfur coal as well--
> >
> If you really buy into global warming, all fossil fuel is bad

That's a big if, and I, personally, don't...but, whether we in the US
do or don't, we're going to be dwarfed very shortly by China and India,
anyway...look at the available data on power plant construction in
China for example, and that's only what is publicly known easily. Half
the guys I know from the construction and operations side are now
working in China where they're building as fast as they can get the
material and people...

> >We're building new wind generation stations all over out here in the
> >midwest--a new site went on line just last month with the first
> >windmils and they're continuing to add an additional tower at roughly
> >one-1/2 per week on average.
>
> So basically, you can build plants where there is nobody using
> electricity? Bear in mind you lose power in transmission lines as a
> fuinction opf the square of the distance they run.
> P=I2R

Someone else already noted the fallacy there. The point is, they _are_
being built and in sizable numbers where there is the resource despite
the previous post (to which the response was made) that would try to
imply a few isolated instances of not building a small number is a
general phenomenon. But, like many other options, it isn't universally
the best solution nor even feasible everywhere, but it is a very viable
option to increase electrical generation.

> >Hydro is the least likely for additional large generation owing to
> >basically a lack of places to put them.
>
> ... and the environmental push to rip out the ones we have.

And while there are some who would/do advocate it, I don't suspect
we'll see Lake Mead disappear anytime _real_ soon...

> >> All of this "bio" stuff is only a pork barrel projerct for farmers. We
> >> have more than we can sell so burn food in your car and get subsidized
> >> for doing it.
> >
> >I disagree totally here as well...commodity prices are not skyrocketing
> >w/ the huge surge in ethanol. If there is a surplus of any commodity
> >for a given use, why should there be a reason to not use it for
> >something there is a use for, whether that use is energy or anything
> >else?
> . Any real large scale production will show up in prices at the
> grocery store.

Wrong basis again--the types/varieties of corn grown for ethanol
production are specific for the purpose, they aren't grown for human
consumption. The amount of production of both soybeans and corn for
human consumption is a quite small fraction of present production
levels, anyway.

Leon wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Don't think "arrogance" had anything whatsoever to do w/ the decision
> > to close Olds--it just no longer made any sense whatsoever to keep all
> > five lines as they overlapped so much and the middle ones (Olds,
> > Pontiac, Buick) almost completely, particular since the time of the
> > "entry-level" concept of Chevrolet is no longer.
>
> Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
> Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior product. ...

As compared to what? They were essentially identical other GM product
lines--that was _the_ major problem, there was no longer anything to
differentiate them sufficiently, just as the parallel example w/
Chrysler...

I don't believe the representation of product by factory reps was a bit
different in nature w/ Olds than any other GM line (nor Ford, Chrysler,
Toyota, Honda or any other manufacturer, for that matter). All make
decisions of that type based on their perception of what is the most
cost-effective solution for them. I had Olds' from mid-70s thru late
80s and they each lasted for at least 140 kmiles w/ no significant
maintenance problems other than one for which I blame myself for using
Quaker State, not GM/Olds. I had no more difficulty w/ what little
warranty work was required from them than any other distributor I've
ever experienced.

Could they have done something different/better? Of course, very few
companies (or individuals, for that matter) can say otherwise. Was
their demise from "arrogance"? Not in my estimation.

You may disagree, that's your perogative.

> Leon wrote:
snip
>> Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
>> Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior product.
>> ...
>
snip
> Could they have done something different/better? Of course, very few
> companies (or individuals, for that matter) can say otherwise. Was
> their demise from "arrogance"? Not in my estimation.
>
> You may disagree, that's your perogative.
>
>
I too (currently) work at a multi-franchised auto dealer and have done so
for 30 years.
I watched GM's quality plummet in the 80's while Japan was introducing
products. As a dealer for both Honda and Mazda, believe me when I tell you
quality was not all that great. Honda's transmission's, brakes and head
gaskets were a constant source of our business. Mazda's engines, brakes and
transmission contributed as well. The difference between our GM customers
and import customers was profound and two-fold.

The typical GM owner rarely had their cars serviced (with us) and when they
did, it was just an oil change. OTOH, the import owners bordered on
religious about servicing their cars (at the dealership) with us. Secondly,
Honda and Mazda stepped up when it came time to fix the known problems, well
out of warranty. This became an interesting problem for them. The State
started to get complaints about the un-stated warranty. We had to stop
saying it was under warranty (past the regular warranty period) and were
required to call it dealer good-will.

*Today, the quality difference between the worst built cars Hummer, Jeep,
Mazda, VW, Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Saab, Isuzu (mostly imports) and the
best, Lexus is very small. With normal maintenance, most any car will
outlast your desire to drive it.

The real difference is going to be your relationship with your local dealer
and the dealer's relationship with the factory.

Dave


* http://www.jdpower.com/autos/brand-ratings/



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

> Teamcasa
>> Certainly some buyers think of their machismo when buying however, an
>> overwhelming number of SUV buyers are housewives/working mothers that
>> need to shuttle car loads of kids and gear around. A Prius is simply not
>> up to the task.
>
"Michael Daly"
> I see far more SUVs filled with precisely _one_ driver commuting in
> overloaded highways than SUVs filled with kids.
>
> When I played soccer, we walked or cycled to the field and if it wasn't a
> home game, the team rented a school bus. The SUV is usually an excuse for
> a solution looking for a problem. People bought them because they were a
> fad, not because they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad
> is fading. The almost-a-wagon looks like it may be the new fad (e.g.
> Toyota Matrix)
>
Teamcasa
>> As for your attitude regarding HP, it is typical of a left wing
>> environmentalist. The arrogant position that your way of thinking is the
>> only correct one and all others must fall in line - or what - they are
>> stupid, numbskulls that must be taught a lesson?

> "Michael Daly"
> I see vehicles that weigh twice what my car does and have three times the
> rated HP. They are crawling down the highway entrance ramps and trying to
> enter traffic at 2/3 highway speed. Those same drivers tell me they need
> all that horsepower. What they need is to learn how to drive.
>
> Most drivers use HP because they don't know how to handle their car. The
> little sports cars of the '50s could out handle many modern overpowered
> cars and those little cars had a fraction of the power that most drivers
> would accept today.
>
> Americans judge the car by stomping on the gas pedal and expecting it to
> go woosh. That's hardly a reasonable estimation of a car.
>
Teamcasa
>> I happen to believe that rational people, given good information, will
>> generally make good choices.

> "Michael Daly"
> And transportation engineering studies have shown the exact opposite.
>
> Major study on fuel economy attitudes in the '70s oil crisis - one
> question was:
>
> "Have you installed a thermidor in your car to improve fuel economy?"
>
> Approximately 75% of respondents said yes. These are the smart, rational
> drivers you sell cars to.

Mike,
Facts please - What study(s)?

No one is going to stop or criticize you from riding a bike or walking in
order to save mankind. That's your right. I object however, when your
belief system begins to interfere with my desire to drive or sell whatever I
want. You and Ed Begley can drive your EV1's and Prius's all you want, your
free to protest the nuclear plants, (that really helped BTW) and tear down
the hydroplants. Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for several
more generations. If the green people had a lick of sense, they would be
devoting their resources into ways to generate electricity (massive amounts)
without using fossil fuels. They would buy products made locally, not from
places that have to ship them across the ocean in fuel guzzling ships. They
would only use natural fibers (cotton - animal fur) not synthetic ones made
from petroleum.

The hypocrisy and self aggrandizement is amazing.

BTW the (few) sportscars made in the 50's are by today's standards, junk.
They were polluting machines and handled terribly, but their power to weight
ratio was pretty good. However, it would be nice to have my old 58' vette
back.

I'll just settle for my Chevrolet diesel crewcab dually 4x6.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

J. Clarke wrote:
<snippage>
> Do you have numbers to present to support this view or are you just in love
> with your own notion?


Funny, that's just what I'd have asked of you, but then I'd not expect
lucid response.

J

[email protected] wrote:
<stuff snippage>
> So basically, you can build plants where there is nobody using
> electricity? Bear in mind you lose power in transmission lines as a
> fuinction opf the square of the distance they run.
> P=I2R
<more snippage>

Whooooooah there! We need more light than heat here, and should really
open minds/close mouths a bit.

Think about the above mathematical nonsense. "square of the distance"?
That's bs.

Fact is, long-distance electrical power transmission can be very close
to 100% efficient.

J

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:27:03 -0400, Michael Daly <[email protected]>
> wrote:
...

> >Americans judge the car by stomping on the gas pedal and expecting it to go
> >woosh. That's hardly a reasonable estimation of a car.
.....

That's the _only_ reasonable estimation of a car.... :)

> >> I happen to believe that
> >> rational people, given good information, will generally make good choices.
> >
> >And transportation engineering studies have shown the exact opposite.
...

And to the folks who made the choice I'm sure it looked very much like
a good choice. The point is when you place another set of values on
the choice other than the buyer's, then you obviously aren't always
going to agree on the level of "goodnes" in those choices, by
definition.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:26:40 -0500, George Max <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:22:34 -0400, "Bruce T"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming from?
>>California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we double
>>(or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure out how
>>to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a conspiracy......
>>
>>
>>Maybe if people just tried to think things through before they start
>>whinning....but no, that'll NEVER happen....
>>
>
>I love the environmental groups that don't talk to each other. Some
>groups hate power plants and fight tooth and nail against them. Other
>groups hate the internal combustion engine and do everything they can
>to switch everyone to electric cars.
>
>I guess those people think electricity just pours out of those two (or
>3) holes in the wall.

Oh, I think they talk to each other. The dirty little secret of the
radical environmental movement is that they are only going to be satisfied
when *no* new power is being generated or distributed (except of course the
energy that *they* need). The rest of us are supposed to live in
environmentally friendly mud huts, living in harmony with nature in a
subsistence agrarian society.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

>
. The little
> sports cars of the '50s could out handle many modern overpowered cars and
>those little cars had a fraction of the power that most drivers would accept today.
>

>Mike

===========
Mike:
Sorry Mike... BUT the above comment is just plain wrong...

I can not think of a single vehicle (sports car or not) made in the
50's that could "out handle" ANY modern vehicle..

I had my fair share of 50's sport cars...along with 60's and
70's and currently have five 60 and 70 era sports cars in my garage
along with a 2 years old sports car...

Fact is my 2000 Pickup truck will "out handle" any of the older sports
cars.. Modern tires and suspension systems are just light years
ahead of the technology availabe 40-50 years ago...

As for Horsepower... well I do own cars with more then 300 HP
but honestly I have not needed any more then that in at least the
last day or too...

Bob G.

Teamcasa wrote:

> The current crop of hybrid cars - (another cruel joke played on the
> unsuspecting public) are really only out there to appease the "green"
> people. They too will go the way of the EV1 and dodo bird.

I don't know a single person with a Prius who isn't happy with it. Maybe you're
referring to the American excuses for hybrid technology.

Hybrid technology isn't likely to go away any time soon. Even if fuel cells
come on line (hopefully DAFC and not hydrogen BS) it is easier and cheaper to
create a fuel cell hybrid than a vehicle fully powered by a fuel cell.

Mike

Teamcasa wrote:

> (Locomotives and ships use hybrid technologies.)

The only locomotive I've heard of is a shunt engine for rail yards. There's no
real advantage for long distance rail travel.

> We sell the Honda Hybrid and the main reason they buy them is, "so I can
> drive in the carpool lane by myself".

And people drive SUV's because they are big, not because they are needed. There
are a lot of Priuses in my town and they aren't being purchased for carpool
lanes - there are too few for that to be a justification. Every person I know
buys one because they want a more fuel efficient vehicle.

> Currently the newest - latest and greatest DAFC is only about 45% efficient
> and a long way from use in our cars.

That's more efficient than current H2 technology and way more efficient than an
internal combustion engine. Since the focus of fuel cell technology is H2 (i.e.
the US Congress' stupid alternative energy bill recently passed) , they may
never succeed at producing auto-ready DAFC on an even playing field.

> The best, most efficient method is
> moving to blended fuels, (Ethanol/gasoline) like Brazil has done and
> converting to biodiesel for trucks.

If they use (heavily subsidized and energy intensive) corn and sugar based
ethanol, no. If they go with cellulose ethanol from low-grade crops, yes.
Hybrid will make this even better. I can't think of a single reason why hybrid
is not a good idea; it's simple technology with a big benefit.


> (Hoping for room-temperature superconductivity and a method to render
> radio-active waste inert!)

It's nice to dream.

Mike

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Having worked directly with GM for 18 years I probably know better than
> you.


Well that was a rather unfair response I gave you here. Basically the
American automobile builders had this arrogance that they felt that they
were world leaders in automobile production. They WERE. Then the Japanese
car builders began to really take hold and the American automobile builders
continued to build the same quality. They simply thought that their larger
percentage of sales in the US would dominate. To day we see what effect
that has had. Oldsmobile just happened to be the weak one at the time that
GM needed to drop a car line.
Until the late 80's GM was still adding divisions. Saturn was one, so
overlap was not so much a problem. Lack of sales from mediocre quality
eventually lead to the Japanese taking control.

"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I... don't... f'ing... believe it! But it's true!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lgn9w
>

No secret, look at Oldsmobile. Having worked for a GM dealer as the Service
Sales manager, as the Parts director, and eventually as the GM of an
AC/Delco distributor it is not a even close to a surprise that GM would end
up where it is today. Arrogance will get you every time.

Unfortunately these "Environmentally Friendly" new cars are worse for the
environment than the exhaust of a gasoline engine. The batteries that do
not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as well.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:34:49 -0500, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> These NiMh batteries are still not good for the environment and you don't
>> replace 1 battery. You replace a bank of batteries that run in the $5K
>> range every 60,000 to 80,000 miles.
>
>Hm...how to put this? You're wrong. Battery life expectancy is estimated
>at 8-10 years/150K miles *minimum*. They put a 2001 Prius to work as a taxi
>in Vancouver, BC. Put over 200,000 miles on it. Wanna guess what went out?
>The struts and the AC temp sensor.
>

World of difference between a taxi putting 200k miles in what, a couple
of years, vs. real-world driving of 12 - 15 k miles per year. Also a world
of different environment between Vancouver, BC and those of us in the south
and southwest. Here, 60 month car batteries last 24 months, 48 month car
batteries last 24 months, i.e. the hot, dry climate kills batteries. The
batteries are a different technology you say? That may be, but heat still
kills batteries with that technology as well, maybe not quite as fast. I'm
going to wait to see what peoples' experience is before I become a beta
tester.




... snip
>


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Look up the definition of battery.

I know the definition of battery. More than 1. A battery of guns, a car
battery is typically composed of 6, 2.2 volt cells.

But with the common terminology the electric and hybrid cars are like to
have more than 1 battery.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As compared to what?
No compariwon needed. Year after year, time and time again it became
routine to replace the same parts for the same reasons. 10 to 20 times a
week for the same part. Many of the replacement parts were stocked in
quantities equal to oil filters.


They were essentially identical other GM product
> lines--that was _the_ major problem, there was no longer anything to
> differentiate them sufficiently, just as the parallel example w/
> Chrysler...

That is nothing new and duplication works for Toyota and Nissan Motor
company just fine. Seemed to work well for Apple computers also when they
offered different colors. Apple sells the same thing just different
variations of appearance. Time and time again factory reps would promice
that they were going to get it right this time as new models were being
introduced.

> I don't believe the representation of product by factory reps was a bit
> different in nature w/ Olds than any other GM line (nor Ford, Chrysler,
> Toyota, Honda or any other manufacturer, for that matter). All make
> decisions of that type based on their perception of what is the most
> cost-effective solution for them. I had Olds' from mid-70s thru late
> 80s and they each lasted for at least 140 kmiles w/ no significant
> maintenance problems other than one for which I blame myself for using
> Quaker State, not GM/Olds. I had no more difficulty w/ what little
> warranty work was required from them than any other distributor I've
> ever experienced.

Well Good for you. You were lucky. I too drove Oldsmobiles I worked for an
Oldsmobile dealer for about 10 years in upper management and had to deal
directly with the customers. I assure you the norm was a crappy product by
comparison to the Japanese products.

>
> Could they have done something different/better? Of course, very few
> companies (or individuals, for that matter) can say otherwise. Was
> their demise from "arrogance"? Not in my estimation.

You were not there as the Olds reps would turn down warranty claims because
our delaership replaced too many of a certain item. Tell me that is not
arrogance. They basically said, we know that there is a problem and we are
paying you to make the repairs however you repair more than the Olds dealers
in your area so we are going to kick back the claims that put you over the
region average.

> You may disagree, that's your perogative.

I don't have to disagree, I know the truth.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Want to see the SUV (AKA: Gussied Up Pick'em Up Truck) go away, bring
>> on $10/gallon gasoline.
>>
>> As always, follow the money.
>
> When gasoline was 25 cents a gallon they said that about 2 dollars a
> gallon.


Actually when gasoline was 25 cents a gallon no one dreamed gas prices would
ever raise to as much as 50 cents per gallon. But like you said, we all
adjust.

Leon wrote:

>Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
>Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior
product. ...


IMHO, "arrogance" is a term that applied to the entire US auto industry.

Can think of no better example than GM's approach to providing a US
diesel engine for Oldsmobiles.

Rather than build a new diesel engine, a new engine program was about
$100-$150 million in those days, they chose a short cut.

Mill the head of a 10:1 combustion ratio gasoline engine to achieve a
20:1 ratio required for diesel.

Forget about a new crank, larger bearings, etc, required to handle a
higher compression ratio engine.

History has domumented that disaster.

As someone who spent much of my career around heavy industry, (auto,
steel, chemical, machine tool, etc) Detroit is heading down that same
slippery slope that the steel industry went down a generation earlier.

Those who fail to learn from historical mistakes are doomed to repeat
them.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I don't know about your world, but in my world, people buy a car that
> will fill *all* of their needs, they don't have a specific car for each
> specific task. So, when they need a vehicle with hauling capacity for
> family trips, weekend family activities, and commuting, they pick a car
> for
> which the features intersect with all of their driving requirements.

While your statement is trued, what we pick in North America is far
different that what the Asians and Europeans use to achieve the same goal.
A family in England will load up the Cooper, the Italians will load up the
Fiat and off they go. Of course, the Germans used the Borgward and had lots
of room.

Leon wrote:
> The batteries that do
> not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as well.

Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.

Mike

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> >Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
> >Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior
> product. ...
>
>
> IMHO, "arrogance" is a term that applied to the entire US auto industry.


EXACTLY!

"Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Facts please - What study(s)?


Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for several
> more generations.

A couple of months ago a spokesman for Exxon was on a local talk show and
indicated that with only todays technology that we have only used 20% of the
worlds oil supply.
Yesterday the news on NBC indicated that Shale Oil in Colorado can out
produce Saudia Arabia and Iran combined and with oil selling for $70 per
barrel it would be just as economical to remove the oil from the shale.

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>

People bought them because they were a fad, not because
> they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading.

Where do you live??? IN Houston the SUV is alive and well and had been
since long before they were called SUV's, I'll admit that sales are slowing
but that is because of the gas prices in the last year.

Want to see the SUV (AKA: Gussied Up Pick'em Up Truck) go away, bring
on $10/gallon gasoline.

As always, follow the money.

Lew

I'm just glad that all the folks who claimed the automobile was a passing
fancy turned out to be right...god only knows how those idiots like Daimler
and Diesel and Ford et al thought that they could build and sell cars with
no existing infrastructure in place...

It's almost a miracle that things like roads and the automotive fuel
industry sprung up overnight to serve the needs of the people building the
cars, we all know that could never happen again.

Seriously, you guys who continually bash ideas like alternatively fueled
vehicles are fun to read, it's like a car crash, you know you shouldn't but
you have to look.

It's a wonder that anything in the way of transportation or power production
and transmission or the interstate highway system, etc.ever got built at all
given the amount of ignorant pessimism that one reads on the internet.

As for thinking and buying with one's penis, how else does one explain the
Hummer...? If that's not genital compensation, I don't know what is.

John E.

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You might as well shut up and go away. You lost all credibility with that
> statement.
>
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> (probably
> > never, but most drivers think and buy with their penis).
>
>

You might as well shut up and go away. You lost all credibility with that
statement.

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
(probably
> never, but most drivers think and buy with their penis).

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:L%[email protected]:

>
> "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Facts please - What study(s)?
>
>
> Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for several
>> more generations.
>
> A couple of months ago a spokesman for Exxon was on a local talk show
> and indicated that with only todays technology that we have only used
> 20% of the worlds oil supply.
> Yesterday the news on NBC indicated that Shale Oil in Colorado can out
> produce Saudia Arabia and Iran combined and with oil selling for $70
> per barrel it would be just as economical to remove the oil from the
> shale.
>

There was a study hanging around in the early 80's that showed that the gas
company in Utah could economically produce natural gas from the Utah oil
shale, vs $25 bbl oil. The chose not to, figuring that they would end up
having to sell it at regulated gas prices. The risk factors were too
large, and they had most of the natural gas they expected to need from
Wyoming...

There are always alternatives. Some of them take more courage and
planning, but there are alternatives.

Patriarch

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> As for thinking and buying with one's penis, how else does one
>> explain the Hummer...? If that's not genital compensation, I don't
>> know what is.
>>
>> John E.
>
> Have you seen the new "Reclaim your manhood" commercial for the H-3.
> I didn't think anyone would stoop that low. I've often said the H-2
> owners must have the smallest weenies of all men.
>

And the one with the mom, who wimps out, and then buys one herself? ;-)

Not going THERE!

Patriarch

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> The batteries that do not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as
>>>> well.
>>> Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.
>>
>> No, new technology batteries also.
>
> Why? Is lithium the new heavy metal? NiMH are not anywhere near as bad
> as NiCd.
>
> Replacing a reusable battery once every few years is peanuts compared to
> the environmental cost of finding, transporting, refining and burning gas
> or diesel.
>
> Mike

These NiMh batteries are still not good for the environment and you don't
replace 1 battery. You replace a bank of batteries that run in the $5K
range every 60,000 to 80,000 miles.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Nahh, don't buy that piece of junk, by the Monster Cable SuperDuperCharger
> with oxygen-free copper and fine stranding for more surface effect for
> only
> 1999.50.


Monster Cable. That stuff is funny. You are buying magnifying insulation.
It's funny how big Monster Cable looks inside the insulation. Follow the
wire to the uninsulated end you end up with weiner sized wire.

"Bruce T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming
> from? California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we
> double (or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure
> out how to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a
> conspiracy......


I saw an ad for a new extension cord for charging your electric car. It
increases the distance traveled by 20% and charges in half the time, Yes,
the Supercharger Cord is the future. The electric companies have know about
this miracle cord for years, but, of course, they are interested in making
money so they've been keeping it off the market.

Send $199.95 for your new Supercharger Cord and Supercharge your
batteries,

But wait . . . . .there's more. If you order today, well give you an no
extra charge the Supercharger for cordless power tools. just pay shipping
and handling, of $29.

"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> As for thinking and buying with one's penis, how else does one explain the
> Hummer...? If that's not genital compensation, I don't know what is.
>
> John E.

Have you seen the new "Reclaim your manhood" commercial for the H-3. I
didn't think anyone would stoop that low. I've often said the H-2 owners
must have the smallest weenies of all men.

"Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> I too (currently) work at a multi-franchised auto dealer and have done so
> for 30 years.
> I watched GM's quality plummet in the 80's while Japan was introducing
> products. As a dealer for both Honda and Mazda, believe me when I tell
> you quality was not all that great. Honda's transmission's, brakes and
> head gaskets were a constant source of our business.

The dealer I worked for at various times owned Oldsmobile, Honda, GMC,
Buick, Mazda, and Isuzu.

I primarily was over Oldsmobile, Honda, and Isuzu. We had the Olds
franchise since 1965, Honda from the start with the 600 sedans in the early
70's and added the Buick GMC, and Mazda in th eearly 80's. Isuzu came in
1986. I really do not recall a real problem with the Honda compared to
Oldsmobile. We typically serviced 400 to 500 Oldsmobiles per week during
the summer and 80% were owned by oil companies and banks in the Houston
area.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:53:34 -0400, Michael Daly <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> Facts please - What study(s)?
>
>If I can find my notes from university over 30 years ago, I'll dig them out.
>Don't hold your breath.
>

... and those notes (taken in what, the '70's?) weren't dictated by a
professor with a particular viewpoint or agenda, were they?


>> I object however, when your
>> belief system begins to interfere with my desire to drive or sell whatever I
>> want.
>
>If you're wasting resources that I think are rightly to be available to my
>descendants, I feel I have a legitimate reason to interfere. The implicit
>future value of oil is $0.00 according to the wasteful lifestyles of current
>consumers. Some of us know that that valuation is wrong.
>

There you have it folks. "What's mine is mine and my descendants, what's
yours is negotiable and subject to my judgment of suitability for your
application relative to how it is perceived to possibly affect me or my
descendants in the future based upon my pre-conceived notions." Lovely
viewpoint that.


>> You and Ed Begley can drive your EV1's and Prius's all you want, your
>> free to protest the nuclear plants, (that really helped BTW) and tear down
>> the hydroplants. Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for several
>> more generations. If the green people had a lick of sense, they would be
>> devoting their resources into ways to generate electricity (massive amounts)
>> without using fossil fuels. They would buy products made locally, not from
>> places that have to ship them across the ocean in fuel guzzling ships. They
>> would only use natural fibers (cotton - animal fur) not synthetic ones made
>> from petroleum.
>>
>> The hypocrisy and self aggrandizement is amazing.
>
>What a load of BS. I have not said to stop using oil. I have been pointing out
>that you don't have to _waste_ so much oil. The technologies available today
>can significantly reduce consumption. If you want to live in the past with
>obsolete technologies, that's your problem. Some of us would like to see
>technology used to improve things. Hybrid technology is a good stopgap measure
>for the next several decades until some more advanced technologies are
>available. E.g. if the dream of clean fusion reactor power ever stops being
>fifty years in the future, then all-electric vehicles may be a good option.
>

I don't think anyone here is saying that the implementation of
technologies that truly save costs are a bad idea. But, those technologies
need to compete in the market, not be forced upon people by the force of
law because of somebody's idea of "public good" wrapped in junk science.


>You seem to think that waste=freedom. Well, waste=waste and with the US using
>far more energy than it can produce domestically,

Correction, "using far more energy than it is willing to allow to be
produced domestically". The environmentalists in this country haven't
found an energy project or energy producing scheme that they don't hate and
will fight with every fiber in their being from being developed. Examples
abound, shale oil in Colorado, coal, oil fields in Alaska, wind farms in
California, wind farms off the east coast, solar collection arrays (because
they shade the natural beauty of the desert upon which they are erected),
natural gas fields, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams. You name it,
an environmental group has opposed it, taken it to court and fought to
assure that the development is stopped or made to be too costly to be
economically feasible.


> freedom is threatened by being
>dependent on foreign resources. How many of your children are you prepared to
>send to die in foreign wars to maintain a wasteful lifestyle?
>

There is ample energy here if we have the will to develop it wisely
without the hysteria that *any* energy development is *bad* energy
development.

BTW, who gets to judge wasteful lifestyle? You? Who gets to judge your
lifestyle? How about if we get someone from say Vietnam, China, or North
Korea to assess your "wasteful" lifestyle and impose their idea of "frugal"
upon your living habits? One person's "wasteful" may be another person's
"time-efficient utilization of available resources". I would prefer that
decision be made by the person most closely involved in the process -- the
person performing those actions.

>Mike


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 19 Jul 2006 05:55:05 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2006 19:01:32 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Coal has the same if not worse problems ecologically as oil although
>> we have plenty of high sulfur coal..
>
>We also have a _lot_ of low sulfur coal as well--
>
If you really buy into global warming, all fossil fuel is bad

>

>We're building new wind generation stations all over out here in the
>midwest--a new site went on line just last month with the first
>windmils and they're continuing to add an additional tower at roughly
>one-1/2 per week on average.

So basically, you can build plants where there is nobody using
electricity? Bear in mind you lose power in transmission lines as a
fuinction opf the square of the distance they run.
P=I2R

>Hydro is the least likely for additional large generation owing to
>basically a lack of places to put them.

... and the environmental push to rip out the ones we have.

>> All of this "bio" stuff is only a pork barrel projerct for farmers. We
>> have more than we can sell so burn food in your car and get subsidized
>> for doing it.
>
>I disagree totally here as well...commodity prices are not skyrocketing
>w/ the huge surge in ethanol. If there is a surplus of any commodity
>for a given use, why should there be a reason to not use it for
>something there is a use for, whether that use is energy or anything
>else?
. Any real large scale production will show up in prices at the
grocery store.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:26:40 -0500, George Max <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:22:34 -0400, "Bruce T"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming from?
>>California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we double
>>(or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure out how
>>to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a conspiracy......
>>
>>
>>Maybe if people just tried to think things through before they start
>>whinning....but no, that'll NEVER happen....
>>
>
>I love the environmental groups that don't talk to each other. Some
>groups hate power plants and fight tooth and nail against them. Other
>groups hate the internal combustion engine and do everything they can
>to switch everyone to electric cars.
>
>I guess those people think electricity just pours out of those two (or
>3) holes in the wall.


I am really surprised that the tax and spend folks are not charging an
excise tax on electric cars. That power you are using is not assessing
a "road tax" like petroleum fuels. From a tax standpoint it is like
burning home heating oil in your diesel car.

It is making me look at an electric tho. I don't drive very far from
home so I don't need a lot of range.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Bruce T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming
>> from? California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we
>> double (or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure
>> out how to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a
>> conspiracy......
>
>
> I saw an ad for a new extension cord for charging your electric car. It
> increases the distance traveled by 20% and charges in half the time, Yes,
> the Supercharger Cord is the future. The electric companies have know
> about this miracle cord for years, but, of course, they are interested in
> making money so they've been keeping it off the market.
>
> Send $199.95 for your new Supercharger Cord and Supercharge your
> batteries,
>
> But wait . . . . .there's more. If you order today, well give you an no
> extra charge the Supercharger for cordless power tools. just pay shipping
> and handling, of $29.

Nahh, don't buy that piece of junk, by the Monster Cable SuperDuperCharger
with oxygen-free copper and fine stranding for more surface effect for only
1999.50.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> The current crop of hybrid cars - (another cruel joke played on the
>> unsuspecting public) are really only out there to appease the "green"
>> people. They too will go the way of the EV1 and dodo bird.
>
> I don't know a single person with a Prius who isn't happy with it. Maybe
> you're referring to the American excuses for hybrid technology.
>
> Hybrid technology isn't likely to go away any time soon. Even if fuel
> cells come on line (hopefully DAFC and not hydrogen BS) it is easier and
> cheaper to create a fuel cell hybrid than a vehicle fully powered by a
> fuel cell.

Huh? How do you figure? The point of a hybrid is that the engine charges
the battery when there is excess capacity available. You can't charge a
fuel cell.

> Mike

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Leon wrote:
>> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> The batteries that do not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as
>>>> well.
>>> Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.
>>
>> No, new technology batteries also.
>
> Why? Is lithium the new heavy metal? NiMH are not anywhere near as bad
> as NiCd.
>
> Replacing a reusable battery once every few years is peanuts compared to
> the environmental cost of finding, transporting, refining and burning gas
> or diesel.

You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?

>
> Mike

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> (Locomotives and ships use hybrid technologies.)
>
> The only locomotive I've heard of is a shunt engine for rail yards.
> There's no real advantage for long distance rail travel.
>
>> We sell the Honda Hybrid and the main reason they buy them is, "so I can
>> drive in the carpool lane by myself".
>
> And people drive SUV's because they are big, not because they are needed.
> There are a lot of Priuses in my town and they aren't being purchased for
> carpool
> lanes - there are too few for that to be a justification. Every person I
> know buys one because they want a more fuel efficient vehicle.
>
>> Currently the newest - latest and greatest DAFC is only about 45%
>> efficient and a long way from use in our cars.
>
> That's more efficient than current H2 technology

You just blew your credibility.

> and way more efficient
> than an
> internal combustion engine. Since the focus of fuel cell technology is H2
> (i.e. the US Congress' stupid alternative energy bill recently passed) ,
> they may never succeed at producing auto-ready DAFC on an even playing
> field.
>
>> The best, most efficient method is
>> moving to blended fuels, (Ethanol/gasoline) like Brazil has done and
>> converting to biodiesel for trucks.
>
> If they use (heavily subsidized and energy intensive) corn and sugar based
> ethanol, no. If they go with cellulose ethanol from low-grade crops, yes.
> Hybrid will make this even better. I can't think of a single reason why
> hybrid is not a good idea; it's simple technology with a big benefit.
>
>
>> (Hoping for room-temperature superconductivity and a method to render
>> radio-active waste inert!)
>
> It's nice to dream.
>
> Mike

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Huh? How do you figure? The point of a hybrid is that the engine
>> charges
>> the battery when there is excess capacity available. You can't charge a
>> fuel cell.
>
> No, but you can still charge a battery.

So now you're going to have a gasoline engine, a battery, _and_ a fuel cell?
What is the fuel cell supposed to do?

> You want a 200 hp fuel cell?
> That's
> going to be a big fuel cell.

It is? Why?

> How often do you use 200hp? Rarely
> (probably
> never, but most drivers think and buy with their penis).

This kind of remark is one of the reasons that environmentalists get branded
as whackos. Leave personalities out of it. If you have a statistic to
present present it without commenting on the character of others.

> Instead, install
> a fuel cell for the power you need on a regular basis and store extra
> energy in a battery for acceleration - just like a Prius with an Atkinson
> cycle engine - turns an engine that is something like 80hp into a power
> plant that accelerates like it was 40% more powerful.

So you're saying to use a hybrid with a battery and a fuel cell but no
conventional engine?

> Reducing the size of the real power supply (engine, fuel cell) reduces
> weight
> and cost. In the case of an internal combustion engine, you get a real
> increase
> in efficiency too. Adding the battery is a small price compared to the
> alternative.

Do you have numbers to present to support this view or are you just in love
with your own notion?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dpb wrote:

>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Michael Daly wrote:
> ...
>> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
>> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
> ...
>
> Coal,

Which also has to be transported, refined, and burned

> nuclear,

Ditto.

> hydro,

Which requires large scale construction with very significant environmental
impact

> wind

So how many windmills will you need to meet the demand?

> all come to mind...

And none of them are free or even cheap.
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Nahh, don't buy that piece of junk, by the Monster Cable
>> SuperDuperCharger with oxygen-free copper and fine stranding for more
>> surface effect for only
>> 1999.50.
>
>
> Monster Cable. That stuff is funny. You are buying magnifying
> insulation.
> It's funny how big Monster Cable looks inside the insulation. Follow the
> wire to the uninsulated end you end up with weiner sized wire.

And the amazing thing is that anybody buys into it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:

>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Don't think "arrogance" had anything whatsoever to do w/ the decision
>> to close Olds--it just no longer made any sense whatsoever to keep all
>> five lines as they overlapped so much and the middle ones (Olds,
>> Pontiac, Buick) almost completely, particular since the time of the
>> "entry-level" concept of Chevrolet is no longer.
>
> Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
> Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior product.
> When you replace hundreds of the same part year after year with no attempt
> to improve because you are the leader in sales it eventually catches up
> with
> you. Oldsmobile had been dying off since the mid 80's. There were and
> are simply too many quality alternatives available.

You really don't have a clue how GM works if you think that.

> Regardless of overlap, if you build a quality product it will continue to
> sell. Look at Toyota and Lexus. Plenty of overlap there. Nisson and
> Infinity, there too. VW and Audi, well they are still fooling some
> people.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2006 05:55:05 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 18 Jul 2006 19:01:32 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Coal has the same if not worse problems ecologically as oil although
>>> we have plenty of high sulfur coal..
>> We also have a _lot_ of low sulfur coal as well--
>>
> If you really buy into global warming, all fossil fuel is bad
>
>
>> We're building new wind generation stations all over out here in the
>> midwest--a new site went on line just last month with the first
>> windmils and they're continuing to add an additional tower at roughly
>> one-1/2 per week on average.
>
> So basically, you can build plants where there is nobody using
> electricity? Bear in mind you lose power in transmission lines as a
> fuinction opf the square of the distance they run.
> P=I2R
>

*sigh* People who don't understand math and physics shouldn't play
with equations.

P=I^2R True.

However I (current) doesn't vary (significantly) with distance.
R (Resistance) does.

So doubling the distance would make R-> 2R
Resulting in P=I^2*(2R), moving the power loss linearly with
distance, not with the square of the distance.

>> Hydro is the least likely for additional large generation owing to
>> basically a lack of places to put them.
>
> ... and the environmental push to rip out the ones we have.
>
>>> All of this "bio" stuff is only a pork barrel projerct for farmers. We
>>> have more than we can sell so burn food in your car and get subsidized
>>> for doing it.
>> I disagree totally here as well...commodity prices are not skyrocketing
>> w/ the huge surge in ethanol. If there is a surplus of any commodity
>> for a given use, why should there be a reason to not use it for
>> something there is a use for, whether that use is energy or anything
>> else?
> . Any real large scale production will show up in prices at the
> grocery store.

Michael Daly wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
>> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
>
> But you use a lot _less_ oil with the battery. They don't make hybrids to
> burn _more_ fuel.

How much less?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> You just blew your credibility.
>
> Nice to see all those facts you presented. Are you reading the press
> releases that Ballard puts out that make _predictions_ on what they will
> have for efficiency someday?

You mean that Ballard is not achieving the same efficiency as Pratt &
Whitney was delivering 40 years ago? Pity, they need to work on that.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So now you're going to have a gasoline engine, a battery, _and_ a fuel
>> cell? What is the fuel cell supposed to do?
>
> Just a battery and a fuel cell.
>
>>> You want a 200 hp fuel cell?
>>> That's
>>> going to be a big fuel cell.
>>
>> It is? Why?
>
> Have you seen the size of fuel cells? 150+kW is big. The 1kW solid oxide
> fuel cells proposed for extra electric power in cars in the next couple of
> years is about the size of a briefcase IIRC.

A 85 KW Ballard 902 is about the size of a full-tower PC.

>> This kind of remark is one of the reasons that environmentalists get
>> branded
>> as whackos. Leave personalities out of it. If you have a statistic to
>> present present it without commenting on the character of others.
>
> Well, if I get the time, I'll dig out the stats from the transportation
> engineering courses I took over thirty years ago. Basic conclusion: the
> info
> any car buyer gives you is bogus. They don't buy on logic, they buy on
> ego,
> image, jonesing and just about anything other than common sense. Lots of
> studies have been done and the results are depressing - they point to the
> difficulty in getting people to accept common sense solutions to
> transportation
> problems. Worse in the US than in Europe, for example, since the
> Europeans take to mass transit much more readily.

Well, now, rather than whining about it you should figure out a way to
actually use that information to sell your solution.

>> So you're saying to use a hybrid with a battery and a fuel cell but no
>> conventional engine?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Do you have numbers to present to support this view or are you just in
>> love with your own notion?
>
> Ummm, hybrids _do_ get better fuel economy, don't they? I first studied
> hybrid technology over thirty years ago and the numbers that worked for
> prototypes back
> then still work today. Costs are better today because of major
> improvements in
> battery technology. Hybrids aren't rocket science.

Fuel economy is not the only cost driver.

> Using a small power plant to provide average capacity and setting some
> aside for
> peak demand is a common solution in a number of areas other than cars.
> Water systems for example - you can lay pipe and build _huge_ pumps to
> provide peak demand or build a water tower and run a smaller pump at
> average demand to keep
> the tank full. The tank + gravity can provide for peak demand.
>
> The only time this doesn't buy you anything is when demand is fairly
> constant. Hence there is little need for a hybrid locomotive outside of a
> switching yard.
> If the train is running on a steady grade at a fairly constant speed,
> power
> requirements don't fluctuate much. Ditto a car on a long stretch of
> highway -
> that's where the hybrids can barely do better than conventional. My 14 yr
> old Civic VX gets almost the same highway fuel economy as the new Civic
> Hybrid (4.5
> l/100km vs 4.3). In the city, the Hybrid is way better.

All of this comes under the heading of "if you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance bury 'em in something else". Try presenting some life cycle
cost numbers and some numbers for lifecycle environmental impact.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> Certainly some buyers think of their machismo when buying however, an
>> overwhelming number of SUV buyers are housewives/working mothers that
>> need
>> to shuttle car loads of kids and gear around. A Prius is simply not up
>> to the task.
>
> I see far more SUVs filled with precisely _one_ driver commuting in
> overloaded highways than SUVs filled with kids.
>
> When I played soccer, we walked or cycled to the field and if it wasn't a
> home
> game, the team rented a school bus. The SUV is usually an excuse for a
> solution
> looking for a problem. People bought them because they were a fad, not
> because
> they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading. The
> almost-a-wagon looks like it may be the new fad (e.g. Toyota Matrix)
>
>> As for your attitude regarding HP, it is typical of a left wing
>> environmentalist. The arrogant position that your way of thinking is the
>> only correct one and all others must fall in line - or what - they are
>> stupid, numbskulls that must be taught a lesson?
>
> I see vehicles that weigh twice what my car does and have three times the
> rated
> HP. They are crawling down the highway entrance ramps and trying to enter
> traffic at 2/3 highway speed. Those same drivers tell me they need all
> that
> horsepower. What they need is to learn how to drive.
>
> Most drivers use HP because they don't know how to handle their car. The
> little
> sports cars of the '50s could out handle many modern overpowered cars
> and
> those little cars had a fraction of the power that most drivers would
> accept today.
>
> Americans judge the car by stomping on the gas pedal and expecting it to
> go
> woosh. That's hardly a reasonable estimation of a car.
>
>> I happen to believe that
>> rational people, given good information, will generally make good
>> choices.
>
> And transportation engineering studies have shown the exact opposite.
>
> Major study on fuel economy attitudes in the '70s oil crisis - one
> question was:
>
> "Have you installed a thermidor in your car to improve fuel economy?"
>
> Approximately 75% of respondents said yes. These are the smart, rational
> drivers you sell cars to.

The bottom line on this is that you seem to either be angry that the world
doesn't agree with your views or jealous that someone else can afford to
drive a bigger car than you can.

Drive what you want to. Pissing and moaning about the choices others make
simply makes you appear petty.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> I don't know about your world, but in my world, people buy a car that
>> will fill *all* of their needs, they don't have a specific car for each
>> specific task.
>
> Why satisfy _all_ of your need when most of your needs can be satisfied
> with something less wasteful and an occasional rental will satisfy the
> rest?
>
> I know grandparents that buy a huge SUV 'cause the grandkids visit for a
> week once a year.
>
> The fact is that people buy to meet their _perceived_ needs, not their
> real needs.
>
> > ... and studies and surveys can be designed to return the answers that
> > the person conducting the study wishes to see.
>
> Sounds like you're getting paranoid.
>
>> If you are
>> trying to say the 75% of all car owners in the US would have answered
>> that way, that's a stretch to say the least.
>
> If you want to see what Americans are really like, see "Talking To
> Americans". The average American has a strongly held opinion on
> everything, including things
> they know nothing about. It's part of the culture of confidence and
> optimism. That's why so many Americans can ignore the facts and form
> opinions that have nothing to do with reality.

And of course you think that you are an exception.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> Facts please - What study(s)?
>
> If I can find my notes from university over 30 years ago, I'll dig them
> out. Don't hold your breath.
>
>> I object however, when your
>> belief system begins to interfere with my desire to drive or sell
>> whatever I want.
>
> If you're wasting resources that I think are rightly to be available to my
> descendants, I feel I have a legitimate reason to interfere. The implicit
> future value of oil is $0.00 according to the wasteful lifestyles of
> current
> consumers. Some of us know that that valuation is wrong.

So it is your belief that there is enough oil to last forever if only we
would "economize"?

>> You and Ed Begley can drive your EV1's and Prius's all you want, your
>> free to protest the nuclear plants, (that really helped BTW) and tear
>> down
>> the hydroplants. Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for
>> several
>> more generations. If the green people had a lick of sense, they would be
>> devoting their resources into ways to generate electricity (massive
>> amounts)
>> without using fossil fuels. They would buy products made locally, not
>> from
>> places that have to ship them across the ocean in fuel guzzling ships.
>> They would only use natural fibers (cotton - animal fur) not synthetic
>> ones made from petroleum.
>>
>> The hypocrisy and self aggrandizement is amazing.
>
> What a load of BS. I have not said to stop using oil. I have been
> pointing out
> that you don't have to _waste_ so much oil.

The only way that there will be oil available for your descendants, say,
500,000 years from now will be if we stop using it altogether.

> The technologies available
> today
> can significantly reduce consumption. If you want to live in the past
> with
> obsolete technologies, that's your problem. Some of us would like to see
> technology used to improve things.

Well, if you think that there is a technology that will improve things you
are welcome to bring it to market and see if the body politic agrees with
your assessment.

> Hybrid technology is a good stopgap
> measure for the next several decades until some more advanced technologies
> are
> available. E.g. if the dream of clean fusion reactor power ever stops
> being fifty years in the future, then all-electric vehicles may be a good
> option.
>
> You seem to think that waste=freedom. Well, waste=waste and with the US
> using far more energy than it can produce domestically, freedom is
> threatened by being
> dependent on foreign resources. How many of your children are you
> prepared to send to die in foreign wars to maintain a wasteful lifestyle?

Not this crap again.

<plonk>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Want to see the SUV (AKA: Gussied Up Pick'em Up Truck) go away, bring
> on $10/gallon gasoline.
>
> As always, follow the money.

When gasoline was 25 cents a gallon they said that about 2 dollars a gallon.

People will find ways to pay for what they want.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Michael Daly wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> How much less?
>
> Go look it up yourself. You might learn something useful. There are
> plenty of resources on the web that explain how these technologies work.

In other words you haven't a clue.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] wrote:

>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> <snippage>
>> Do you have numbers to present to support this view or are you just in
>> love with your own notion?
>
>
> Funny, that's just what I'd have asked of you, but then I'd not expect
> lucid response.

<plonk>


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] wrote:

>
> [email protected] wrote:
> <stuff snippage>
>> So basically, you can build plants where there is nobody using
>> electricity? Bear in mind you lose power in transmission lines as a
>> fuinction opf the square of the distance they run.
>> P=I2R
> <more snippage>
>
> Whooooooah there! We need more light than heat here, and should really
> open minds/close mouths a bit.
>
> Think about the above mathematical nonsense. "square of the distance"?
> That's bs.
>
> Fact is, long-distance electrical power transmission can be very close
> to 100% efficient.

How close? According to who?
>
> J

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

> You just blew your credibility.

Nice to see all those facts you presented. Are you reading the press releases
that Ballard puts out that make _predictions_ on what they will have for
efficiency someday?

Mike

J. Clarke wrote:

> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?

But you use a lot _less_ oil with the battery. They don't make hybrids to burn
_more_ fuel.

Mike

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:52:33 -0400, [email protected] wrote:


>That was my thinking too. I think my father in law's Cadillac STS
>Northstar would kick my 69 Corvette's ass ... but I wouldn't tell him
>that ;-)

LOL.... But I sure would not wave at him in the STS
your shark would get a wave everytime.

Bob G. .

"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kilvg.73$5H.56@dukeread06...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> These NiMh batteries are still not good for the environment and you don't
>> replace 1 battery. You replace a bank of batteries that run in the $5K
>> range every 60,000 to 80,000 miles.
>
> Hm...how to put this? You're wrong. Battery life expectancy is estimated
> at 8-10 years/150K miles *minimum*. They put a 2001 Prius to work as a
> taxi in Vancouver, BC. Put over 200,000 miles on it. Wanna guess what
> went out? The struts and the AC temp sensor.


I guess the key word there is time. Time is as damaging as miles. May
users will simply not put 150K on in 8-10 years. My personal vehicle has
65K and is 10 years old. I drive it almost daily and is a perfect
candidate for being replaced by a hybrid. If every one has a job a job
driving a taxi and a shop that takes care of it on a daily basis I am sure
that battery life will be extended. For the rest of the real world the life
is not likely to go that far.
Typically the vehicles in general that run up the most amount of miles are
driven above average on a daily basis. It is easy and more likely to put
200K miles on a new vehicle than it is to put 200K on a 5 year old vehicle
with low mileage to start with.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Don't think "arrogance" had anything whatsoever to do w/ the decision
>>> to close Olds--it just no longer made any sense whatsoever to keep all
>>> five lines as they overlapped so much and the middle ones (Olds,
>>> Pontiac, Buick) almost completely, particular since the time of the
>>> "entry-level" concept of Chevrolet is no longer.
>>
>> Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
>> Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior product.
>> When you replace hundreds of the same part year after year with no
>> attempt
>> to improve because you are the leader in sales it eventually catches up
>> with
>> you. Oldsmobile had been dying off since the mid 80's. There were and
>> are simply too many quality alternatives available.
>
> You really don't have a clue how GM works if you think that.

Having worked directly with GM for 18 years I probably know better than you.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:22:34 -0400, "Bruce T"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming from?
>California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we double
>(or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure out how
>to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a conspiracy......
>
>
>Maybe if people just tried to think things through before they start
>whinning....but no, that'll NEVER happen....
>

I love the environmental groups that don't talk to each other. Some
groups hate power plants and fight tooth and nail against them. Other
groups hate the internal combustion engine and do everything they can
to switch everyone to electric cars.

I guess those people think electricity just pours out of those two (or
3) holes in the wall.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:38:21 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>.People bought them because they were a fad, not because
>> they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading.
>
>Where do you live??? IN Houston the SUV is alive and well and had been
>since long before they were called SUV's, I'll admit that sales are slowing
>but that is because of the gas prices in the last year.

My wife has a business need for a truck and we went shopping last
weekend looking for a "fire sale deal". They are not to be had.
These guys are only knocking a grand or two off the sticker on a
$25,000 pickup truck. I think the fad is alive and well.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> These NiMh batteries are still not good for the environment and you don't
> replace 1 battery. You replace a bank of batteries that run in the $5K
> range every 60,000 to 80,000 miles.

Hm...how to put this? You're wrong. Battery life expectancy is estimated
at 8-10 years/150K miles *minimum*. They put a 2001 Prius to work as a taxi
in Vancouver, BC. Put over 200,000 miles on it. Wanna guess what went out?
The struts and the AC temp sensor.

See a short write-up (including the service records for the car) here:
http://www.hybridexperience.ca/Toyota_Prius.htm

Nice thing about the Prius, for one, is that its battery packs are modular -
meaning if a single cell within the pack goes bad, you can replace it, as
opposed to the entire pack. There are also lithium-ion batteries now in
development, which will extend battery life even further.

Jason

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:54:47 -0400, Bob G.
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Modern tires and suspension systems are just light years
>ahead of the technology availabe 40-50 years ago...
That was my thinking too. I think my father in law's Cadillac STS
Northstar would kick my 69 Corvette's ass ... but I wouldn't tell him
that ;-)

J. Clarke wrote:

> Huh? How do you figure? The point of a hybrid is that the engine charges
> the battery when there is excess capacity available. You can't charge a
> fuel cell.

No, but you can still charge a battery. You want a 200 hp fuel cell? That's
going to be a big fuel cell. How often do you use 200hp? Rarely (probably
never, but most drivers think and buy with their penis). Instead, install a
fuel cell for the power you need on a regular basis and store extra energy in a
battery for acceleration - just like a Prius with an Atkinson cycle engine -
turns an engine that is something like 80hp into a power plant that accelerates
like it was 40% more powerful.

Reducing the size of the real power supply (engine, fuel cell) reduces weight
and cost. In the case of an internal combustion engine, you get a real increase
in efficiency too. Adding the battery is a small price compared to the alternative.

Mike

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:38:21 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>.People bought them because they were a fad, not because
>>> they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading.
>>
>>Where do you live??? IN Houston the SUV is alive and well and had been
>>since long before they were called SUV's, I'll admit that sales are
>>slowing
>>but that is because of the gas prices in the last year.
>
> My wife has a business need for a truck and we went shopping last
> weekend looking for a "fire sale deal". They are not to be had.
> These guys are only knocking a grand or two off the sticker on a
> $25,000 pickup truck. I think the fad is alive and well.

A hint here, don't go looking for a deal, get the dealer cost and then go
negotiate. Let them know that you have dealer invoice prices.

On 17 Jul 2006 22:40:11 -0700, "Dhakala" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I... don't... f'ing... believe it! But it's true!
>
>http://tinyurl.com/lgn9w

On the bright side, if we get oil prices up high enough maybe we'll
start seeing tools made out of metal again instead of plastic. Of
course, it will be so shoddily put together metal that future
woodworkers will look back longingly to the days when tools were
made from quality plastic.


-Leuf

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:27:03 -0400, Michael Daly <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Teamcasa wrote:
>
>> Certainly some buyers think of their machismo when buying however, an
>> overwhelming number of SUV buyers are housewives/working mothers that need
>> to shuttle car loads of kids and gear around. A Prius is simply not up to
>> the task.
>
>I see far more SUVs filled with precisely _one_ driver commuting in overloaded
>highways than SUVs filled with kids.
>

I don't know about your world, but in my world, people buy a car that
will fill *all* of their needs, they don't have a specific car for each
specific task. So, when they need a vehicle with hauling capacity for
family trips, weekend family activities, and commuting, they pick a car for
which the features intersect with all of their driving requirements. Just
because *you* see one driver in an SUV commuting to work on weekdays
doesn't mean that the same vehicle isn't carrying the family and luggage
out of state next week, or being used to haul a soccer team and equipment
to the field this weekend.

>When I played soccer, we walked or cycled to the field and if it wasn't a home
>game, the team rented a school bus.

That's the nice thing about our society, people can choose the solutions
that work for *them*.

> The SUV is usually an excuse for a solution
>looking for a problem.

So, is that fact, opinion, feeling, or belief?

> People bought them because they were a fad, not because
>they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading. The
>almost-a-wagon looks like it may be the new fad (e.g. Toyota Matrix)
>
>> As for your attitude regarding HP, it is typical of a left wing
>> environmentalist. The arrogant position that your way of thinking is the
>> only correct one and all others must fall in line - or what - they are
>> stupid, numbskulls that must be taught a lesson?
>
>I see vehicles that weigh twice what my car does and have three times the rated
>HP. They are crawling down the highway entrance ramps and trying to enter
>traffic at 2/3 highway speed. Those same drivers tell me they need all that
>horsepower. What they need is to learn how to drive.
>

Your world must look a lot different than mine. It's the little,
underpowered cars that are having trouble getting onto the highway while
those with sufficient power are merging into traffic with ease.

Now, in my world, I have always wondered why cadillacs are so highly
powered; I've never seen one being driven faster than 45 MPH anywhere. :-)


>Most drivers use HP because they don't know how to handle their car. The little
> sports cars of the '50s could out handle many modern overpowered cars and
>those little cars had a fraction of the power that most drivers would accept today.
>
>Americans judge the car by stomping on the gas pedal and expecting it to go
>woosh. That's hardly a reasonable estimation of a car.
>
>> I happen to believe that
>> rational people, given good information, will generally make good choices.
>
>And transportation engineering studies have shown the exact opposite.
>

... and studies and surveys can be designed to return the answers that
the person conducting the study wishes to see.



>Major study on fuel economy attitudes in the '70s oil crisis - one question was:
>
>"Have you installed a thermidor in your car to improve fuel economy?"
>
>Approximately 75% of respondents said yes. These are the smart, rational
>drivers you sell cars to.
>

Not sure that says anything other than that people did not want to appear
to come across to an "authority" figure looking like they weren't doing
everything possible to save energy when that was the politically correct
thing to do. Also depends on who was being surveyed, etc. If you are
trying to say the 75% of all car owners in the US would have answered that
way, that's a stretch to say the least.



>Mike


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Leon wrote:

> These NiMh batteries are still not good for the environment

Compared to?

> and you don't replace 1 battery. You replace a bank of batteries

Look up the definition of battery.

> that run in the $5K
> range every 60,000 to 80,000 miles.

More like $2000. Figure out the cost per kilometer and then compare it to the
cost of fuel saved.

Mike

John Emmons wrote:

> It's a wonder that anything in the way of transportation or power production
> and transmission or the interstate highway system, etc.ever got built at all
> given the amount of ignorant pessimism that one reads on the internet.

It's their way of attempting to maintain the status quo, without ever having to
think.

I don't like the status quo - I know we can do a lot better.

Mike

J. Clarke wrote:

> So now you're going to have a gasoline engine, a battery, _and_ a fuel cell?
> What is the fuel cell supposed to do?

Just a battery and a fuel cell.

>> You want a 200 hp fuel cell?
>> That's
>> going to be a big fuel cell.
>
> It is? Why?

Have you seen the size of fuel cells? 150+kW is big. The 1kW solid oxide fuel
cells proposed for extra electric power in cars in the next couple of years is
about the size of a briefcase IIRC.


> This kind of remark is one of the reasons that environmentalists get branded
> as whackos. Leave personalities out of it. If you have a statistic to
> present present it without commenting on the character of others.

Well, if I get the time, I'll dig out the stats from the transportation
engineering courses I took over thirty years ago. Basic conclusion: the info
any car buyer gives you is bogus. They don't buy on logic, they buy on ego,
image, jonesing and just about anything other than common sense. Lots of
studies have been done and the results are depressing - they point to the
difficulty in getting people to accept common sense solutions to transportation
problems. Worse in the US than in Europe, for example, since the Europeans take
to mass transit much more readily.


> So you're saying to use a hybrid with a battery and a fuel cell but no
> conventional engine?

Yes.

> Do you have numbers to present to support this view or are you just in love
> with your own notion?

Ummm, hybrids _do_ get better fuel economy, don't they? I first studied hybrid
technology over thirty years ago and the numbers that worked for prototypes back
then still work today. Costs are better today because of major improvements in
battery technology. Hybrids aren't rocket science.

Using a small power plant to provide average capacity and setting some aside for
peak demand is a common solution in a number of areas other than cars. Water
systems for example - you can lay pipe and build _huge_ pumps to provide peak
demand or build a water tower and run a smaller pump at average demand to keep
the tank full. The tank + gravity can provide for peak demand.

The only time this doesn't buy you anything is when demand is fairly constant.
Hence there is little need for a hybrid locomotive outside of a switching yard.
If the train is running on a steady grade at a fairly constant speed, power
requirements don't fluctuate much. Ditto a car on a long stretch of highway -
that's where the hybrids can barely do better than conventional. My 14 yr old
Civic VX gets almost the same highway fuel economy as the new Civic Hybrid (4.5
l/100km vs 4.3). In the city, the Hybrid is way better.

Mike

On 18 Jul 2006 19:01:32 -0700, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You still have to find, transport, refine, and burn oil in one form or
>> another. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
>...
>
>Coal, nuclear, hydro, wind all come to mind...

Coal has the same if not worse problems ecologically as oil although
we have plenty of high sulfur coal.. Nuke, hydro and wind are very
hard to get built. We haven't built a big hydro dam since the 50s and
a nuke plant since the 60s. I doubt there will be one in the US any
time soon either. They are trying to take out dams and nuke plants.
Wind is also taking a beating. None other than the Kennedys, Kerry,
Romney and most of the rest of new england stopped a plant there. Too
ugly.
All of this "bio" stuff is only a pork barrel projerct for farmers. We
have more than we can sell so burn food in your car and get subsidized
for doing it.
Where are all the rain forest people on this "Brazil miracle" weren't
we trying to save the rain forest. Now the lefties are praising them
for burning down the jungle to grow sugar cane, just to spite Exxon.
Maybe they should talk to the environmentalists who are condemning
sugar cane production in Florida.
What a schitzo bunch we have over in the "save the planet" sect.

So, if electric cars are the salvation, where's the electricity coming from?
California had "rolling blackouts" last year, so I guess that if we double
(or triple) the demand for electricity, the government will figure out how
to "FIX" the problem? Oh wait, I forgot, it's probably a conspiracy......


Maybe if people just tried to think things through before they start
whinning....but no, that'll NEVER happen....



"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I... don't... f'ing... believe it! But it's true!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lgn9w
>

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:04:19 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> My wife has a business need for a truck and we went shopping last
>> weekend looking for a "fire sale deal". They are not to be had.
>> These guys are only knocking a grand or two off the sticker on a
>> $25,000 pickup truck. I think the fad is alive and well.
>
>A hint here, don't go looking for a deal, get the dealer cost and then go
>negotiate. Let them know that you have dealer invoice prices.
>

"dealer Invoice" really doesn't mean much more than the sticker price.
There are other incentives, rebates and bonus money kicked back to the
dealer that does not show up on the invoice price. The bottom line is
still going to be what they will actually let you out the door with. I
agree it is nice to know what the internet says the vehicle should
cost but that is not necessarily going to be the best you can do.
I found out there was an extra $1000 dealer bonus out there (Ford
trucks) that does not show up on the "invoice" price. Getting the
dealer to actually take this out of his pocket and puit it in yours
may be hard to do.

Leon wrote:
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> The batteries that do not last for ever are a hazard to deal with as
>>> well.
>> Old lead acid batteries - yes. New battery technologies - no.
>
> No, new technology batteries also.

Why? Is lithium the new heavy metal? NiMH are not anywhere near as bad as NiCd.

Replacing a reusable battery once every few years is peanuts compared to the
environmental cost of finding, transporting, refining and burning gas or diesel.

Mike

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Don't think "arrogance" had anything whatsoever to do w/ the decision
> to close Olds--it just no longer made any sense whatsoever to keep all
> five lines as they overlapped so much and the middle ones (Olds,
> Pontiac, Buick) almost completely, particular since the time of the
> "entry-level" concept of Chevrolet is no longer.

Arrogance had all to do with their failure. Countless times I witnessed
Oldsmobile reps denie the obvious that they built an inferior product. When
you replace hundreds of the same part year after year with no attempt to
improve because you are the leader in sales it eventually catches up with
you. Oldsmobile had been dying off since the mid 80's. There were and are
simply too many quality alternatives available.
Regardless of overlap, if you build a quality product it will continue to
sell. Look at Toyota and Lexus. Plenty of overlap there. Nisson and
Infinity, there too. VW and Audi, well they are still fooling some people.

Teamcasa wrote:

> Certainly some buyers think of their machismo when buying however, an
> overwhelming number of SUV buyers are housewives/working mothers that need
> to shuttle car loads of kids and gear around. A Prius is simply not up to
> the task.

I see far more SUVs filled with precisely _one_ driver commuting in overloaded
highways than SUVs filled with kids.

When I played soccer, we walked or cycled to the field and if it wasn't a home
game, the team rented a school bus. The SUV is usually an excuse for a solution
looking for a problem. People bought them because they were a fad, not because
they were needed. Sales are dropping now because the fad is fading. The
almost-a-wagon looks like it may be the new fad (e.g. Toyota Matrix)

> As for your attitude regarding HP, it is typical of a left wing
> environmentalist. The arrogant position that your way of thinking is the
> only correct one and all others must fall in line - or what - they are
> stupid, numbskulls that must be taught a lesson?

I see vehicles that weigh twice what my car does and have three times the rated
HP. They are crawling down the highway entrance ramps and trying to enter
traffic at 2/3 highway speed. Those same drivers tell me they need all that
horsepower. What they need is to learn how to drive.

Most drivers use HP because they don't know how to handle their car. The little
sports cars of the '50s could out handle many modern overpowered cars and
those little cars had a fraction of the power that most drivers would accept today.

Americans judge the car by stomping on the gas pedal and expecting it to go
woosh. That's hardly a reasonable estimation of a car.

> I happen to believe that
> rational people, given good information, will generally make good choices.

And transportation engineering studies have shown the exact opposite.

Major study on fuel economy attitudes in the '70s oil crisis - one question was:

"Have you installed a thermidor in your car to improve fuel economy?"

Approximately 75% of respondents said yes. These are the smart, rational
drivers you sell cars to.

Mike

J. Clarke wrote:

> How much less?

Go look it up yourself. You might learn something useful. There are plenty of
resources on the web that explain how these technologies work.

Mike

Teamcasa wrote:

> Facts please - What study(s)?

If I can find my notes from university over 30 years ago, I'll dig them out.
Don't hold your breath.

> I object however, when your
> belief system begins to interfere with my desire to drive or sell whatever I
> want.

If you're wasting resources that I think are rightly to be available to my
descendants, I feel I have a legitimate reason to interfere. The implicit
future value of oil is $0.00 according to the wasteful lifestyles of current
consumers. Some of us know that that valuation is wrong.

> You and Ed Begley can drive your EV1's and Prius's all you want, your
> free to protest the nuclear plants, (that really helped BTW) and tear down
> the hydroplants. Oil is here, will stay a major source of power for several
> more generations. If the green people had a lick of sense, they would be
> devoting their resources into ways to generate electricity (massive amounts)
> without using fossil fuels. They would buy products made locally, not from
> places that have to ship them across the ocean in fuel guzzling ships. They
> would only use natural fibers (cotton - animal fur) not synthetic ones made
> from petroleum.
>
> The hypocrisy and self aggrandizement is amazing.

What a load of BS. I have not said to stop using oil. I have been pointing out
that you don't have to _waste_ so much oil. The technologies available today
can significantly reduce consumption. If you want to live in the past with
obsolete technologies, that's your problem. Some of us would like to see
technology used to improve things. Hybrid technology is a good stopgap measure
for the next several decades until some more advanced technologies are
available. E.g. if the dream of clean fusion reactor power ever stops being
fifty years in the future, then all-electric vehicles may be a good option.

You seem to think that waste=freedom. Well, waste=waste and with the US using
far more energy than it can produce domestically, freedom is threatened by being
dependent on foreign resources. How many of your children are you prepared to
send to die in foreign wars to maintain a wasteful lifestyle?

Mike

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> I don't know about your world, but in my world, people buy a car that
> will fill *all* of their needs, they don't have a specific car for each
> specific task.

Why satisfy _all_ of your need when most of your needs can be satisfied with
something less wasteful and an occasional rental will satisfy the rest?

I know grandparents that buy a huge SUV 'cause the grandkids visit for a week
once a year.

The fact is that people buy to meet their _perceived_ needs, not their real needs.

> ... and studies and surveys can be designed to return the answers that
> the person conducting the study wishes to see.

Sounds like you're getting paranoid.

> If you are
> trying to say the 75% of all car owners in the US would have answered that
> way, that's a stretch to say the least.

If you want to see what Americans are really like, see "Talking To Americans".
The average American has a strongly held opinion on everything, including things
they know nothing about. It's part of the culture of confidence and optimism.
That's why so many Americans can ignore the facts and form opinions that have
nothing to do with reality.

Mike

The story so far.

Dubya admits that it's time for the US to stop being so dependent on foreign oil.

A technology, developed in large part in US universities in the '60s and '70s,
referred to as hybrid gas-electric, has been available for a number of years as
a commercial product from a number of companies. This technology provides
significant fuel savings while providing adequate power for modern autos and
light trucks.

The nay sayers claim it won't work in spite of the obvious evidence that there
are real products on the market that use the technology. The nay sayers claim
that it is an evil conspiracy on the part of nasty environmentalists to destroy
American life. The nay sayers claim that it is the environmentalists who are
out of touch with reality.

I wonder if these nay sayers are all descended from buggy whip salesmen.

Mike