Hybrid Discovery Unlikely - but it's coming

[Rockylizard]

Gday...

For your interest -

Hybrid Discovery unlikely - for now (http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/hybrid-discovery-unlikely--for-now-20131111-2xapa.html)

Cheers - John

[mowog]

Hybrids are the greatest con job ever to be dumped on poor unsuspecting motorists.

Who in their right mind who can afford a Land Rover would want save a few dollars in fuel bills! I won't be in the line for anything Hybrid.

[MR LR]

Lets hope they stay away for good, my 30year old V8 RR would have a lower carbon footprint than any hybrid.

[vnx205]

Hybrids are the greatest con job ever to be dumped on poor unsuspecting motorists.
Only if you think they are intended to be the final solution to a problem.

Who in their right mind who can afford a Land Rover would want save a few dollars in fuel bills! I won't be in the line for anything Hybrid.

If you accept that cars like the Prius or a hybrid Disco are really just research platforms to develop technology, some of which might have applications in future vehicles, then hybrids make a great deal of sense.

People who buy hybrids are not saving the planet, although some may think they are. What they are actually doing is funding research. I think they should be commended for doing that. :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Haven't you watched the South Park episode?

Hybrids cause smug!

http://strumors.automobilemag.com/files/2008/04/9456962.jpeg

Only Ranger McFriendly was aware what Stan's gay little song was causing!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/1010.jpg

:wasntme:

[PhilipA]

But it's interesting that just about nobody buys hybrid versions of cars that look the same as a normal car.
The greatest example is Camry which I understand is a disaster for Toyota, although the government paid for a lot of the development.

My take on this is that people buy hybrids for the image boost it gives them to be seen as saving the planet so the car has to look different.

Also why Prius have no resale value, as outside of the few devoted followers and of course government departments, few people are interested.

Regards Philip A

[Silenceisgolden]

Yes, they are a con all right. The Toyota Pious returns only marginally better "nominal" fuel economy than many conventional cars of similar spec, but the embodied energy in the relatively short lived batteries more than negates any possible ecological benefit of the marginally reduced fuel usage.

The whole notion of electric cars being 'green' is equal nonsense. The batteries would still be charged by burning "durdy" coal (as Julia would pronounce it) all the so-called renewable energy having been already sold off to unsuspecting consumers.

I am a bit disappointed that Land Rover should try to jump on this con bandwagon.

As Mr LR said, his 30 year old RR is greener simply because it is 30 years old. A huge part of the energy used by motor vehicles happens in their building, not just in their running, so building a quality car that lasts 30 years is the way to go.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I loathe Hybrids, they are the Volvo drivers of the 21st century (them an Subaru Forrester drivers), however that said they do have their place.

If your only use for a car is to drive in the inner metro area or to and from the CBD in peak period bumper to bumper traffic. They are probably a good choice. If anything near or above 50% or your annual driving is above 70KPH then you are a cost on the environment.

The Area Health Service based out of Dubbo bought a Prius for the Greater Western Child Health Network staff to go to hospitals as far away as Broken Hill and Bourke to do staff in-service education. Of the three cars available: Prius, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla the Prius had by far the worst fuel economy. The simple reason is that the vehicle rarely drove at less than 70KPH. They only ever bought one.

[Plane Fixer]

People forget that the hybrids during build (batteries elec motors) consume a huge amount of resources and is highly polluting, especially batteries.
The slightly lower fuel consumption in a city environment in no way negates this cost to the environment. Batteries are nasty things and expensive to recycle. This is reflected in their purchase cost these days.

[vnx205]

People continue to criticise hybrids as if they are supposed to be the solution to a problem.

They aren't.

They are just a means to develop technologies that might have other applications.

Criticising hybrids because they won't save the planet is about as legitimate as criticising the Defender because it isn't a very good luxury vehicle.

The Defender isn't meant to be a luxury vehicle and the hybrid isn't meant to be the ultimate solution to the world's energy needs.

EDIT
I should add that there are situations where hybrids work quite well and there are situations where they are useless. So what! the same could be said of a lot of vehicles. I believe that a Formula 1 car would be useless offroad. :)

[jon3950]

If you accept that cars like the Prius or a hybrid Disco are really just research platforms to develop technology, some of which might have applications in future vehicles, then hybrids make a great deal of sense.

I wouldn't be seen dead in a Prius, but this is the crux of it. Although I wouldn't want one yet, I think its a good thing that Land Rover are involved in developing this technology.

JLR have been getting some of their hybrid technology from Williams, technology which was originally developed for F1 but never used. The hybrid technology that is now appearing in sports car racing (and F1 in the near future) is very interesting. If you look at it as a means of recovering energy, thereby increasing power, instead of just improving fuel economy it is a lot more appealing. This is the way it will develop in the future - a way of developing more powerful cars with less emissions in order to meet the EU targets.

Cheers,
Jon

[ak]

Land Rover makes me laugh at times. The brand we all love so much should concentrate on reliability in their existing combustion engines before they experiment with alternative types of energy sources.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Land Rover through their original heritage the Rover Co Ltd have always been involved in developing engine technology. The original Whittle jet engine proect, the Rolls Royce derived Meteor tank engine and Meteorite engine in the Thornycroft Mighty Antar. The turbine engined prototype Rover cars the 5 cylinder engines of the late 1960s and eventually the TD5.

Most of the problems can be traced back to bean counters and other manufacturers wanting Land Rover technology whilst at the same time saddling the marque with hand me down engines. Think Ford, the current Ford 2.4/2.2 Puma and Mondeo derivative 2.7 and 3.0 TDV6s remember these engines are still manufactured by Ford and fitted to Land Rover.

[PhilipA]

I find it interesting that GM announced last week That they were dropping Lithium and going back to lead acid batteries in their hybrids citing cost and reliability.

So if recent advances in energy recovery and control enable hybrids to be sold at a reasonable price with good range and performance maybe they will become a viable alternative for central city dwellers.

Regards Philip A

[jon3950]

Land Rover makes me laugh at times. The brand we all love so much should concentrate on reliability in their existing combustion engines before they experiment with alternative types of energy sources.

They don't have much choice if they want to stay in business. To meet the EU requirements in 2015 the new car fleet sold in Europe will have to average the equivalent of 4.9 l/100km of diesel and by 2020 this will reduce to 3.6 l/100km.

Cheers,
Jon

[dick180641]

THANK YOU, Silence is Golden, you hit the nail right on the head!! My two s1's (1950, 1951) my S11 (1958) my 110 County (1985) have created, due to their longevity, far less polution than any modern car, including hybrids, even tho they may use a tiny bit more fuel, which doesn't come anywhere near to that of building a NEW vehicle.....long live LANDIES (the grown man's Meccano Set)

MOST of the modern rules and restrictions are applied, NOT to cut polution, but to keep governments and Big Business in Business......building more vehicles, by puting perfectly good reliable older vehicles off the road in the name of economy, safety and ecology!!

[Silenceisgolden]

Absolutely right, Dick180641, it is all about big business and money, not the environment.
A similar thing happened in NSW twenty odd years ago. The annual roadworthy check was made insanely tough with the aim of getting old cars off the road to the benefit of big business. They claimed of course, that it was "safety driven" but it wasn't. My car was knocked back for life threatening cracks in the vinyl on the dash top!
As it happened, the tough checks didn't last long. Those people of limited financial means whose cars failed just kept driving them without rego. Huge loss of revenue for the state. People power!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...As it happened, the tough checks didn't last long. Those people of limited financial means whose cars failed just kept driving them without rego. Huge loss of revenue for the state. People power!So the Government turned them into criminals and by cancelling registration for unpaid parking fines increasing the revenue from the tens of dollars for the parking fine to $1,200 for the unregistered and uninsured penalty

[AnD3rew]

Ok all you haters, let's change the thinking. What if you decided to make a hybrid not to save the environment but to make a vehicle which utilises the best of both worlds, the range of a diesel/petrol and the huge torque and fast acceleration of electric motors.

Imagine an electric boosted diesel D4 with the characteristics of both modalities fully integrated into the terrain response system. Might give you a pretty much unstoppable Vehicle with long range and which which could accelerate from 0-100 in sub 6 seconds on the highway.

Worth thinking about?

[MR LR]

Ok all you haters, let's change the thinking. What if you decided to make a hybrid not to save the environment but to make a vehicle which utilises the best of both worlds, the range of a diesel/petrol and the huge torque and fast acceleration of electric motors.

Imagine an electric boosted diesel D4 with the characteristics of both modalities fully integrated into the terrain response system. Might give you a pretty much unstoppable Vehicle with long range and which which could accelerate from 0-100 in sub 6 seconds on the highway.

Worth thinking about?
They already weigh in at 2.7 tons, they'll just slide back down whatever they try to climb :p

[isuzurover]

THANK YOU, Silence is Golden, you hit the nail right on the head!! My two s1's (1950, 1951) my S11 (1958) my 110 County (1985) have created, due to their longevity, far less polution than any modern car, including hybrids, even tho they may use a tiny bit more fuel, which doesn't come anywhere near to that of building a NEW vehicle.....long live LANDIES (the grown man's Meccano Set)


...

Sorry but in most cases that is a flawed argument. Emissions of NOx, CO, VOCs, etc... have improved by many orders of magnitude since the 1950s and even the 1980s.

So from a health or greenhouse gas perspective 1 series 1 doing 10000 km /year is worse than 10 D4s doing 10000 km/year each.

Now if you crush your D4 every 2 years and buy another that is a different proposition, but we know that doesn't happen in reality.

Also being someone who owns older vehicles I would like to believe that isn't so, but I would be kidding myself.


Here is a quote from a PhD thesis which examined that very issue:

Chapter 3 of this study explored the optimal lifetimes of mid-sized generic cars based on a 36-year time horizon (between calendar year 1985 and 2020). For CO, NMHC, and NOx pollutants with 12,000 miles of annual mileage, automobile lifetimes ranging from 3 to 6 years are optimal for 1980s and early 1990s model years, while optimal lifetimes are expected to be 7 to 14 years for model year 2000s and beyond. On the other hand, a lifetime of 18 years minimizes cumulative life cycle energy and CO2 based on driving 12,000 miles annually. The
median lifetime for a 1980 model year car was 12.5 years, and that for a 1990 model year
car is expected to be 16.9 years. Thus, generally, cars are driven for a longer time than optimal period from a regulated auto emissions perspective, while median automotive lifetimes have been almost ideal from a CO2 and energy perspective.

In short, a 1950's model car is doing more harm than good these days and it would be better to scrap it and buy a new car (or at least stop driving it).

Complete thesis if you want to read it: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-18.pdf

[AnD3rew]

They already weigh in at 2.7 tons, they'll just slide back down whatever they try to climb :p


Fair point, might need to do some dieting first.

[PhilipA]

I am pretty sure/hopeful that the next model will do a Range Rover and shed 3-400Kg as they should have been from the start.

BUT I have to acknowledge that the quick and dirty product development job that LR did while owned by Ford has saved the company and there probably would not be a next model if not for the D3 D4.
Regards Philip A

[ozscott]

Well they are big enough to stuff a few batteries in...I can just see them sneaking up on Big Red...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Sorry but in most cases that is a flawed argument. Emissions of NOx, CO, VOCs, etc... have improved by many orders of magnitude since the 1950s and even the 1980s.

.....

.... Here is a quote from a PhD thesis which examined that very issue:


In short, a 1950's model car is doing more harm than good these days and it would be better to scrap it and buy a new car (or at least stop driving it).

Complete thesis if you want to read it: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-18.pdfI have not had time to critically analyse the thesis but on a quick review I have the following opinion.

Unfortunately the argument above lacks adequate data. The cited thesis only considers vehicles manufactured in 1985 not 1950 as discussed in the thread above.

In fact the study recommended the least costly life cycle option was actually keeping the 1985 model for 18 years and replacing it with a 2003 (or later) model.

The study also assumes a linear relationship of increasing emissions, but does not consider vehicles well maintained or vehicles poorly maintained. Neither does it consider the content of recyclables in pre 1985 vehicles and therefore the lifecycle energy cost of earlier era vehicles.

We know that vehicles manufactured between the 1970s to the 1980s had some of the worst fuel economy figures of any era, it may well be that in terms of CO2 and NOX a lighter 1950s or 1960 car could have a emmisions profile significantly different to the 1985 profile of the study. Without any data we cant make any assumptions.


I note you have a 1980s Defender, are you now going to replace it with a 2003 TD5 or later Defender based on this study?

[BMKal]

I loathe Hybrids, they are the Volvo drivers of the 21st century (them an Subaru Forrester drivers), however that said they do have their place.

If your only use for a car is to drive in the inner metro area or to and from the CBD in peak period bumper to bumper traffic. They are probably a good choice. If anything near or above 50% or your annual driving is above 70KPH then you are a cost on the environment.

The Area Health Service based out of Dubbo bought a Prius for the Greater Western Child Health Network staff to go to hospitals as far away as Broken Hill and Bourke to do staff in-service education. Of the three cars available: Prius, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla the Prius had by far the worst fuel economy. The simple reason is that the vehicle rarely drove at less than 70KPH. They only ever bought one.

Actually my experience has been that the 20th Century Volvo drivers have all migrated to Hondas. :p

Agree with the comments on hybrids though. A while back I was given a hybrid Camry to "trial" for a week (Toyota were trying to flog them to us for our "office fleet"). At the same time, I had recently purchased a similar model conventionally powered Camry for the wife.

Fuel economy - bugger all difference between the two. Cost - a bloody huge difference. There is no way that the cost difference between the two could be justified.

The only thing that I liked about the hybrid was the massive increase in acceleration if you booted it from a standing start. As AnD3rew pointed out, the torque of the electric drive in addition to the contribution of the petrol engine makes a huge difference. At cruising or highway speed however, there is no noticeable difference - if anything, the conventional engine is more responsive at these speeds (and is probably also using less fuel).

As for a hybrid having to "look" different to the standard model to sell - well there was no issue with this with the one they loaned me....................

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6089/a3pp.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/a3pp.jpg/)

It was a bloody embarrassment driving this around .................... :angel:

[isuzurover]

...


I note you have a 1980s Defender, are you now going to replace it with a 2003 TD5 or later Defender based on this study?

No, I am just not deluding myself.

[ak]

I am pretty sure/hopeful that the next model will do a Range Rover and shed 3-400Kg as they should have been from the start.

BUT I have to acknowledge that the quick and dirty product development job that LR did while owned by Ford has saved the company and there probably would not be a next model if not for the D3 D4.
Regards Philip A

I'd respectfully argue it was not the D3 or D4 that saved Land Rover but the RRS, yes I know a D3,D4 is a RRS but before the GFC Land Rover where selling RRS's in the USA as quickly as they where arriving in the showrooms it was the massive American market that actually really saved Land Rover from going under (fact) unlike Jag that nobody wanted to buy.

[ozscott]

Actually my experience has been that the 20th Century Volvo drivers have all migrated to Hondas. :p

...:

Yes but wide body Accords...the Japanese Accord Euro's are way too throaty out of the twin exhausts for the former Iced Vovo drivers :D

Cheers

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Actually my experience has been that the 20th Century Volvo drivers have all migrated to Hondas. :p

...:Yes but wide body Accords...the Japanese Accord Euro's are way too throaty out of the twin exhausts for the former Iced Vovo drivers :D

CheersIt must be different in your neck of the woods! :D

My experience its the Subaru Forester drivers, they travel along the highway in a 80KPH zone at 70KPH, when it drops down to 60KPH they continue at 70 make left hand turns from the right hand lane and thats the only time they move out of the right hand lane.

[PhilipA]

You beat me !
Also Nissan Patrols in school zones driven by obsessive distracted mums multi tasking on Iphones.
But I have to agree that the Forrester is the spiritual successor.
BTW On a previous post where someone ( me) said that, there was a storm of invective unleashed .
Regards Philip A

[Meken]

New RRS hybrid cited as 0-100 in 6.9 fuel economy sub 7l/100

[scarry]

Remember the top gear show where the stig took a Prius around the track,and then a V8 BMW.

Well you can guess which used less fuel,and no its wasn't the toyota.:o

[vnx205]

Remember the top gear show where the stig took a Prius around the track,and then a V8 BMW.

Well you can guess which used less fuel,and no its wasn't the toyota.:o

That is close to what happened.

They drove a Prius absolutely flat out around their track and followed immediately behind in a V8 BMW.

You are right about the fuel consumption. However the Top Gear crew weren't simply rubbishing the Prius. What they were trying to demonstrate is that how you drive makes a lot of difference to the fuel consumption. So if a Prius has to be continuously driven flat out (to avoid being run over by a V8 BMW), it is not going to be very efficient. It is not intended to be used like that.

What they proved is what I have been saying; that different vehicles are suited to different applications. There are circumstances in which a hybrids or electric cars shine and there are circumstances in which they are at a distinct disadvantage. Driving a hybrid at constant highway speed doesn't allow it to make use of any of its potential benefits.

I can't imagine what possessed the Greater Western Child Health Network to buy a Prius. Given the distances the vehicle would have to travel, that part of NSW would have to be just about the worst possible environment in Australia for a hybrid. If they had only ever used it within Dubbo and never left the city limits, they might have seen some benefit.

From comments I have seen about the Top Gear episode on a number of forums, it seems that most people forget what it was that TG was trying to prove. In spite of the hard time they repeatedly give the Prius, they were not trying to prove that it was rubbish. They were just trying to demonstrate that for some applications it is rubbish. However the same could be said of almost any vehicle.

[PhilipA]

Each NSW government department was allocated a number of Prius.
I suggested to the Director General of DPI that he replace his Statesman which travelled in Sydney with a Prius as an example.
I was greeted by stony silence.
I found one at Port Stevens Fisheries Research Station being driven flat out everywhere and they all hated it and tried to kill it.

I think generally they were placed as far from head office executives as possible.

It would have been ideal for the DG around Sydney except it was a bit small.
So much for government green initiatives.
Regards Philip A

[stray dingo]

I run a business as a 'sustainability consultant' and have for 11 years now. Predominately this is for the building industry as I was trained as an architect, but also provide 'lifestyle consulting' for lack of a better term.


For myself, I drive a D4, I go bush in it, I tow with it etc etc. For the purpose of which I use it, it is generally sustainable - sure there could be better ones, and also worse one. I also work from home, so some runs are too short to be efficient. (BTW, the wifes car is a forester :o but we've never owned a Volvo or Honda) Would I buy a hybrid or electric - no, not yet.


A current hybrid model or electric model won't let me go bush or tow, but would be good for the around town runs, meetings etc; for those short runs. But for my overall usage patterns it would be more unsustainable to run one.


There are a number of good comments above and not all mutually exclusive. While the Prius was a research platform, that platform was proven to be successful in its objective. From it has stemmed more hybrid or electric vehicles with improvements in each one. Each improvement is moving us towards a car that will be considered as saving the planet, while still being able to maintain the purpose of the vehicle, or even the image the driver wants to portray - look at the Merc AMG SLS electric.


All European vehicle (except sea going ships and aeroplanes) manufacturers are in the same boat - if they are to survive, they must come up with lower emission vehicles. If not, they might as well close up shop now. The ultimate aim is to provide vehicles with a zero emission (at point of use) by 2020 (depending which report you read). Thus we see more and more, and whether we like them or not, they are here to stay. Hopefully LR quality will match it too.


But they are still a long way *replacing* internal combustion vehicles. So in the mean time we are still going to see models that we think are pointless, expensive and not fit for the purpose, whilst all the time they improve the technology. What LR have done though is create a hybrid vehicle that can be seen to be on the way to that place, with a strong SUV type vehicle, not just a little city run-about like the Rav 4 EV etc. They even proved it by taking the Silk Road. It is merely the first step up the rocky track without a locker.


Unfortunately, manufacturing is most first world countries is cheaper in third world, or over-populous countries like China or India. Likewise, certain elements can only be mined in select locations in the world. So we end up with hugely embodied energy vehicles cos parts are coming from all over the world. That part is always unlikely to change, and is consistent whether hybrid/electric or internal combustion. (Ford Aust?)


Batteries too are a problem, and unlikely to ever change. All batteries are an environmental disaster - regardless whether they are NiMH in a Prius, or a Lead starter battery, or a AA in the bottom drawer. All batteries should be processed and not just thrown in the rubbish. They also all have a limited total life, and well before that stage are already losing charge, dead cells or whatever. They also take a long time to charge…


What about pollution from the power plant? Yes, that exists of course. It also exists from us charging our smartphones, running our fridges, lighting the house etc etc. Really the car is just another plug in device. And as stupid as it sounds, the power plants are going to produce that power anyway whether we use it or not - they don't make power just for the actual need draw, but produce much more than is ever needed. Once we understand that, the pollution doesn't change…


But anyway…a study was conducted at early 2012 by the EPA and a US dept. They determined, that a 'gasoline only' vehicle produced 500 grams/mile of the relevant pollutants, but the effective comparision for electric was 200-300 average depending on the vehicle model, and the power plant location and fuel type. But what about in Tasmania where 80% power is generated by Hydro, or in locations where the new solar plants are coming on line - there is no pollution in that context….


Well that’s my ramble anyways, there heap more that could be said (LPG, hydrogen etc) but I think I've used up my 30 second. Like I said, I wouldn't hand over cash for one. But don't be critical of those who do, cos they are helping to pay for the research that we benefit *us* in years to come :D

[MR LR]

I run a business as a 'sustainability consultant' and have for 11 years now. Predominately this is for the building industry as I was trained as an architect, but also provide 'lifestyle consulting' for lack of a better term.


For myself, I drive a D4, I go bush in it, I tow with it etc etc. For the purpose of which I use it, it is generally sustainable - sure there could be better ones, and also worse one. I also work from home, so some runs are too short to be efficient. (BTW, the wifes car is a forester :o but we've never owned a Volvo or Honda) Would I buy a hybrid or electric - no, not yet.


A current hybrid model or electric model won't let me go bush or tow, but would be good for the around town runs, meetings etc; for those short runs. But for my overall usage patterns it would be more unsustainable to run one.


There are a number of good comments above and not all mutually exclusive. While the Prius was a research platform, that platform was proven to be successful in its objective. From it has stemmed more hybrid or electric vehicles with improvements in each one. Each improvement is moving us towards a car that will be considered as saving the planet, while still being able to maintain the purpose of the vehicle, or even the image the driver wants to portray - look at the Merc AMG SLS electric.


All European vehicle (except sea going ships and aeroplanes) manufacturers are in the same boat - if they are to survive, they must come up with lower emission vehicles. If not, they might as well close up shop now. The ultimate aim is to provide vehicles with a zero emission (at point of use) by 2020 (depending which report you read). Thus we see more and more, and whether we like them or not, they are here to stay. Hopefully LR quality will match it too.


But they are still a long way *replacing* internal combustion vehicles. So in the mean time we are still going to see models that we think are pointless, expensive and not fit for the purpose, whilst all the time they improve the technology. What LR have done though is create a hybrid vehicle that can be seen to be on the way to that place, with a strong SUV type vehicle, not just a little city run-about like the Rav 4 EV etc. They even proved it by taking the Silk Road. It is merely the first step up the rocky track without a locker.


Unfortunately, manufacturing is most first world countries is cheaper in third world, or over-populous countries like China or India. Likewise, certain elements can only be mined in select locations in the world. So we end up with hugely embodied energy vehicles cos parts are coming from all over the world. That part is always unlikely to change, and is consistent whether hybrid/electric or internal combustion. (Ford Aust?)


Batteries too are a problem, and unlikely to ever change. All batteries are an environmental disaster - regardless whether they are NiMH in a Prius, or a Lead starter battery, or a AA in the bottom drawer. All batteries should be processed and not just thrown in the rubbish. They also all have a limited total life, and well before that stage are already losing charge, dead cells or whatever. They also take a long time to charge…


What about pollution from the power plant? Yes, that exists of course. It also exists from us charging our smartphones, running our fridges, lighting the house etc etc. Really the car is just another plug in device. And as stupid as it sounds, the power plants are going to produce that power anyway whether we use it or not - they don't make power just for the actual need draw, but produce much more than is ever needed. Once we understand that, the pollution doesn't change…


But anyway…a study was conducted at early 2012 by the EPA and a US dept. They determined, that a 'gasoline only' vehicle produced 500 grams/mile of the relevant pollutants, but the effective comparision for electric was 200-300 average depending on the vehicle model, and the power plant location and fuel type. But what about in Tasmania where 80% power is generated by Hydro, or in locations where the new solar plants are coming on line - there is no pollution in that context….


Well that’s my ramble anyways, there heap more that could be said (LPG, hydrogen etc) but I think I've used up my 30 second. Like I said, I wouldn't hand over cash for one. But don't be critical of those who do, cos they are helping to pay for the research that we benefit *us* in years to come :D
You say yourself that "all batteries are an environmental disaster", yet are praising the research in electric and hybrid electric/internal combustion cars, seems a bit contradictory to me...

They tried electric cars in the 1900's, they tried them in the 2000's, some companies are trying them still, yes hybrid electric can have some mechanical advantages, but I see nothing good for the environment, I actually did a case study on this for Design and Technology back in High School, specifically focusing on the Hydrogen powered Honda FCX Clarity (they couldn't have picked much more of a gay name haha). The Hydrogen car is the way of the future, it is truly renewable, it is powerful, and is totally do-able, once the infrastructure is in place.

Batteries only last 10 years tops at the moment, so every 10 years a hybrid-electric car will need 10 grand or so spent on a suitable battery(s), and along with all the resources to make it, and the waste from the old one, is a complete environmental disaster!

Hybrid vehicles such as the Prius are little more (I say that because they do slightly help research) than a publicity stunt and distraction from reality for the car manufacturers, they also go a distance to meeting the deadlines of efficiency and consumption that governments impose on car manufacturers, they bring the numbers down just enough.

Hydrogen is the only alternative fuel I support, as it is truly sustainable, maybe my mechanical engineering degree will lead me into it one day.

Cheers
Will

[vnx205]

Surely even a hydrogen powered car could benefit from some of the technology developed in hybrid cars and other places.

For example, they might be able to benefit from energy recovery. Even Formula 1 cars have their KERS system.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that research associated with hybrid cars and electric cars is only about batteries and that there is no overlapping technology from one means of propulsion to another.

[gghaggis]

The concept of electrically-powered or enhanced vehicles is often linked to batteries and their attendant problems because that is what most people automatically think of as the storage solution. But hydrogen-fuel cell and more-so supercapacitor technology is almost at the point where it could make batteries redundant.

An electric or electric-hybrid using graphene supercapacitors would not have all the baggage associated with battery manufacture, weight and disposal. So as a platform for advancing road technology, you need to consider electric (hybrid) independent of the battery issue.

Cheers,

Gordon

[isuzurover]

Surely even a hydrogen powered car could benefit from some of the technology developed in hybrid cars and other places.

For example, they might be able to benefit from energy recovery. Even Formula 1 cars have their KERS system.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that hybrid cars are only about batteries and that there is no overlapping technology from one means of propulsion to another.

Exactly. Hybrids (or at least the technology and thinking behind them) has led to KER systems and the seamless stop/start systems while waiting at the lights.

I wouldn't buy one, but I am happy that people do.

[vnx205]

... .... Even Formula 1 cars have their KERS system.




Exactly. Hybrids (or at least the technology and thinking behind them) has led to KER systems.
.... ...


Oops, I have just been guilty of the RAS syndrome ("redundant acronym syndrome syndrome"), the same mistake as "ATM machine" or "PIN number" or "HIV virus" or "LCD display".

I really should be more careful! :p

[phl]

What could work is rather than a hybrid, perhaps a plug-in electric SUV (Evoque or RRS comes to mind) with a super-capacitor for storage. For the majority of day to day use, most people would drive under 100km in a city such as Sydney, so these cars would work well, and be able to be charged up overnight on the base load, hence less wasted generation capacity.
Personally I'd buy one for daily commuting (not an SUV, perhaps more a Tesla if the price is right), where the SDV6 isn't the most economical due to short runs distance-wise, albeit not time-wise.
For longer runs, the SDV6 would then come into its own.

[isuzurover]

What could work is rather than a hybrid, perhaps a plug-in electric SUV (Evoque or RRS comes to mind) with a super-capacitor for storage. For the majority of day to day use, most people would drive under 100km in a city such as Sydney, so these cars would work well, and be able to be charged up overnight on the base load, hence less wasted generation capacity.
Personally I'd buy one for daily commuting (not an SUV, perhaps more a Tesla if the price is right), where the SDV6 isn't the most economical due to short runs distance-wise, albeit not time-wise.
For longer runs, the SDV6 would then come into its own.

There are kits available to convert Prius (etc) to plug in electrics:
Plug-In Supply | Plug-In Conversions for the Toyota Prius (http://www.pluginsupply.com/)

[MR LR]

I designed and built a KER system when I was in primary school, it was fitted to a pedal car, I have all the bits to resurrect it, but I no longer fit in the pedal car :p

[JDNSW]

.....

Hydrogen is the only alternative fuel I support, as it is truly sustainable, maybe my mechanical engineering degree will lead me into it one day.

Cheers
Will
In the usual use of the term 'alternative fuel', hydrogen cannot be considered a fuel.

Hydrogen is not an energy source. It does not occur naturally, but must be made. It is only an energy transfer material, whose major (only?)asset is that it produces virtually zero pollution of any kind at the point of use.

It difficult (hydrogen embrittlement is a serious problem with many materials) and very dangerous to handle (hydrogen leaks through any known material when under pressure and forms an explosive mixture with air over a wide range of proportions, 4-74%, and ignites very readily, with an almost invisible flame), and has a very low energy density whether considered either in terms of volume or weight (including container) compared to traditional fuels.

Production of hydrogen is energy-inefficient. If produced by the currently most practical way from natural gas, it still uses fossil fuel, and in a way that is less energy efficient than simply using CNG and produces more CO2 than the same fuel if used directly. If produced by electrolysis, the process is very inefficient, and begs the question as to where the energy for the power generation comes from. If produced from, for example, solar or wind energy, then in most cases a straight electric vehicle would be a better bet.

The energy inefficiency inherent in the use of hydrogen to some extent can be mitigated if you use fuel cell technology, but this loses you the other practical advantage, that it can be used with existing engine designs.

Sorry, I can't share your enthusiasm for hydrogen, and I predict it will never be used as a general transport fuel.

John

[bee utey]

Hydrogen is the only alternative fuel I support, as it is truly sustainable, maybe my mechanical engineering degree will lead me into it one day.

Cheers
Will

Methanol contains more hydrogen by weight than pure cryogenically liquid Hydrogen, or so I'm told. It can be stored in regular fuel tanks at around atmospheric pressure and can run both fuel cells and regular combustion engines. That is where I think the future in synthetic energy transfer media lies. The design of better catalysts will keep engineers busy for many decades.

[PhilipA]

Just to add a bit to the hydrogen story, an acquaintance was once CEO of British Oxygen Asia Pacific.
Apparently in the 90s Perth City Council trialled a fleet of Hydrogen buses and BO supplied the hydrogen.
The acquittance raised this as his biggest disaster as to work back then the hydrogen had to be 99% pure while industrial hydrogen is quite a bit less.

BO had to spend a lot of money to supply pure hydrogen and apparently lost heaps of money.

The point is that AFAIK from our talk existing hydrogen plants would have to be rebuilt to supply hydrogen of a purity necessary for automotive needs Vs industrial needs.
I don't know if this has changed but often great ideas on the surface can have a hidden "gotcha" that makes them totally impractical.

BTW I had great satisfaction in seeing the first trial induction charging system for cars featured on a NEWS item. When I raised this a couple of years ago on this forum I was roundly flamed for it being impossible.
Things change.
Regards Philip A

[stray dingo]

You say yourself that "all batteries are an environmental disaster", yet are praising the research in electric and hybrid electric/internal combustion cars, seems a bit contradictory to me...

They tried electric cars in the 1900's, they tried them in the 2000's, some companies are trying them still, yes hybrid electric can have some mechanical advantages, but I see nothing good for the environment, I actually did a case study on this for Design and Technology back in High School, specifically focusing on the Hydrogen powered Honda FCX Clarity (they couldn't have picked much more of a gay name haha). The Hydrogen car is the way of the future, it is truly renewable, it is powerful, and is totally do-able, once the infrastructure is in place.

Batteries only last 10 years tops at the moment, so every 10 years a hybrid-electric car will need 10 grand or so spent on a suitable battery(s), and along with all the resources to make it, and the waste from the old one, is a complete environmental disaster!

Hybrid vehicles such as the Prius are little more (I say that because they do slightly help research) than a publicity stunt and distraction from reality for the car manufacturers, they also go a distance to meeting the deadlines of efficiency and consumption that governments impose on car manufacturers, they bring the numbers down just enough.

Hydrogen is the only alternative fuel I support, as it is truly sustainable, maybe my mechanical engineering degree will lead me into it one day.

Cheers
Will

Sorry, yes it was contradictory. Probably deliberately :)
Batteries are a problem to the environment. But does that mean they should never be used?

Back in the early 90s I bought my first mobile phone - a lovely brick it was - most of the weight was the battery. My friend had one in the 80s, came with a briefcase. Now we have our iphones and galaxys etc, with tiny yet more powerful longer lasting batteries (comparatively). The technology advances produce smaller, better, cheaper. (Can we still even buy a classic EverReady Red any more, or are they all alkaline or Lithium-Ion, or NiCd rechargable?)

Electric cars actually go back to the Floken Electowagen in 1880, and were still popular as 'around town' cars till WW1 era. Advances in internal combustion engines saw them phased out. Why not?, IC engines gave more power, more range, were lighter etc etc. Imagine what the batteries were like then. The batteries have already improved from Prius generation 1. (NiMH to Lithium-ion, and now looking at nanophosphate technology to over come the 'explosive' natures) Different manufacturers try different things, different materials. But yes, at the end of the day, batteries are an environmental problem. *IF* the are not disposed of correctly. I don't particularly care about cost at the moment cos I'm not buying an electric car - but like everything that will come down - the manufacturers cannot afford for them not to else it is all a failed experiment. But when the batteries are reprocessed correctly, the problem is removed, or at least significantly reduced. They are not the sort of battery which will just be tossed out in the red bin on a Tuesday night. They will be traded in, returned, whatever and reprocessed correctly. BTW, oil production nor the burning of the same isn't exactly earth friendly either, with little improvement over the years.

So yes, I do support the manufacture of hybrid and electric cars despite their current shortcomings. They are a means to an end. They are not perfected yet but are progressing, and are still suitable for a select driving habit, certainly not everyone...(not me). Hydrogen and supercapacitor cars would be great to see, if they can work out their own problems, but I do wonder if that research would have the same presence now if not for continued development in electric and hybrid technology, or still just a pipe dream???
LPG also is a vast improvement over petrol and diesel and should be encouraged more than it is.

And for those who care, you can drop your household and laptop etc batteries into a container at Officeworks for appropriate disposal :D

[ak]

[QUOTE=stray dingo;2030481]Sorry, yes it was contradictory. Probably deliberately :)
Batteries are a problem to the environment. But does that mean they should never be used?

Back in the early 90s I bought my first mobile phone - a lovely brick it was - most of the weight was the battery. My friend had one in the 80s, came with a briefcase. Now we have our iphones and galaxys etc, with tiny yet more powerful longer lasting batteries (comparatively). The technology advances produce smaller, better, cheaper. (Can we still even buy a classic EverReady Red any more, or are they all alkaline or Lithium-Ion, or NiCd rechargable?)

Electric cars actually go back to the Floken Electowagen in 1880, and were still popular as 'around town' cars till WW1 era. Advances in internal combustion engines saw them phased out. Why not?, IC engines gave more power, more range, were lighter etc etc. Imagine what the batteries were like then. The batteries have already improved from Prius generation 1. (NiMH to Lithium-ion, and now looking at nanophosphate technology to over come the 'explosive' natures) Different manufacturers try different things, different materials. But yes, at the end of the day, batteries are an environmental problem. *IF* the are not disposed of correctly. I don't particularly care about cost at the moment cos I'm not buying an electric car - but like everything that will come down - the manufacturers cannot afford for them not to else it is all a failed experiment. But when the batteries are reprocessed correctly, the problem is removed, or at least significantly reduced. They are not the sort of battery which will just be tossed out in the red bin on a Tuesday night. They will be traded in, returned, whatever and reprocessed correctly. BTW, oil production nor the burning of the same isn't exactly earth friendly either, with little improvement over the years.

So yes, I do support the manufacture of hybrid and electric cars despite their current shortcomings. They are a means to an end. They are not perfected yet but are progressing, and are still suitable for a select driving habit, certainly not everyone...(not me). Hydrogen and supercapacitor cars would be great to see, if they can work out their own problems, but I do wonder if that research would have the same presence now if not for continued development in electric and hybrid technology, or still just a pipe dream???
LPG also is a vast improvement over petrol and diesel and should be encouraged more than it is.

And for those who care, you can drop your household and laptop etc batteries into a container at Officeworks for appropriate disposal :D[/QU

[ak]

Sorry Stray Dingo I made a mess of trying to quote your post.

Anyway good post.

Also fuel 100 years ago was almost as cheap as water. But not today as we all know.

Who knows in a couple of decades batteries just might save the car industry.

[Meken]

I've always wondered why there hasn't been a vehicle with individual electric motors on each driving wheel and a separate highly tuned " stationary " engine to generate the electricity for the driving motors . Less moving parts - less loss of energy through friction & other inefficiencies. Much greater fuel efficiency from a motor designed to operate only at the "sweet spot" rather through a wide range of revs. The engine could generate electricity that is stored in the short term by a small "battery" more like a capacitor to smooth out the ups & downs of the load from the electric motors ??

[JDNSW]

I've always wondered why there hasn't been a vehicle with individual electric motors on each driving wheel and a separate highly tuned " stationary " engine to generate the electricity for the driving motors . Less moving parts - less loss of energy through friction & other inefficiencies. Much greater fuel efficiency from a motor designed to operate only at the "sweet spot" rather through a wide range of revs. The engine could generate electricity that is stored in the short term by a small "battery" more like a capacitor to smooth out the ups & downs of the load from the electric motors ??

Like for example the Couplegear truck, manufactured 1910-1918. And they were not the only one. Some electric transmissions continued being made into the 1930s, but they lost popularity as drivers became more accustomed to conventional gearboxes, and those who wanted something easy to drive bought cars and trucks with fluid flywheel and preselector boxes that were a lot cheaper and more efficient than electric transmission.

John

[discojools]

Sorry Stray Dingo I made a mess of trying to quote your post.

Anyway good post.

Also fuel 100 years ago was almost as cheap as water. But not today as we all know.

Who knows in a couple of decades batteries just might save the car industry.

Bottled water is now 3 times the price of fuel!

[ak]

Bottled water is now 3 times the price of fuel!

It wasn't 100 years ago.

[MR LR]

Who knows in a couple of decades batteries just might save the car industry.

That will make for some ****ty expeditions! Even if they have fast charging, how are you supposed to go off the beaten track for days at a time...?

[bee utey]

That will make for some ****ty expeditions! Even if they have fast charging, how are you supposed to go off the beaten track for days at a time...?

It's amazing to think that people actually managed to cover much of the globe before the invention of the infernal combustion engine. Perhaps there's time for you to learn camel handling skills for a future sans oil burners?:p

[MR LR]

It's amazing to think that people actually managed to cover much of the globe before the invention of the infernal combustion engine. Perhaps there's time for you to learn camel handling skills for a future sans oil burners?:p
I'd resort to that horrible bio-diesel stuff before then :p

[gghaggis]

That will make for some ****ty expeditions! Even if they have fast charging, how are you supposed to go off the beaten track for days at a time...?

The supercapacitors I mentioned can be fully charged in under 20sec, although at this stage they're only the size of phone batteries. Still, a large lightning conductor and some copper wire ......... what could possibly go wrong?
:oops2:

Cheers,

Gordon

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The supercapacitors I mentioned can be fully charged in under 20sec, although at this stage they're only the size of phone batteries. Still, a large lightning conductor and some copper wire ......... what could possibly go wrong?
:oops2:

Cheers,
Gordonhttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/421.jpg

[Silenceisgolden]

I've always wondered why there hasn't been a vehicle with individual electric motors on each driving wheel and a separate highly tuned " stationary " engine to generate the electricity for the driving motors . Less moving parts - less loss of energy through friction & other inefficiencies. Much greater fuel efficiency from a motor designed to operate only at the "sweet spot" rather through a wide range of revs. The engine could generate electricity that is stored in the short term by a small "battery" more like a capacitor to smooth out the ups & downs of the load from the electric motors ??

Excellent question, Meken. 500,000 Diesel-electric locomotives can't be wrong! If the process was not fuel efficient, I am sure the train makers would not have gone that way.

With modern electronics, just imagine the algorithms that could be used in off-road vehicles! It would be the ultimate in efficient traction control. Much better to apply power to the wheel with best traction rather than applying a brake to the wheel with least traction.

[SBD4]

one issue I see, to my layperson view, with an electric motor on each wheel is the loss of torque as traction is lost on various wheels assuming 4 individual motors would be smaller(torque and power) than a single central motor through gear box and diffs.

They would be great when all four wheels have grip but what happens when only one wheel has traction? You only have one small electric motor trying to move the car, the torque of the other three motors can't be transferred to the wheel that has grip.

Sound logic or not....?

[isuzurover]

The concept of electrically-powered or enhanced vehicles is often linked to batteries and their attendant problems because that is what most people automatically think of as the storage solution. But hydrogen-fuel cell and more-so supercapacitor technology is almost at the point where it could make batteries redundant.

An electric or electric-hybrid using graphene supercapacitors would not have all the baggage associated with battery manufacture, weight and disposal. So as a platform for advancing road technology, you need to consider electric (hybrid) independent of the battery issue.

Cheers,

Gordon

AFAIK Oshkosh already have electric drive (diesel-electric) offroad military vehicles using ultracapacitors...

Oshkosh diesel-electric hybrid for Baja 1000 - YouTube

By having a small (diesel) engine connected to a generator you can run it at constant load (optimal conditions) and significantly reduce emissions. If needed it could be run on a renewable fuel like vegetable oil, biogas or ethanol.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/393.jpg

[Silenceisgolden]

one issue I see, to my layperson view, with an electric motor on each wheel is the loss of torque as traction is lost on various wheels assuming 4 individual motors would be smaller(torque and power) than a single central motor through gear box and diffs.

They would be great when all four wheels have grip but what happens when only one wheel has traction? You only have one small electric motor trying to move the car, the torque of the other three motors can't be transferred to the wheel that has grip.

Sound logic or not....?

Yes, good point, sound logic. The problem could be overcome by using more powerful motors, but limiting their output except when emergency one/two/three wheel drive is required.

[JDNSW]

Excellent question, Meken. 500,000 Diesel-electric locomotives can't be wrong! If the process was not fuel efficient, I am sure the train makers would not have gone that way.

With modern electronics, just imagine the algorithms that could be used in off-road vehicles! It would be the ultimate in efficient traction control. Much better to apply power to the wheel with best traction rather than applying a brake to the wheel with least traction.

The popularity of diesel-electric transmission on railways is not because of its efficiency, although it is undoubtedly as efficient as any alternatives, but because it solves the problem of producing maximum torque at zero rpm (inherent in some types of electric motor), needed for starting, and at the same time solves the problem of driving six axles in two bogies without gears, shafts, or inefficient hydraulics.

I suspect that electric transmission could be no more expensive than current systems, especially for a four wheel drive, but I can see some potential problems - motors, cables and the alternator would use a lot of expensive copper and be quite heavy unless quite high voltages were used. That in turn leads to potential problems with safety and operation in a wet and dirty environment. I'm not saying this could not be solves, just that it would be expensive to solve. RFI would be a potential problem, and could cost quite a bit to solve.

John