A Very Light Car

[jon_banquer]

While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
has the right idea:

http://www.edison2.com/

[Ed Huntress]

This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)

http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2

Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.

I have to chuckle at all these impractical and or pie in the sky
vehicles, most of them 2 seaters that are being touted as lighter than
a Volt, which is a 4 seat series hybrid hatchback with serious utility
that one can actually buy here in the present reality. AKA reality.
Duh. We might as well add this as well
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/2012-morgan-3-wheeler-first-drive-review/
Apples to oranges, and lots of unobtainium and impractical layouts.
How many years was the Aptera touted as being the next new thing? 2
seats, 3 wheels, licensed as a motorcycle and could haul about as much
cargo as a bike. Yet it still ended up at nearly a ton and its main
claim to fame was being on magazine covers and burning up investment
cash. Both the projected weight and the price kept creeping up with
every new revelation until bankruptcy. Never did prove that it was
safe enough to compete in the market as a real car. Of course the
backers said it absolutely could. The very same people who kept
claiming perennially that it was soon to be available, and that they
could sell a vehicle with $20k of EV components for $20k. At some
point it appears they were going to 4 wheels and 4 seats, which I bet
they figured out was the only route to mass market and funding.

The VW XL1 is headed down a similar road. 2 seats, small interior
volume, expensive materials, and bound to be hundreds heavier the
closer it gets to market, which it is now another year overdue for
even the projected handful of samples. So long as anything can
maintain its vaporware status its promoters might as well say it only
weights 1000 pounds, can go 1000 miles, and costs $1000.

Meanwhile, here in reality, I had a nice sunny drive in the Volt
yesterday afternoon. About 35 miles to destination, came up about a
mile short on the battery. But only because the last 4 miles climbed
1100'. On the return trip the engine only ran briefly on the downhill
section. All the rest was regen or battery. Then went another 3 miles
on the level before the engine started again. Sweet tech. In engine
mode it still goes nearly as far past a corner on battery as it spent
decelerating and braking. I fill up so seldom that last time I briefly
forgot which side the tank was on. I'm surprised how many people
recognize the car and want to talk about it. I even got a thumbs up
from a usually morose construction flagman the other day. I'm more
satisfied with the Volt than I've been with any of my new vehicles for
quite a while, which is something considering I swore I'd never buy
another domestic model. And I'm not alone.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/chevy-volt-again-tops-consumer-reports-owner-satisfacti/
http://gas2.org/2011/11/21/jay-leno-drives-chevy-volt-11000-miles-without-gas-nets-2365-mpg/

Yeah I could be finding fault with the Volt and pining for a flying
car or whatever instead, but then I'd be taking work from backseat
drivers. Fuck, not even backseat drivers, full time chair drivers like
Bonkers.

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mac3l890leed89ge0...@4ax.com...

Dude, get a fukn life, ferchrissakes.

Funny, Ed H's 6 word reply (and jb's op) had about 10x the value of your
addle-brained verbiage -- shades of Entropy, eh?
Here, ponder this for, oh, the next 10 years.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Or better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

The latter explains, ultimately, why talking to you is about as informative
as flipping a fair coin. lol

Oh, Jay moon-chin Leno loves his volt.... Oh, yeah, and dat flagman's
thumbsup....
OK, now, run along and giz yerself on one of yer Volt's tires....
--
EA

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:44:02 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
<whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>><jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
>>>denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
>>>company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
>>>has the right idea:
>>>
>>>http://www.edison2.com/
>>
>>This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2
>>
>>Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
>
>Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.

<g> No. Those are post-WWII club racers. I only brought them up
because of the "very light car" subject line. They make an interesting
contrast with today's crop of superlights.

Those club racers had *horrible* drag coefficients, but low frontal
area. The Cd on a Lotus 7 is around 0.70; the same as a bicycle with
rider. The Cd for a Hummer H2 is 0.57. For a Volt, around 0.28. A
paving brick is 2.1. <g>

They were not designed for economy, nor for top speed. They were
designed for acceleration and fast cornering on short road-racing
tracks. For the hardy weekend hero-driver, they could be driven to
work or school all week. That's the service my 1967 MG Midget
performed; it was one of the last of the club racers.

The Volt is on the right track, given the batteries we have to work
with. It's still a car for enthusiasts who want to be the first on
their block. But so were the Lotus 6 and 7, in a different way.

--
Ed Huntress

[Existential Angst]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hch3l89dko3g89o8o...@4ax.com...

Exactly.

But Kidding needs to masturbate in full pub(l)ic view, so I guess WE
shouldn't rain on his erectile parade, eh?

If the Volt came out with a Convertible, fuknKidding would immediately trade
in his current Volt, regardless of the beating he'd take, just to have his
hair -- and ascot -- blow in the wind.... Thumb's Up, donchaknow.....
goodgawd....
A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
pickup, with a 6 foot bed....

Oh, and I LIKE the Volt -- it is a fundamentally good design, just muckied
up with some dumb shit.... like, well, 1,800 unnecessary pounds, and 18,000
unnecessary dollars.
--
EA








>
> --
> Ed Huntress

[Paul Drahn]

If you want to see some very light cars, check this out:

http://www.dw.de/popups/mediaplayer/contentId_15638742_mediaId_16680710

Just found it this morning.

Paul

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:22:09 -0400, Ed Huntress

In the Morgan article the author lovingly refers to those as
"thoroughly useless" IIRC. :) I disagree, but then I think motorcycles
are useful.

>The Volt is on the right track, given the batteries we have to work
>with. It's still a car for enthusiasts who want to be the first on
>their block. But so were the Lotus 6 and 7, in a different way.

The Volt is aimed at the center mass of the market. It's a car that
anyone from granny to enthusiast can enjoy, and it can replace any
Camry, Accord, etc. 5 year cost of ownership will beat a lot of
competitors.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/2012-total-cost-of-ownership-awards/2000007814/
It could be that it appeals more to techies, but you don't have to
know a damned thing to own one. Put the fob in your pocket, unplug the
charge cord, press the button on the door handle to unlock the car,
hit the start button and you're ready to roll. Anybody who's driven a
keyless car could drive one away without a word of instruction.
Eventually you have to figure out where the buttons for the charge
cord door and the filler door are but they're easy to find. The car
has two display screens and a bunch of flush control buttons, but
there's no need to touch any of it except to change the auto climate
temp or diddle with the radio. If you get a chance, hop in one and
take it for a spin. The silence and smoothness are a little weird at
first, so is the instant torque. But dead easy to drive and obviously
designed for the bulk of the tech to be low profile. You can navigate
to the powerflow display but there's little interesting to see there
unless you're in engine mode and want to monitor the transitions from
regen etc.

[Ed Huntress]

Hey, those are fun, Paul. I rode in a Messerschmitt when I was 7; my
camp counselor had brought one back from Germany, where he had been in
the service. The ride was my prize for something I forget -- maybe for
being the first to boil water in a stove made out of a #10 tin can.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:00:48 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost

Well, the original Morgan 3-wheelers, from the 1910s, were known as
"cyclecars," and soon became some of the original club racers. They
gave hell to some highly-touted race cars all over Europe during the
'20s and '30s

There was one from the 1930s in Princeton when I was in high school.
It had a Matchless V-twin motorcycle engine. Those were the hot ones.

I'm told that they were a little nerve-wracking to drive. The throttle
was a lever pivoted in the middle of the steeting wheel, with no
spring return, and you had to remember whether to push the lever up or
down, depending on which way the steering wheel was turned. Yikes.

>
>>The Volt is on the right track, given the batteries we have to work
>>with. It's still a car for enthusiasts who want to be the first on
>>their block. But so were the Lotus 6 and 7, in a different way.
>
>The Volt is aimed at the center mass of the market. It's a car that
>anyone from granny to enthusiast can enjoy, and it can replace any
>Camry, Accord, etc. 5 year cost of ownership will beat a lot of
>competitors.
>http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/2012-total-cost-of-ownership-awards/2000007814/
>It could be that it appeals more to techies, but you don't have to
>know a damned thing to own one. Put the fob in your pocket, unplug the
>charge cord, press the button on the door handle to unlock the car,
>hit the start button and you're ready to roll. Anybody who's driven a
>keyless car could drive one away without a word of instruction.
>Eventually you have to figure out where the buttons for the charge
>cord door and the filler door are but they're easy to find. The car
>has two display screens and a bunch of flush control buttons, but
>there's no need to touch any of it except to change the auto climate
>temp or diddle with the radio. If you get a chance, hop in one and
>take it for a spin. The silence and smoothness are a little weird at
>first, so is the instant torque. But dead easy to drive and obviously
>designed for the bulk of the tech to be low profile. You can navigate
>to the powerflow display but there's little interesting to see there
>unless you're in engine mode and want to monitor the transitions from
>regen etc.

I wold like to try one sometime, but I'll tell you frankly: I do so
little driving today that it would never pay off. I work at home, and
my 2004 Focus ZX-3 has only 75,000 miles on it.

Still, it sounds interesting. As I listen to you, I'm tempted to
explain how practical a '67 MG Midget could be for driving back and
forth between Michigan and New Jersey. All you had to do was to swap
out the 4.22 ring and pinion for the 3.727; remember to replace the
heater in October; make sure you put the muffler back on; and have
your rainsuit handy. Convertible tops stayed in the garage; they were
too much weight. And they were for wimps, anyway. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:39:38 -0700, Paul Drahn
<pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:

>If you want to see some very light cars, check this out:
>
>http://www.dw.de/popups/mediaplayer/contentId_15638742_mediaId_16680710
>
>Just found it this morning.
>
>Paul

Yeah but that's an older model. Here's something current. :)
http://abcnews.go.com/WNN/video/top-gear-host-test-drives-worlds-tiniest-car-18417017

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hch3l89dko3g89o8o...@4ax.com...
>

> They were not designed for economy, nor for top speed. They were
> designed for acceleration and fast cornering on short road-racing
> tracks. For the hardy weekend hero-driver, they could be driven to
> work or school all week. That's the service my 1967 MG Midget
> performed; it was one of the last of the club racers.

I lost interest in British sports cars after watching a 75 Honda Civic
turn in the shortest time on a winding parking-lot race course
(Autokhana?) against the numerous local rich-boy racers.

So my buddy and I compared how fast we could take the U at the
incompleted end of an Interstate, my less powerful 74 Civic vs his MG
Midget. We couldn't record the speeds with the unloaded inside wheels
slipping, but he spun out before matching me. The Honda had a much
better rough-surface suspension with no bump steer.

Despite all the bootlegger-turn abuse I gave it, it died from rust.
jsw

[Ed Huntress]

There's always something faster. But a '74 or '75 Civic? Possibly the
wheeziest car of its era. It could barely get out of its own way. You
would not have wanted to run it against MY Midget. d8-)

As for parking-lot gymkhanas, not to do a Gunner here, but my '71
Super Beetle regularly blew off BMWs and 356C Porsches. That's a whole
different thing. The fastest gymphana car in the country about that
time was a Mini Minor -- not a Cooper, but a bare-bones wheezebox.
Where DOT tires were not required, he ran F1 rubber and went around on
rails.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:4ho3l892iajflnv6k...@4ax.com...

> Ed Huntress

I was certainly surprised when it won. I couldn't get his attention
long enough to find out what he had done to it.
My 74 topped out at about 90 and while I could stay with a 911T on a
winding dirt road once it straightened out he vanished like the
Enterprise in the distance.
jsw

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Yes, you had compliant suspension in that thing, but if you ever got
it out on a real racetrack, you might have gotten a surprise. Hondas
respond well to tuning but that era was really sad in stock form. It
had around 50 hp.

My Super Beetle topped out at 95, nearly stock but with a good exhaust
and larger jets. That's far higher than the official spec -- the car
was known to be faster, and to have more than the official 60 hp. My
MG, definitely *not* stock, was good for about 110 with the 3.727 rear
installed. But for racing, I ran a 4.22 rear, which accelerated a lot
better but which limited top speed due to revs.

Stock hp on a 1275 Midget was 65 hp -- again, known to be underrated.
Mine was a little over 100 hp based on acceleration times and
comparable measured hp with cars set up similarly. The weight was
about the same as your Honda; probably lower in the case of mine,
which was stripped.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 26, 9:39 am, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 8:44 AM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress

> > <huntre...@optonline.net>  wrote:

>
> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

> >> <jonbanq...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
> >>> denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
> >>> company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
> >>> has the right idea:
>
> >>>http://www.edison2.com/
>
> >> This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2
>
> >> Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
>
> > Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.
>
> > I have to chuckle at all these impractical and or pie in the sky
> > vehicles, most of them 2 seaters that are being touted as lighter than
> > a Volt, which is a 4 seat series hybrid hatchback with serious utility
> > that one can actually buy here in the present reality. AKA reality.
> > Duh. We might as well add this as well

> >http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/2012-morgan-3-wheeler-first-drive-...

> >http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/chevy-volt-again-tops-consumer-rep...
> >http://gas2.org/2011/11/21/jay-leno-drives-chevy-volt-11000-miles-wit...

>
> > Yeah I could be finding fault with the Volt and pining for a flying
> > car or whatever instead, but then I'd be taking work from backseat
> > drivers. Fuck, not even backseat drivers, full time chair drivers like
> > Bonkers.
>
> If you want to see some very light cars, check this out:
>
> http://www.dw.de/popups/mediaplayer/contentId_15638742_mediaId_16680710
>
> Just found it this morning.
>
> Paul

Enjoyed watching this. Thanks for posting the link.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 26, 8:44 am, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
> ><jonbanq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
> >>denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
> >>company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
> >>has the right idea:
>
> >>http://www.edison2.com/
>
> >This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2
>
> >Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
>
> Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.
>
> I have to chuckle at all these impractical and or pie in the sky
> vehicles, most of them 2 seaters that are being touted as lighter than
> a Volt, which is a 4 seat series hybrid hatchback with serious utility
> that one can actually buy here in the present reality. AKA reality.

> Duh. We might as well add this as wellhttp://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/2012-morgan-3-wheeler-first-drive-...

> another domestic model.  And I'm not alone.http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/chevy-volt-again-tops-consumer-rep...http://gas2.org/2011/11/21/jay-leno-drives-chevy-volt-11000-miles-wit...

>
> Yeah I could be finding fault with the Volt and pining for a flying
> car or whatever instead, but then I'd be taking work from backseat
> drivers. Fuck, not even backseat drivers, full time chair drivers like
> Bonkers.

KiddingNoOne knows nothing about the real problems with the Aptera.
Most of what KiddingNoOne posted about why the Aptera failed is wrong.
I seriously doubt KiddingNoOne has ever seen an Aptera or if he was
ever in their former Vista, CA (basically a suburb of San Diego, CA.)
headquarters. I live in the San Diego, CA area. I've been to the
former Aptera headquarters several times.

For those who want to understand why the Aptera failed see my past
posts. This article does the best I've seen explaining the how and why
of Aptera's failing. In addition see Tricia Fambro's comments:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070490_aptera-collapse-how-why-it-happened-a-complete-chronology

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:ukq3l8dnc89e7h1t3...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, you had compliant suspension in that thing, but if you ever got
> it out on a real racetrack, you might have gotten a surprise. Hondas
> respond well to tuning but that era was really sad in stock form. It
> had around 50 hp.

The only racing I'd try with it was on dirt or ice out in the
depopulated flood control area, the playground for any yout with cheap
wheels. My friends were doctors' and lawyers' sons with Porsches, BMWs
and XKEs so I hadn't a prayer of competing. The guy with the Midget
went on to a Mazda rotary pickup that he drove/flew at 120MPH. It
helped that our fathers were well connected politically, so we got
only warnings.
jsw

[Ecnerwal]

In article <kislkd$4k4$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite all the bootlegger-turn abuse I gave it, it died from rust.

Unfortunately also the fate of most of the Porsche's I actually like
that they don't make now (I think most of what they make now is
fn'ugly....) - the 914's - never have had one, but if I was to get a
moneypit car that might be it...

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 26, 3:36 pm, Ecnerwal
<MyNameForw...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kislkd$4k...@dont-email.me>,

>  "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Despite all the bootlegger-turn abuse I gave it, it died from rust.
>
> Unfortunately also the fate of most of the Porsche's I actually like
> that they don't make now (I think most of what they make now is
> fn'ugly....) - the 914's - never have had one, but if I was to get a
> moneypit car that might be it...
>
> --
> Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
> Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

Rust is a serious problem for almost all older vehicles. It makes no
difference if it's an English sports car, a German one or an American
muscle car. Learning to replace the cancer correctly takes a lot of
time and skill development. Very few people are willing to learn to do
the job right.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:36:50 -0400, Ecnerwal
<MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:

>In article <kislkd$4k4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Despite all the bootlegger-turn abuse I gave it, it died from rust.
>
>Unfortunately also the fate of most of the Porsche's I actually like
>that they don't make now (I think most of what they make now is
>fn'ugly....) - the 914's - never have had one, but if I was to get a
>moneypit car that might be it...

I'll ask my neighbor if he's ready to part with his. I don't think
you'll be happy about it if you get one, but each to his own.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:36:50 -0400, Ecnerwal
<MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:

>In article <kislkd$4k4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Despite all the bootlegger-turn abuse I gave it, it died from rust.
>
>Unfortunately also the fate of most of the Porsche's I actually like
>that they don't make now (I think most of what they make now is
>fn'ugly....) - the 914's - never have had one, but if I was to get a
>moneypit car that might be it...

I checked; my neighbor says his brother wants it. If you want one,
I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens.

It's the four-cylinder, which is a LOT cheaper than the six.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ecnerwal]

In article <tde4l8ljbul95b65f...@4ax.com>,

I did say "if" I got a moneypit car. I suppose the Miata is fairly
similar in something NOT 40 years old, but it would lack the cachet of
being a car I thought was really cool when I was a kid. Also it would be
following embarassing members of the family in car choice.

May be I ought to build something instead...perhaps even a wood framed
job ala Morgan. Haven't really looked into how hard homebuilts are to
register in Massachusetts (probably hard - they have 3 laws for
everything and at least 2 of them contradict) or Vermont (might be
easier.)

I spent a few years driving around an aircooled flat 6, but it wanted a
lot more garage time than I could give it to be happy, and it was only
25 or so at the time (Corvair - 6 cylinders, 4 carbs, don't leave home
without 300 lbs of tools in the trunk.) The standard Chevy parts were
easy and cheap at NAPA, the specialized stuff all came from Clark's.

My 1968 ford is a pain the ass with its age and decrepitude, but since
its parts now come from the New Holland dealer, it's not as hard as you
might think to find many of them (though it can get awfully expensive.)
Top speed of 18 mph, but it digs a mean hole. Not very lightweight.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:19:16 -0400, Ecnerwal
<MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:

>In article <tde4l8ljbul95b65f...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:36:50 -0400, Ecnerwal
>> <MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:
>> >the 914's - never have had one, but if I was to get a
>> >moneypit car that might be it...
>>
>> I checked; my neighbor says his brother wants it. If you want one,
>> I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens.
>>
>> It's the four-cylinder, which is a LOT cheaper than the six.
>
>I did say "if" I got a moneypit car. I suppose the Miata is fairly
>similar in something NOT 40 years old, but it would lack the cachet of
>being a car I thought was really cool when I was a kid. Also it would be
>following embarassing members of the family in car choice.

In the cachet department, consider that the 914 was never really
accepted as a Porsche. It was built by VW, and the 4-cyl. is a VW
engine.

However, parts are available; it handles better than a Porsche 356 and
maybe an early 911; and it's not particularly hard to work on. I'm not
a fan, but each to his own.

>
>May be I ought to build something instead...perhaps even a wood framed
>job ala Morgan. Haven't really looked into how hard homebuilts are to
>register in Massachusetts (probably hard - they have 3 laws for
>everything and at least 2 of them contradict) or Vermont (might be
>easier.)

Caution: The "wood frame" on a Morgan is the body frame. First you
build a boat frame (the wooden body frame) and then you bend sheet
metal over it. The chassis frame is steel, and conventional.

Kits are a whole lot easier. If you really want to build from scratch,
consider the Locost by Ron Champion, or one of its clones.

>
>I spent a few years driving around an aircooled flat 6, but it wanted a
>lot more garage time than I could give it to be happy, and it was only
>25 or so at the time (Corvair - 6 cylinders, 4 carbs, don't leave home
>without 300 lbs of tools in the trunk.)

My first car (a '63, bought new). If you had four carbs, you must have
had a '65 or '66, or else you had a John Fitch GT conversion. The '65s
and '66s actually were very nice cars, with excellent suspension. Not
so the '64s and earlier. But it was the first car I drove at SCCA
driver's school, and with the Fitch suspension, it was Ok.

> The standard Chevy parts were
>easy and cheap at NAPA, the specialized stuff all came from Clark's.

A lot of the engine parts were from a Chevy 348 or 409. Hydraulic
lifters were the big one, because they were always getting sticky.

>
>My 1968 ford is a pain the ass with its age and decrepitude, but since
>its parts now come from the New Holland dealer, it's not as hard as you
>might think to find many of them (though it can get awfully expensive.)
>Top speed of 18 mph, but it digs a mean hole. Not very lightweight.

I guess not. If you want an old sports car to play with, be prepared
to pay 'way more than they're worth, by any sensible measure.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ecnerwal]

In article <eoj4l85p5ha202oe6...@4ax.com>,

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> My first car (a '63, bought new). If you had four carbs, you must have
> had a '65 or '66, or else you had a John Fitch GT conversion. The '65s
> and '66s actually were very nice cars, with excellent suspension. Not

Yup, '65 "post-Nader revision." Convertible, from which the turbo motor
had been removed and replaced with the 4-carb 140 long before I got it.
Worst breakdown was when the fan bearing mount broke (the top of the
motor.) Made a horrible noise, figured it was toast - after a long cold
wait for the tow truck, a look at what had happened at home, and a $25
refurb part from Clark's, back in business.

Another time the ignition gave out, but I had actually already gotten an
electronic replacement, just hadn't installed it yet - so I did it
beside the road where it expired (with some of the 300 lbs of tools...)

[rwwink]

The problems I see with the Volt, Leaf and other electric autos is
that they don't fit my life style. I drive, on any given day,
somewhere around 50-100 miles. Most places I stop don't have a
facility to charge the battery and if they did, I'm sure in time
they'll charge you to use their charging station (nobody does anything
for free). With that, and the $40K price tag to purchase, the unknown
battery life and replacement costs and the costs to charge the battery
at home, I don't feel like I can afford anything like a battery only
automobile. A hybrid maybe but even they have a lot of the same
problems for me, costs.
I know YOU say that they have the same or cheaper 5 year cost but it
has NOT been proven to my satisfaction because of the battery
replacement costs. I'm still driving the same automobile after 12
years and it's cost the same now and it did when I bought it. It's
got about 90K miles on it. Nothing major has gone wrong or needed
replacement. Who, which an electric, can say the same?
I don't see GM or Nissan replacing the batteries for free and I
haven't heard a real life expectancy or cost.
I just don't think the electrics are ready for prime time. They may
be aimed at the middle of the buying public but the whole electric
automobile business is the same now as it was in the '20's only now
the government is pressing the issue for political reasons. There
will always be some who want to be on the bleeding edge and then there
are the rest of us that look at the real world costs in terms of real
return on our dollar.
R. Wink

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:26:28 -0500, rwwink <rww...@wowway.com> wrote:

>The problems I see with the Volt, Leaf and other electric autos is
>that they don't fit my life style. I drive, on any given day,
>somewhere around 50-100 miles.

The Volt, in very simple terms, gives your first gallon of "fuel" for
the price of a dozen kwhs. Call it a $3 saving each charge. After that
it gets about 40mpg.

Compared to a 30mpg ICE sedan, $4 per gallon, and 10 cent per kwh: at
50 miles a day you'd be at about 70% EV, and saving about $3.50. That
would pay reasonably although you could do as well with a regular
econobox if you're OK comparing apples to oranges.

At 100 miles a day, 35% EV, and the saving is $5 per day.

Once you figure that part out then you take fuel and electric price
increases into account for as long as you intend to own the car, and
insurance as well especially if you're comparing to other new cars.
Plus all the usual stuff like depreciation and interest cost or
whatever. And of course you'd do similar calculations with other EVs
and hybrids.

> I don't feel like I can afford anything like a battery only
>automobile. A hybrid maybe but even they have a lot of the same
>problems for me, costs.

"Feelings" like yours don't hold much sway with me.

>I know YOU say that they have the same or cheaper 5 year cost

There is no need to take my word for anything, because _I_ only
referenced what independent sources have calculated. Those
calculations can be highly variable but anybody with grade school math
skills, with or without a calculator, can work out their own projected
costs.

> but it
>has NOT been proven to my satisfaction because of the battery
>replacement costs.

It will NEVER be proven to the satisfaction of people who feel their
way around issues. The rest can go by the details of the
manufacturer's warranty.

> I'm still driving the same automobile after 12
>years and it's cost the same now and it did when I bought it. It's
>got about 90K miles on it. Nothing major has gone wrong or needed
>replacement. Who, which an electric, can say the same?

Probably somebody with an EV with 90k on it. Considering that the
hybrids have been around for 10 years, and the Volt for 3, what do
think the odds are that somebody has driven 90k and reported their
experience on the intertubes?

>I don't see GM or Nissan replacing the batteries for free and I
>haven't heard a real life expectancy or cost.

Then you simply haven't read the warranty, which would have taken less
time than you spent writing up an ill informed rationalization.
Putting opinion before research is illogical, therefore I doubt that
anything I or anyone could say will make you objective.

>I just don't think

No, you said it correctly at the beginning. You're not thinking,
you're feeling.

> the electrics are ready for prime time. They may
>be aimed at the middle of the buying public but the whole electric
>automobile business is the same now as it was in the '20's only now
>the government is pressing the issue for political reasons. There
>will always be some who want to be on the bleeding edge and then there
>are the rest of us that look at the real world costs in terms of real
>return on our dollar.

I live in the real world and I have a proven history of making good
financial decisions. Feel free to pretend that I'm just some bleeding
edge fanatic if it helps you feel better about your feelings.

[rwwink]

Ok. Maybe you have a point or two but what is the replacement cost of
a set of batteries and how often do then need to be replace? Cite
hard facts, your or someone else's replacement cost experience, when
and where so they can be verified. Your feeling on the subject as
unimportant as you say mine are. Cite facts from real life, not
government or auto company propaganda. I haven't been able to find
anyone that has the data except for government or auto company
propaganda.
R. Wink

[whoyakidding's ghost]

You already mentioned some kind of government propaganda which I
consider crazy talk. Can you give me any reason I should do research
for someone who's irrational? Clearly you still haven't read the
warranty replacement details which are readily available and would
give you an excellent idea of what to expect in terms of lifetime and
degradation.

I had a conversation a few days ago with a guy who's thinking about
doing an EV conversion. Assuming he was talking lead acid, I mentioned
the cost of frequently replacing those. No he said, he wants to use
lithium which he said are something like $5k IIRC. So not only are
battery prices surely in your dealer's parts book (and bound to be
similar to the price of a complete engine, which dealers are known to
replace when necessary), but they're apparently available aftermarket,
which means they're not any kind of boogeyman.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:02:02 -0500, rwwink <rww...@wowway.com> wrote:

Well, the lead acids in my Fiat conversion lasted 2 years - froze
over the winter when someone stole the cord to the trickle charger.

A friend put 400,000km on a first gen Prius with no measurable loss of
battery capacity. I believe he sold it a few months ago.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:54:51 +0000, Charlie+ <cha...@xxx.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:22:09 -0400, Ed Huntress

><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote as underneath my scribble :

>
>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:44:02 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost

>><whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>>>><jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
>>>>>denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
>>>>>company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
>>>>>has the right idea:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.edison2.com/
>>>>
>>>>This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2
>>>>
>>>>Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
>>>
>>>Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.
>>

>><g> No. Those are post-WWII club racers. I only brought them up
>>because of the "very light car" subject line. They make an interesting
>>contrast with today's crop of superlights.
>>
>>Those club racers had *horrible* drag coefficients, but low frontal
>>area. The Cd on a Lotus 7 is around 0.70; the same as a bicycle with
>>rider. The Cd for a Hummer H2 is 0.57. For a Volt, around 0.28. A
>>paving brick is 2.1. <g>
>

>Ed, you stopped looking a couple of years early in Colin Chapman design
>evolution, take a look at the Lotus 11 Club racer (the LeMans version
>also but more expensive rear suspension) really slippery, really light
>spaceframe and Al. bodywork, Coventry Climax, went like the clappers,
>can be used on the road! C+

Yes, the 11 and 15 were very slick. I don't think they'd be called
club racers by my generation, though. Chapman raced them in
international competition.

As for "can be used on the road," I suppose someone could. For that
matter, Lotus made (almost as a joke, but you could buy one) a "road"
version of one of their smaller formula cars. Headlights and cycle
fenders did no add to the car's panache. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

>>
>>They were not designed for economy, nor for top speed. They were
>>designed for acceleration and fast cornering on short road-racing
>>tracks. For the hardy weekend hero-driver, they could be driven to
>>work or school all week. That's the service my 1967 MG Midget
>>performed; it was one of the last of the club racers.
>>
>>>

>>>I have to chuckle at all these impractical and or pie in the sky
>>>vehicles, most of them 2 seaters that are being touted as lighter than
>>>a Volt, which is a 4 seat series hybrid hatchback with serious utility
>>>that one can actually buy here in the present reality. AKA reality.
>>>Duh. We might as well add this as well

>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/2012-morgan-3-wheeler-first-drive-review/

>>>another domestic model. And I'm not alone.
>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/chevy-volt-again-tops-consumer-reports-owner-satisfacti/
>>>http://gas2.org/2011/11/21/jay-leno-drives-chevy-volt-11000-miles-without-gas-nets-2365-mpg/
>>>

>>>Yeah I could be finding fault with the Volt and pining for a flying
>>>car or whatever instead, but then I'd be taking work from backseat
>>>drivers. Fuck, not even backseat drivers, full time chair drivers like
>>>Bonkers.
>>

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:01:49 +0000, Charlie+ <cha...@xxx.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:33:22 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote as underneath :
>
>snip

>>>>
>>>><g> No. Those are post-WWII club racers. I only brought them up
>>>>because of the "very light car" subject line. They make an interesting
>>>>contrast with today's crop of superlights.
>>>>
>>>>Those club racers had *horrible* drag coefficients, but low frontal
>>>>area. The Cd on a Lotus 7 is around 0.70; the same as a bicycle with
>>>>rider. The Cd for a Hummer H2 is 0.57. For a Volt, around 0.28. A
>>>>paving brick is 2.1. <g>
>>>
>>>Ed, you stopped looking a couple of years early in Colin Chapman design
>>>evolution, take a look at the Lotus 11 Club racer (the LeMans version
>>>also but more expensive rear suspension) really slippery, really light
>>>spaceframe and Al. bodywork, Coventry Climax, went like the clappers,
>>>can be used on the road! C+
>>
>>Yes, the 11 and 15 were very slick. I don't think they'd be called
>>club racers by my generation, though. Chapman raced them in
>>international competition.
>>
>>As for "can be used on the road," I suppose someone could. For that
>>matter, Lotus made (almost as a joke, but you could buy one) a "road"
>>version of one of their smaller formula cars. Headlights and cycle
>>fenders did no add to the car's panache. <g>
>

>I did in the early 60s and there were others... the only real change we
>made was a Triplex windscreen instead of perspex and a hood - all the
>rest of the road gear, lights etc. were all as original Lotus.
>Ah! The days before limits!!
>A couple of fading pics if your interested!
>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76602553/Lotus%20XI%20in%20Conversion.jpg
>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76602553/Lotus%20XI%20Roadgoing.jpg
>C+

'Looks like it was fun, C+. But where would I put my stereo speakers?
<g>

I lashed eveything I owned onto the back of my MG Midget, and into the
cracks and crevices. It looked like a dung beetle hurtling down the
road.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:15:27 +0000, Charlie+ <cha...@xxx.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:06:54 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote as underneath my scribble :

>>>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76602553/Lotus%r20XI%20in%20Conversion.jpg

>>>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76602553/Lotus%20XI%20Roadgoing.jpg
>>>C+
>>
>>'Looks like it was fun, C+. But where would I put my stereo speakers?
>><g>
>>I lashed eveything I owned onto the back of my MG Midget, and into the
>>cracks and crevices. It looked like a dung beetle hurtling down the
>>road.
>

>Well the XI was a lot roomier than say the Lotus 7 but you would have
>got miles more into your Midget! We put a radio in the Lotus XI but
>only any use when the roar of the engine and tyres were silent!! Very
>light cars have their disadvantages but the fun and need for speed
>outweigh the comforts - when your' young enough!! :) . Id hate to try
>insure such a beast for the road nowdays! C+

I didn't even try putting a radio in my Midget. I had a Stebro muffler
on it when it wasn't racing. I couldn't have heard the radio anyway.
Most of the time, I had the heater out of it, too.

I'm sorry to hear about the insurance situations in Canada and the UK.
Here in New Jersey, I could get liability insurance on your car,
cheap. Collision would be iffy -- we have an insurance inspector make
a judgement on that, for homebuilts and exotics. It would be
expensive, in all likelihood, or it would have a large deductable.

But we have a way around it. If the car is over 25 years old, we get
"historic and street rod" registration (cheap). And if we don't drive
it more than some mileage limit -- 5,000 miles per year, I think, with
my insurance company -- insurance, again, is cheap.

This all varies by state. And "cheap" is relative, of course. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qom6l8ldb3ghpulnt...@4ax.com...

I see you are winning friends and influencing people all over the place.
What a dick.

R wink, if it doesn't weigh 3800#, jerkoff is not innerested.
KiddingHimself actually thinks planetary gears and a transmission are
necessary in a gas generator setup.
If he's right, and that's actually what's in the Volt, GM needs a little
schooling as well. They should mebbe ride Amtrack now and then, see how
diesel locomotives do it.

Other industry savvy critics have pegged the Volt: Overpriced,
over-engineered.
Planetary gears.... give me a fukn break....
--
EA

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:48:22 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:


>Planetary gears.... give me a fukn break....

I take it that you don't know anything about any of the Prius
drivetrains either.

"Toyota's familiar Hybrid Synergy Drive system. A planetary
"electronic CVT" gearset blends electric and combustion power as and
when it's needed."
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065189_2012-toyota-prius-plug-in-hybrid-ultimate-guide

Yeah, Toyota is as stupid as GM according to you, right? How is it
that you're here typing out horseshit instead of heading one of their
engineering departments?

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 29, 1:48 pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

KiddingNoOne reminds me of John Carroll in so many ways.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 29, 2:58 pm, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:48:22 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Planetary gears....  give me a fukn break....
>
> I take it that you don't know anything about any of the Prius
> drivetrains either.
>
> "Toyota's familiar Hybrid Synergy Drive system. A planetary
> "electronic CVT" gearset blends electric and combustion power as and

> when it's needed."http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065189_2012-toyota-prius-plug-in...

>
> Yeah, Toyota is as stupid as GM according to you, right? How is it
> that you're here typing out horseshit instead of heading one of their
> engineering departments?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/uk-autos-electric-hydrogen-idUSLNE91303P20130204

"Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who
helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles
hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

"Because of its shortcomings - driving range, cost and recharging time
- the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most
conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."

I'm left wondering what part of "we need something entirely new" a
blowhard like KiddingNoOne can't grasp?

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...

I proly wouldn't fare too well, but I'd fare better than you, mostly because
I can read on grade level.

The reason Prius uses planetary gears is bec, well, precisely as yer li'l
quote says: to blend electric and ICE power mechanically.

Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
power, at least not mechanically. The ICE PRODUCES electric power.
Thevenin and Norton (theorems) then do the blending of electric power
between battery and generator..

So while the Prius, or any hybrid, has mechanical need for the mechanical
blending for power, the Volt does not, which is what makes that design so
elegant -- in principle.

But apparently, once again, along with the $45K price tag and 3800# weight,
the *execution* of that design was NOT so elegant.
Mebbe they threw them planetary gears in there bec they knew assholes like
you don't mind accelerating overpriced over-engineered 3800# compact cars,
and would thusly pay for it.

You haven't even bothered to ask WHY, if a diesel locomotive has exactly TWO
components (a diesel generator and electric motors), does a Volt go thru all
these effing design contortions??

Well, I don't really know, YOU CERTAINLY don't know, but the result is
clear: over-priced over-engineering.
That YOU are stupid enough to not only pay for, but also to brag about.
Assholes like you do a little "web research" to show how smart you are, to
put other people down.
When you just don't understand basic science. GM did it, so it has to be
right. Riiiiiiight.......

More correctly: GM pitches overpriced overengineered stuff to assholes like
you, and if it can find enough of you, it will make money. Which ergo makes
it right. But only in a world of ignerint assholes.

Sheeit, if you want to brag about sumpn, buy a GT500 (650 hp??) and brag
about that.... Or a Hennesey-tuned McLaren, 1200 hp.....
But to flap your asscheeks about a VOLT for umpteen threads?? You gotta get
a life, dude.
--
EA

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...

>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
>power, at least not mechanically.

Wrong again. From my previous link:

"the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now�in
"charge-sustaining" mode�the smaller electric motor is also affixed to
the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
hybrid."http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/chevy-volt-hybrid-drive-system

"The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car
calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's
power."
http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-explains-volt-drivetrain-says-volt-electric-vehicle-90758.ht

I am no longer astonished at how little you bother to research a
subject before pretending to know more about it than the manufacturer.
That is a hallmark of a crank.

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:qa1el8hll0gqj0v97...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...
>
>>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
>>power, at least not mechanically.
>
> Wrong again.

OK, let me re-phrase it:
The fundamental design of the Volt does not REQUIRE it to blend energy
mechanically.



From my previous link:
>
> "the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now-in
> "charge-sustaining" mode-the smaller electric motor is also affixed to

> the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
> directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
> hybrid."

Which is stupid on it's face. It totally defeats the elegance of
gas-generator premise.

Oh I see yer into popular mechanics. So was I, when I was 13.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/chevy-volt-hybrid-drive-system
>
> "The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car
> calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's
> power."
> http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-explains-volt-drivetrain-says-volt-electric-vehicle-90758.ht
>
> I am no longer astonished at how little you bother to research a
> subject before pretending to know more about it than the manufacturer.
> That is a hallmark of a crank.

You're right, I didn't research it, cuz I just assumed chevy woulda designed
it the right way.
Now that you're in web research mode, look at the energy trail of a
diesel-electric locomotive, and you'll see that,, at least in the
locomotives I'm familiar with, you gots a diesel generator and traction
motors.... none of that parallel hybrid planetary gear transmission
bullshit.

So not only did you buy an over-priced, over-engineered bullshit car, you
bought one that was POINTLESSLY overengineered.
And you still haven't asked why Volt overcomplicated the fundamental premise
of the gas-generator-traction motor concept.
Oh, I know why you don't ask.... cuz you couldn't find the answer
pre-packaged for you on a website.

So now you have shown me that the Volt has NO redeeming qualities. It took
a great idea and shot 8 out of 10 toes off that idea. I didn't know that,
and I appreciate your pointing alladat out for me.
--
EA

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 9:41 am, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:qa1el8hll0gqj0v97...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> > <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

> >>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...
>
> >>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
> >>power, at least not mechanically.
>
> > Wrong again.
>
> OK, let me re-phrase it:
>     The fundamental design of the Volt does not REQUIRE it to blend energy
> mechanically.
>
> From my previous link:
>
>
>
> > "the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now-in
> > "charge-sustaining" mode-the smaller electric motor is also affixed to
> > the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
> > directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
> > hybrid."
>
> Which is stupid on it's face.  It totally defeats the elegance of
> gas-generator premise.
>
> Oh I see yer into popular mechanics.  So was I, when I was 13.
>

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/chevy-vol...

>
>
>
> > "The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car
> > calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's
> > power."

> >http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-exp...

>
> > I am no longer astonished at how little you bother to research a
> > subject before pretending to know more about it than the manufacturer.
> > That is a hallmark of a crank.
>
> You're right, I didn't research it, cuz I just assumed chevy woulda designed
> it the right way.
> Now that you're in web research mode, look at the energy trail of a
> diesel-electric locomotive, and you'll see that,, at least in the
> locomotives I'm familiar with, you gots a diesel generator and traction
> motors....  none of that parallel hybrid planetary gear transmission
> bullshit.
>
> So not only did you buy an over-priced, over-engineered bullshit car, you
> bought one that was POINTLESSLY overengineered.
> And you still haven't asked why Volt overcomplicated the fundamental premise
> of the gas-generator-traction motor concept.
> Oh, I know why you don't ask....  cuz you couldn't find the answer
> pre-packaged for you on a website.
>
> So now you have shown me that the Volt has NO redeeming qualities.  It took
> a great idea and shot 8 out of 10 toes off that idea.  I didn't know that,
> and I appreciate your pointing alladat out for me.
> --
> EA

The justification for buying a Chevy Volt for those that aren't
blowhards like KiddingNoOne is quite simple:

I like the car and I decided to buy it.

For KiddingNoOne the justification is:

I purchased a Chevy Volt because it's a great investment.

I have lots of money and you don't.

I'm smarter than you, etc.

If you disagree with my logic your acting just like like Mark Wieber.

Anyone who questions my logic is broke and on welfare, too poor to
afford it, stupid, "bonkers".... new reasons that I'll continue to
invent.

[Existential Angst]

"jon_banquer" <jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:403bc00b-5718-4409...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

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



100% on the money.

However, you can learn even from assholes, and I learned that the Volt is
NOT the great design I thought it was.
See the new thread on the chevy volt design itself. If there are any
insights around here into the details of power transmission in the general
sense, it should be an inneresting thread -- IF Kidding stays out of it....
LOL
--
EA

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:41:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"

<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qa1el8hll0gqj0v97...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
>>>power, at least not mechanically.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
>OK, let me re-phrase it:
> The fundamental design of the Volt does not REQUIRE it to blend energy
>mechanically.

Yes, it does. Both Toyota and GM have determined that it takes 2
electric motors and an ICE, and multiple modes of operation to get
best efficiency. Your saying "locomotive" over and over doesn't change
the reality.

>From my previous link:
>>
>> "the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now-in
>> "charge-sustaining" mode-the smaller electric motor is also affixed to
>> the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
>> directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
>> hybrid."
>
>Which is stupid on it's face. It totally defeats the elegance of
>gas-generator premise.

It's not stupid, it's actual award winning engineering
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/14/chevy-volt-grabs-aeis-best-engineered-vehicle-of-2011-award/
as opposed to your idiotic ranting.

>> I am no longer astonished at how little you bother to research a
>> subject before pretending to know more about it than the manufacturer.
>> That is a hallmark of a crank.
>
>You're right, I didn't research it, cuz I just assumed chevy woulda designed
>it the right way.

IOW, as I've been telling you from the start, you don't know what
you're talking about and continue to put your conclusions before your
research.

>Now that you're in web research mode, look at the energy trail of a
>diesel-electric locomotive, and you'll see that,, at least in the
>locomotives I'm familiar with, you gots a diesel generator and traction
>motors

Everybody knows the basics of how locomotives work. It doesn't
translate to vehicles no matter how times you keep saying it.

>.... none of that parallel hybrid planetary gear transmission
>>bullshit.

... that works perfectly well on the Prius C for example that you
touted, although you'll never grasp the contradiction.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:41:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"

JESUS! Will you guys knock it off? A Volt is NOT a
"gas-generator-traction-motor" design. Those locomotives are NOT
plug-ins. They use that configuration because it's proven to be a
better way to couple an IC engine to the very different operating
conditions of a railroad locomotives. There have been a few
straight-diesel locomotives, in the US and in the UK. They were
failures because of inflexibility in diesels of those sizes, and
because of the enormous difficulty of coupling them to the wheels
through a mechanical transmission.

The Volt is a plug-in serial hybrid with some parallel-hybrid features
-- 'way complicated, but because of limitations in current technology,
not because GM's engineers like to pretend they're Mercedes-Benz
engineers, using three parts when two parts will do. <g>

Like all of the various hybrids so far, it's a glimpse into the
future. There are some owners for whom it makes reasonable sense. Like
all EVs of all types, it makes no economic sense for most of us. But
it's a step in a direction that will make sense for more people, in
more circumstances, as the concept is tested in the field and refined.

But neither does a Cadillac or Porsche SUV make any sense. Or any
Cadillac or Porsche, for that matter. Sports Car Graphic ran a spoof
many decades ago, in which they showed a MG-TD pickup truck and a
Ferrari GTO halftrack. Little did they suspect that Porsche would
build a half-assed truck for yuppies some day. I'm waiting for a
Maserati RV or an Aston Martin dump truck next...

So all electric vehicles are interim steps, which appeal to people who
like the concept and like to try new ideas. Assuming that we may have
cheap electricity from alternative sources some day, they're one way
to deal with the distribution problem. Right now, the efficiencies
don't work out. But they may well do so.

Anyone who thinks that hydrogen fuel cells are a better prospect isn't
paying much attention. Almost all hydrogen now is produced from
reformed natural gas. Talk about hack jobs! And the prices, and
failures due to contamination...Jesus. There isn't a significant
pipeline in America that will carry hydrogen without being completely
rebuilt. Good luck with that.

As for the likelihood that we'll be able to use alternative electric
sources, versus other sources of liquid fuels in IC, consider that all
of the liquid fuel promises have failed. Every one. Not that we don't
have some cellulosic ethanol in the pipeline some day, or something
derived from another source, but, so far, those options don't look any
better than EVs. And natural gas IC -- well, if you don't want to go
very far and if you don't need a trunk. Like EVs, they make sense for
some people.

The Li-ion battery is the biggest problem. There is some promise for
aluminum-air and some of the nano-structure carbon batteries, but
they're in the lab, along with algae-derived liquid fuels and
controlled nuclear fusion. In fact, they're ahead of fusion.

Somebody has to take the first step, in every technology. Sometimes it
works, and sometimes it doesn't. Gunner was wondering why the Doble
steam car isn't around today. It worked great -- very reliable and set
all kinds of records. But it cost 40 times as much as a Ford and much
more than a Duesenberg or Rolls Royce. Nice try, Doble. It ain't for
us peons.

The Volt is highly subsidized and the economics of operating it are
all skewed out of shape. That's what we do with new technologies in a
lot of cases. That's what it takes. It doesn't bother me at all.
Without it, we wouldn't have jet planes, rural electrification, or
hydroelectric power. None of them made any economic sense at first.
Some of them still don't. The market isn't up to the job.

I haven't followed all of your arguments, but you're arguing over
engineering details that are largely cutting-edge stuff that is hardly
known. You won't need the parallel-hybrid complications when there's a
cost-effective battery or battery/capacitor system that will handle
the necessary discharge rates. You won't have cost efficiency until
the capacity is large enough to run on electricity almost all the
time, and the IC engine size can be further reduced. These are
engineering projects that are being developed as we speak.

Meantime, we have the Volt -- the first effort by any manufacturer to
make a serious plug-in serial hybrid that almost makes it, and that
seems to work out for quite a few users.

What is there to argue about? Do you think you have the engineering
problems worked out better than GM? Or do you think we should all just
forget it, and stick with what we have? The Model T was pretty good at
getting us around. Maybe we should have stuck with it, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 11:19 am, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:41:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:qa1el8hll0gqj0v97...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> >> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

> >>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
> >>>power, at least not mechanically.
>
> >> Wrong again.
>
> >OK, let me re-phrase it:
> >    The fundamental design of the Volt does not REQUIRE it to blend energy
> >mechanically.
>
> >From my previous link:
>
> >> "the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now-in
> >> "charge-sustaining" mode-the smaller electric motor is also affixed to
> >> the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
> >> directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
> >> hybrid."
>
> >Which is stupid on it's face.  It totally defeats the elegance of
> >gas-generator premise.
>
> >Oh I see yer into popular mechanics.  So was I, when I was 13.
>

> >http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/chevy-vol...

>
> >> "The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car
> >> calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's
> >> power."

> >>http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-exp...

The Chevy Volt is way too heavy.

There is a reason I named this thread: A Very Light Car

[Existential Angst]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3a8el8ll8c8k8nn15...@4ax.com...

DOOD!!!!!!

CHILL!!!! Yer gonna have an aneurism before you get to see my GR510!!!!!!

Mebbe it's time for Chevy to go back and simplify a bit??
Mebbe your point about the Doble applies to the Volt?

And, basically, if the super-straighforward diesel-locomotive model does NOT
apply to a car, why not?
I addressed this in a new thread. I don't really see where cutting edge
technology is needed to generate juice and feed it to motors or batteries --
or to switch off between generator and batteries What's so cutting edge
about that? I think it's a common-sense strategy.

The real technology, as you addressed, is in the batteries -- or whatever --
themselves.
And mebbe some pyooter shit so people don't have to manually throw
switches -- and personally, I'd rather throw the switches.

You may have missed my post about the reserve valve on motorcycle tanks --
no fuel monitoring required. The exact analogy can be applied to batteries.
With, imo, no loss of, well, anything!

Also, I *like* the Volt..... or at least its basic premise of changing the
trad'l hybrid strategy. But dayum, how does a simple concept get so
complicated.... and heavy???

Yeah, I know, pyooters are nothing but adding circuits..... yet they got
complicated..... but I don't see that analogy applying here.

Oh, btw, apropos of your other comments on power sources, etc:
The diesel-locomotive strategy (or Volt's strategy, if you prefer) can
be applied to ANY scenario:
Use whatever hi-tech system electricity-producing fuel system you want, and
simply back it up with a gas/generator system **in electrical parallel** --
not the mechanical parallel of trad'l hybrids. The electric traction motors
will thus always be the final power delivery link. And is thus the elegant
simplification, the common denominator.
--
EA


>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:19:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Do you think you have the engineering
>problems worked out better than GM?

Yes, EA absolutely thinks he does! The best summary of his position is
in his own words: "Chevy is apparently populated by a bunch of
assholes"

> Or do you think we should all just
>forget it, and stick with what we have? The Model T was pretty good at
>getting us around. Maybe we should have stuck with it, eh?

No, both EA and Bonkers are happy to see new tech. EA thinks it should
already be applied to lower the price and weight, as in, carbon fiber!
Neither of them appreciate the economics or the engineering that it
took to bring us what we already have. EA says he'll buy an econobox
eventually. More power to him... except that it includes most of the
very elements that he's complaining about! Bonkers is touting whatever
Aptera-looking darling that will probably never make it to market as
proof that current tech is bloated and grossly overweight. Other than
that, the rest is merely the two of them tossing out every insult they
can think of, eg, a link to a popular mechanics article means I read
popular mechanics. Much the same as you've run into and endlessly
countered in dozens of threads that were much longer than this one. I
don't have your stamina, but I do admit to mining the depth of
irrationality it takes for Usenet posters to claim that they can do
better than what GM spent a billion to accomplish.

[Ed Huntress]

That's easy to say when you aren't the engineer who has to design it
to meet the design criteria -- and the price.

--
Ed Huntress

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3idel8t7a4932pi9s...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:19:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Do you think you have the engineering
>>problems worked out better than GM?
>
> Yes, EA absolutely thinks he does! The best summary of his position is
> in his own words: "Chevy is apparently populated by a bunch of
> assholes"

Very often initial designs are more complicated than necessary.
I'm actually surprised at Ed's take on this. Mine is not a slur on chevy
engineers per se.
But it COULD be a slur on management who may not be listening to some of
their engineers.

Bottom line is, you don't know, Ed don't know, and I don't know why shit is
the way it is in the Volt.
You swing from the dick of the status quo, and I'm simply asking why has
chevy foregone a much simpler strategy.
You yap yap yap yap about ICE, motor sizes, shit you basically know nothing
about cuz you don't understand basic parallel circuits. When parallel
circuitry (in the Volt's case) is one of the keys to its function. See
below.

Mebbe there IS a good reason for the Volt complexity. But you haven't
explained it, no one has. Mebbe in the new thread.

>
>> Or do you think we should all just
>>forget it, and stick with what we have? The Model T was pretty good at
>>getting us around. Maybe we should have stuck with it, eh?
>
> No, both EA and Bonkers are happy to see new tech. EA thinks it should
> already be applied to lower the price and weight, as in, carbon fiber!
> Neither of them appreciate the economics or the engineering that it
> took to bring us what we already have. EA says he'll buy an econobox
> eventually. More power to him... except that it includes most of the
> very elements that he's complaining about!

Yeah, but at $18K, and 2500#...... LOL
AND at about the same net-mpg's as the Volt!!!!!
You edit wonderfully....

Bonkers is touting whatever
> Aptera-looking darling that will probably never make it to market as
> proof that current tech is bloated and grossly overweight. Other than
> that, the rest is merely the two of them tossing out every insult they
> can think of, eg, a link to a popular mechanics article means I read
> popular mechanics. Much the same as you've run into and endlessly
> countered in dozens of threads that were much longer than this one. I
> don't have your stamina, but I do admit to mining the depth of
> irrationality it takes for Usenet posters to claim that they can do
> better than what GM spent a billion to accomplish.

GM spent billions pandering to assholes like you, not nec'ly solving hybrid
engineering problems.

I've already outlined how you can MANUALLY accomplish all that the volt
does. If there's a flaw, point it out.
If not, please, finally, stfu.

And note one thing: the Pruis c et al DO need some highfalutin software et
al to accomplish the ICE/battery "optimization" you mis-spoke about.

But the Volt does not operate this way: It simply runs the batteries to
empty (actually it doesn't or isn't supposed to, but that's another story),
and then simply switches over ICE/generator mode.
What's so fukn complicated about that? What's so expensive?? What's so
cutting edge?? It's an obvious common sense strategy -- the crux of which,
dare I mention it again, is the diesel-electric locomotive.
--
EA

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 12:18 pm, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:19:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
>

KiddingNoOne is full of shit and has now been reducing to lying. I
have said many times I think GM has excellent engineering. I've also
directly stated what the problem with the GM is: their management. I
own a GM vehicle and have always really liked GM engines and
transmissions. In my 51 years I've owned many GM cars and trucks.

KiddingNoOne bad mouths the Aptera constantly because the Aptera and
now the Edison II (which won the 5 million dollar X Prize) have a lot
in common and show how flawed the Chevy Volt is.

[jon_banquer]

It's easy for me to say because I've talked with former engineers who
worked for Aptera at length.

Why do you think KiddingNoOne feels he has to slam Aptera constantly
and completely ignore the Edison II? I know the reason. Do you?

It's easy for anyone to come to the conclusion that for electric cars
to work they need to be very light weight. It helps when you read what
the engineers have to say rather than what marketing has to say.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:38:28 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3idel8t7a4932pi9s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:19:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you think you have the engineering
>>>problems worked out better than GM?
>>
>> Yes, EA absolutely thinks he does! The best summary of his position is
>> in his own words: "Chevy is apparently populated by a bunch of
>> assholes"
>
>Very often initial designs are more complicated than necessary.
>I'm actually surprised at Ed's take on this.

Why? Do you generally see Ed agreeing that engineers are assholes?

> Mine is not a slur on chevy
>engineers per se.

WTF? You've thrown everything except the kitchen sink at them!

>But it COULD be a slur on management who may not be listening to some of
>their engineers.

Give it up. Admit that it takes what it takes to do the job.

>Bottom line is, you don't know, Ed don't know, and I don't know why shit is
>the way it is in the Volt.

What I know is that it took a billion dollars of engineering to
produce the Volt. It has won engineering awards and customer
satisfaction awards. It can be cost effective for a lot of people. And
I know that anything you can think of has been thought of by thousands
before you and didn't make the cut.

>You swing from the dick of the status quo

Idiot.

>, and I'm simply asking why has
>chevy foregone a much simpler strategy.

No, you haven't been asking anything, merely idiotically ranting.

>You yap yap yap yap about ICE, motor sizes, shit you basically know nothing
>about cuz you don't understand basic parallel circuits. When parallel
>circuitry (in the Volt's case) is one of the keys to its function. See
>below.

Jesus Christ. That is the same as the shit about me not knowing what a
kwh is. Do you really think you're helping your case with such stupid
tactics?

>Mebbe there IS a good reason for the Volt complexity.

Mebbe you should have faced reality and admitted that from the get go.

> But you haven't
>explained it,

I've explained plenty, but you're immune to reason. But why would you
need the help? Just use some common sense and ask yourself, if both
Toyota and GM are doing something more complicated than you
envisioned, there must be a reason for it.

>no one has.

What, the answers are supposed to come to you? I gave you about a
dozen links! Why not read the info instead of digging a deeper hole?

> Mebbe in the new thread.

No, it's going to take more than that. Weatherboarding perhaps.

>But the Volt does not operate this way: It simply runs the batteries to
>empty (actually it doesn't or isn't supposed to, but that's another story),
>and then simply switches over ICE/generator mode.

No, it doesn't. And if you don't understand it by now with all the
help you've been given it's because you don't want to know.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:11:51 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>But dayum, how does a simple concept

It was never a simple concept except in your misunderstanding that it
was merely a series hybrid. It is in fact a very complicated concept.

> get so
>complicated....

Because it needs to be complicated to work. Yes, simple minds can
envision something simpler working better. As soon as I see you
driving that I'll start taking you seriously.

> and heavy???

It is NOT heavy. It's about the weight of the battery heavier than my
Camry, but has better utility. Which is an accomplishment that
required some good engineering. It's about the weight of a Camaro or a
Taurus, neither of which anybody thinks of as behemoths.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 12:38 pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I'm not. Suggest you take Ed off the pedestal you have him on. Ed's
thinking can be very flawed at times. Why do you think I've gone at it
with Ed so hard in the past and in the recent past?

http://www.freep.com/article/20130116/BUSINESS0101/130116123/General-Motors-reduce-cost-of-Chevrolet-Volt-Mark-Reuss

"General Motors believes it can reduce the cost of the next-generation
Chevrolet Volt by “thousands” of dollars, GM North America President
Mark Reuss said tonight."

In other words, GM knows the Chevy Volt is too expensive.

Here is a big clue on what's so wrong with the Chevy Volt straight
from GM:

"Reuss said GM would benefit if it decides to customize a vehicle
platform for the Volt instead of repurposing an existing platform like
it did on the current version when it chose to use the same
architecture it uses for the Chevy Cruze."

[Existential Angst]

"jon_banquer" <jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:acda9eb6-7a2d-429f...@f5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

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

iirc, that hysterical asshole kidding also implied that weight was an
ADVANTAGE ito regenerative braking.
Now, while this is in and of itself true, it is so thermodynamically
big-picture ignerint (to wit, what was the energy required to GET that
weight up to speed), Kidding will be talking about his backyard perpetual
motion machine, and how it's making his electric meter run backwards......

Light weight and CdA are indeed ultra-important. Mindnumbing to think that
weights of cars, across the board, have increased 50% since the '80s....
not my analysis, but from Motor Trend or Car/Driver or somesuch....
Oh, Oh, but the safety of the li'l children.....
--
EA

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:11:51 -0400, "Existential Angst"

?? I'm chill. But I'm not asleep. d8-)

>
>Mebbe it's time for Chevy to go back and simplify a bit??
>Mebbe your point about the Doble applies to the Volt?

The Doble had a design goal and they met it. Unfortunately, it
produced something they couldn't sell enough of to stay out of
bankrupcy. Millionaires were in short supply, and they had enough
other choices among the builders who were going bankrupt for the same
reason.

The Volt, if my guess is right, will go down in automotive history as
a ground-breaker that tested all sorts of ideas, and solved them as
well as they could be solved. First of all, it had to look and feel
like a regular American car, not like some flyweight freak that looks
like it would blow away in a good storm.

>
>And, basically, if the super-straighforward diesel-locomotive model does NOT
>apply to a car, why not?

First off, it's not a plug-in hybrid. That was the first idea for the
whole thing. Second, because of the way railroads are graded and the
operating parameters, it doesn't have to deal with a fraction of the
load/speed ratio that a car has to handle.

A diesel-electric locomorive basically is a diesel with an electric
transmission, not a serial hybrid.

>I addressed this in a new thread. I don't really see where cutting edge
>technology is needed to generate juice and feed it to motors or batteries --
>or to switch off between generator and batteries What's so cutting edge
>about that? I think it's a common-sense strategy.

Try it and see where you get. My recollection is that one of the best
of the EV homebuilts, a Honda CRX with Li-ion batteries and
ultracapacitors to handle passing and climbing hills, cost well over
$100,000 to build. And that was with mass-produced, off-the-shelf
components throughout and no accounting for labor costs.

>
>The real technology, as you addressed, is in the batteries -- or whatever --
>themselves.
>And mebbe some pyooter shit so people don't have to manually throw
>switches -- and personally, I'd rather throw the switches.
>
>You may have missed my post about the reserve valve on motorcycle tanks --
>no fuel monitoring required.

'63 and earlier VWs, too. Jeez, I hated when you had to kick that
lever over when you were out in the middle of nowhere.

>The exact analogy can be applied to batteries.
>With, imo, no loss of, well, anything!

Not quite. It would result in your frequently running the main
batteries down to the bottom. Depending on battery type, that is NOT
good for their service life.

>
>Also, I *like* the Volt..... or at least its basic premise of changing the
>trad'l hybrid strategy. But dayum, how does a simple concept get so
>complicated.... and heavy???

Market demands and production cost. They didn't build it for people
like you and me.

>
>Yeah, I know, pyooters are nothing but adding circuits..... yet they got
>complicated..... but I don't see that analogy applying here.
>
>Oh, btw, apropos of your other comments on power sources, etc:
> The diesel-locomotive strategy (or Volt's strategy, if you prefer) can
>be applied to ANY scenario:

If it was just an IC-electric car, fuel efficiency would suck a big
one. You would have both the generating and the motor losses, which
are greater than for a mechanical transmission.

The Volt makes out because it has big batteries, allowing a smaller
(and more efficient) IC engine, plus some of its range is
all-electric.

>Use whatever hi-tech system electricity-producing fuel system you want, and
>simply back it up with a gas/generator system **in electrical parallel** --
>not the mechanical parallel of trad'l hybrids. The electric traction motors
>will thus always be the final power delivery link. And is thus the elegant
>simplification, the common denominator.

I'm not following you. A plain serial hybrid always uses the electric
traction motors for all power delivery. When the IC engine is running,
you have that additional power output to drive the electric motors, in
addition to the batteries.

Either way, you need a big electric motor.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 1:17 pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "jon_banquer" <jonbanq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

It's no coincidence that the lead engineers and designers for both the
Edison II and the Aptera are/were race car engineers / sports car
designers who know how important weight is:

http://www.edison2.com/personnel/

"Ron Mathis

Chief of Design

Ron is a mechanical engineer with nearly three decades of experience
in professional motor racing. He has worked on flagship projects for
Audi, Jaguar, and Dodge. While at Doran Enterprises, he was
responsible for the ground-up design of the JE4 Daytona Prototype and
the American Le Mans Series Ford GTR. Ron has also served as race
engineer for championship winning teams, most recently with Audi Sport
North America on the R10 program. Among many wins and championships,
Ron achieved two 24 Hours of Daytona outright victories and a class
win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Ron blends sound engineering with
practical realism in guiding Edison2’s design team."

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:bfgel85857f3brl96...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:38:28 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3idel8t7a4932pi9s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:19:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you think you have the engineering
>>>>problems worked out better than GM?
>>>
>>> Yes, EA absolutely thinks he does! The best summary of his position is
>>> in his own words: "Chevy is apparently populated by a bunch of
>>> assholes"
>>
>>Very often initial designs are more complicated than necessary.
>>I'm actually surprised at Ed's take on this.
>
> Why? Do you generally see Ed agreeing that engineers are assholes?
>
>> Mine is not a slur on chevy
>>engineers per se.
>
> WTF? You've thrown everything except the kitchen sink at them!

Only in your edited mind.

>
>>But it COULD be a slur on management who may not be listening to some of
>>their engineers.
>
> Give it up. Admit that it takes what it takes to do the job.

When I'm ready to swing from GM's dick, like you.

>
>>Bottom line is, you don't know, Ed don't know, and I don't know why shit
>>is
>>the way it is in the Volt.
>
> What I know is that it took a billion dollars of engineering to
> produce the Volt.

Oh, gee.....

It has won engineering awards and customer
> satisfaction awards. It can be cost effective for a lot of people.

In VERY narrow circumstances, mebbe. But not at $45K.

And
> I know that anything you can think of has been thought of by thousands
> before you and didn't make the cut.
>
>>You swing from the dick of the status quo
>
> Idiot.

But you are still swinging....

>
>>, and I'm simply asking why has
>>chevy foregone a much simpler strategy.
>
> No, you haven't been asking anything, merely idiotically ranting.

You can't read on grade level, apparently.

>
>>You yap yap yap yap about ICE, motor sizes, shit you basically know
>>nothing
>>about cuz you don't understand basic parallel circuits. When parallel
>>circuitry (in the Volt's case) is one of the keys to its function. See
>>below.
>
> Jesus Christ. That is the same as the shit about me not knowing what a
> kwh is. Do you really think you're helping your case with such stupid
> tactics?

Well, DO you know what a parallel circuit is?

>
>>Mebbe there IS a good reason for the Volt complexity.
>
> Mebbe you should have faced reality and admitted that from the get go.
>
>> But you haven't
>>explained it,
>
> I've explained plenty, but you're immune to reason. But why would you
> need the help? Just use some common sense and ask yourself, if both
> Toyota and GM are doing something more complicated than you
> envisioned, there must be a reason for it.
>
>>no one has.
>
> What, the answers are supposed to come to you? I gave you about a
> dozen links! Why not read the info instead of digging a deeper hole?
>
>
>> Mebbe in the new thread.
>
> No, it's going to take more than that. Weatherboarding perhaps.
>
>>But the Volt does not operate this way: It simply runs the batteries to
>>empty (actually it doesn't or isn't supposed to, but that's another
>>story),
>>and then simply switches over ICE/generator mode.
>
> No, it doesn't. And if you don't understand it by now with all the
> help you've been given it's because you don't want to know.

You already explained it. You run on batteries only, and don't have to
worry when they run out, cuz the ICE kicks in.
Batteries first, ICE second. Volt explained it that way also, but you did
such a better job!!
Have I missed something?

Now, the Volt COULD in principle operate like a prius, where the batteries
and ICE work together, but then.... but then.... but then....
You wouldn't be able to satchet on by gas stations, then, would you??
--
EA

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 1:23 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:11:51 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >"Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> >news:3a8el8ll8c8k8nn15...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:41:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> >> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

> >>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:qa1el8hll0gqj0v97...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:34:57 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> >>>> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>news:3c3cl8teo2n3ufg9m...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>Unbeknownst to you, however, the Volt does not "blend" ICE and electric
> >>>>>power, at least not mechanically.
>
> >>>> Wrong again.
>
> >>>OK, let me re-phrase it:
> >>>    The fundamental design of the Volt does not REQUIRE it to blend energy
> >>>mechanically.
>
> >>>From my previous link:
>
> >>>> "the motor/generator again couples to the ring gear but now-in
> >>>> "charge-sustaining" mode-the smaller electric motor is also affixed to
> >>>> the running gas engine. In effect, the gas engine supplies power
> >>>> directly to the transmission, which is just like a parallel
> >>>> hybrid."
>
> >>>Which is stupid on it's face.  It totally defeats the elegance of
> >>>gas-generator premise.
>
> >>>Oh I see yer into popular mechanics.  So was I, when I was 13.
>

> >>>http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/chevy-vol...

>
> >>>> "The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car
> >>>> calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's
> >>>> power."

> >>>>http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-exp...

> $100,000 to build. And that was with ...
>
> read more »

The first generation Chevy Volt will remembered as a product that
wasn't revolutionary, was much too heavy and was overpriced. Perhaps
GM can get it right in the second generation Volt.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

It DOES work in parallel mode whenever the computer determines that's
most efficient, you drooling nincompoop. How many ways does it have to
be explained to you? Forget waterboarding, the only way to fix you is
a lobotomy and a reload of the data.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 1:17 pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

"Light weight and CdA are indeed ultra-important."

http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2013/03/gm_reported_to_consider_smalle.html

"GM placing a smaller engine in the Volt is is a workable idea for
several reasons, including reducing the cost of the vehicle as well as
its weight, said Brett Smith, co-director of the manufacturing
engineering and technology group for the Center for Automotive
Research in Ann Arbor.

"Weight is a huge enemy of battery-powered vehicles," Smith said,
adding weight reduction is part of vehicle evolution.

"It's the expected part," he said. "You are refining the vehicle. You
are learning to be more efficient with energy storage."

The smaller engine wouldn't be groundbreaking news and isn't new
technology, but a vehicle using it would still be new and untried,
Smith said.

"It's just a refinement," he said.

Changing the size of the engine on the Volt would have a different
impact than on a conventional motor vehicle, said Craig Hoff,
professor and head of the mechanical engineering department at
Kettering University.

The Volt is powered with an electric motor with a gas engine that
serves to run the generator that recharges the battery, he said.

"I think what they've figured out is if they could achieve enough
electric generation with a smaller engine, they can lighten up the
engine and cut the costs," Hoff said.

The Volt retails at about $40,000 and reducing that cost is one of the
most important things for GM to do going forward, he said."

[Ed Huntress]

Oh. I see. d8-)

>
>Why do you think KiddingNoOne feels he has to slam Aptera constantly
>and completely ignore the Edison II? I know the reason. Do you?

When they've built more than a few of them, we can discuss it. So far,
what you have is a couple of prototypes that no one seems to be able
to build. The Aptera is what....five years late now?

I'm reminded of the PAC-Car II. It got 12,665 mpg in 2005. I believe
they've improved the fuel mileage since then. Nobody would buy it.

>
>It's easy for anyone to come to the conclusion that for electric cars
>to work they need to be very light weight. It helps when you read what
>the engineers have to say rather than what marketing has to say.

Engineers like to talk about cars that no one could sell, either
because no one would want them, or they couldn't afford them.

As Detroit engineers used to say, "any jackass can design a carburetor
for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a Chevrolet."

Some of that is going on here, Jon. Of course we'd like to see a much
lighter car than the Volt. I'm sure that GM would, too.

But no one could buy it. Or *would* buy it. Again, when the Aptera or
the Edison turns into something that could actually sell, we'll see
how it is. Meantime, they're building talking points for PowerPoint
presentations.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 2:25 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There is a large market that will buy a non-traditional car if the
economics make sense.

[Ed Huntress]

Too bad they can't sell anything. I wonder why? Maybe he thinks he's
building race cars, and can build production vehicles out of carbon
fiber and cure them in an autoclave?

Let's see...look at something built cheaper than a F1, and built to a
price point...an IndyCar rolling chassis, maybe. $385,000.

That's without an engine or transmission, of course. Or a body.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Whatever. Without the first, there certainly wouldn't be a second.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 3:10 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

>
> Too bad they can't sell anything. I wonder why? Maybe he thinks he's
> building race cars, and can build production vehicles out of carbon
> fiber and cure them in an autoclave?
>
> Let's see...look at something built cheaper than a F1, and built to a
> price point...an IndyCar rolling chassis, maybe. $385,000.
>
> That's without an engine or transmission, of course. Or a body.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Too bad you haven't done any research so that you would know why they
haven't tried to sell anything yet.

[Ed Huntress]

Too many conversations get off track and blow up. This one is simple:
Given the technology available, the tolerable cost, the safety
requirements and marketability, the Volt is the first serial hybrid
anyone has been able to build in production.

Of course it's overweight and overpriced. That's typical of the first
of anything. Either that, or it's too light, and it breaks. The
original English Ford Cortina, for example. They purposely built it
too light, and then added metal until it didn't fold up. The MGB took
the opposite tack. It was heavier than it had to be. Neither company
had built a unibody before, and no one usually gets it right the first
time out (Except for Nissan, but they just copied a BMW <g>)

I owned two cars that weighed around 1500 lb. or less, and there was a
time I swore I'd never own anything that weighed over 2000. But
everything has changed, particularly safety, and all cars are heavy --
except for a Lotus Elise. My 2-door Focus hatchback coupe weighs 2600
lb., fer chrissake. It looks like it should weigh 1000 lb. less.

In general, I think that all hybrids are interim cars; two complete
powertrains just can't survive. But we don't have any better fuel
economy target right now than a serial hybrid. One hopes they'll get
lighter and cheaper. But I don't see any hybrid coming in as light as
a comparable all-IC car.

The real question will be how much fuel they'll consume, and what
type. Weight is important but it's not the only issue. There are some
really heavy cars out there that have great highway economy, even with
IC only. For example, the Audi A6 2.0T Quattro: 5,100 pounds gross
weight, 33 mpg.

That's better than my 2600 lb. Focus.

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:25:08 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
><jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 30, 12:26�pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:30:23 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

>>> That's easy to say when you aren't the engineer who has to design it
>>> to meet the design criteria -- and the price.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>It's easy for me to say because I've talked with former engineers who
>>worked for Aptera at length.
>
>Oh. I see. d8-)

LOL You're so polite!

A trike pretending to be a car so it can sidestep the issue of
crashworthiness? No problem! Insurance for a car that probably never
could have been certified crashworthy? No problem! $25k for a two
seater? No problem! Bonkers investing in vaporware? No prob.... oops,
hold on there a minute.... Perfect example of talk being cheap. :)

>As Detroit engineers used to say, "any jackass can design a carburetor
>for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a Chevrolet."
>
>Some of that is going on here, Jon. Of course we'd like to see a much
>lighter car than the Volt. I'm sure that GM would, too.
>
>But no one could buy it. Or *would* buy it.

Assuming the reductions came in the form of perhaps affordable
composite or aluminum panels or whatever, plus trimming here and there
there'd be a practical lower weight limit. Maybe down to the 3200 of
the Prius plugin. It would be tough to get down that far though, it's
not like GM didn't do everything practical already. Aluminum hood,
forged aluminum wheels, no spare tire, only 4 cupholders, etc. :) But
no way could it get so light as to be unmarketable as a mainstream
car.

As for a seriously radical approach, the VW XL1 is getting some first
drives.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/11/2014-volkswagen-xl1-first-drive-review-video/
2 seats, carbon fiber, magnesium, drilled billet, low hp, slow, gocart
feeling, no suspension, no chance of offering good value. Some
excellent engineering from a serious company, but still unproven
crashworhiness. With all those compromises, still 1800 pounds for a
two seater. So I think it's very safe to say that a radical 4 seater
that's a little less of a gocart and can reach market is bound to be
upwards of 3000, and therefore still have a conventional feel and be
saleable IF the price could magically be affordable.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

The curb is more like 4000. It puts the 40 mph ICE only of the Volt in
perspective.

>That's better than my 2600 lb. Focus.

Yup, and the regen of the hybrids take a lot of the sting out of
accelerating the weight.

[Ed Huntress]

Well, there's an opportunity for you, Jon. Just be careful not to trip
on the long line of experienced automotive engineers who thought the
same thing, and then wound up falling on their swords.

--
Ed Huntress


>

[Ed Huntress]

Well, I know that Aptera went bust and sold out to the Chinese.
Anything else?

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

Wrong. It's typical of an evolutionary approach to problem solving
where only a revolutionary approach will work. Neither you or
KiddingNoOne understand why a evolutionary approach is doomed to
failure in this case.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 3:51 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> Well, there's an opportunity for you, Jon. Just be careful not to trip
> on the long line of experienced automotive engineers who thought the
> same thing, and then wound up falling on their swords.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Ed, suggest you worry about living your own life instead of telling me
how to live mine.

[jon_banquer]

Aptera didn't sell out. Their assets were purchased while they were in
bankruptcy. Aptera suffered from very bad management / a lousy
business plan, not from bad engineering.

Further, I was referring to the Edison II and not Aptera when I stated

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:34:26 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
<whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:25:08 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>><jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 30, 12:26�pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:30:23 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>
>>>> That's easy to say when you aren't the engineer who has to design it
>>>> to meet the design criteria -- and the price.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>It's easy for me to say because I've talked with former engineers who
>>>worked for Aptera at length.
>>
>>Oh. I see. d8-)
>
>LOL You're so polite!
>
>A trike pretending to be a car so it can sidestep the issue of
>crashworthiness? No problem! Insurance for a car that probably never
>could have been certified crashworthy? No problem! $25k for a two
>seater? No problem! Bonkers investing in vaporware? No prob.... oops,
>hold on there a minute.... Perfect example of talk being cheap. :)

It looks like a cricket with wheel pants, which may present a
marketing problem.

>
>>As Detroit engineers used to say, "any jackass can design a carburetor
>>for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a Chevrolet."
>>
>>Some of that is going on here, Jon. Of course we'd like to see a much
>>lighter car than the Volt. I'm sure that GM would, too.
>>
>>But no one could buy it. Or *would* buy it.
>
>Assuming the reductions came in the form of perhaps affordable
>composite or aluminum panels or whatever, plus trimming here and there
>there'd be a practical lower weight limit. Maybe down to the 3200 of
>the Prius plugin. It would be tough to get down that far though, it's
>not like GM didn't do everything practical already. Aluminum hood,
>forged aluminum wheels, no spare tire, only 4 cupholders, etc. :) But
>no way could it get so light as to be unmarketable as a mainstream
>car.

The car is designed to point the way for future development of a
higher volume production car. If you start out by building it with
race car technologies that don't scale up, all you've done is build a
historical curiosity.

There have been plenty of those around already. Speaking of which, I
saw a Bricklin in town a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen one of
those Canadian freaks for a couple of decades.

>
>As for a seriously radical approach, the VW XL1 is getting some first
>drives.
>http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/11/2014-volkswagen-xl1-first-drive-review-video/
>2 seats, carbon fiber, magnesium, drilled billet, low hp, slow, gocart
>feeling, no suspension, no chance of offering good value. Some
>excellent engineering from a serious company, but still unproven
>crashworhiness. With all those compromises, still 1800 pounds for a
>two seater. So I think it's very safe to say that a radical 4 seater
>that's a little less of a gocart and can reach market is bound to be
>upwards of 3000, and therefore still have a conventional feel and be
>saleable IF the price could magically be affordable.

That's a big if. My gut feeling is that the fuel situation would have
to be dire before plug-in hybrids would be competitive enough to carry
their own weight.

But we'll see. Right now, it makes sense to try some things in
short-run production and see what looks viable in the long run.
Serial, plug-in hybrids look like a good example.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

> >http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/11/2014-volkswagen-xl1-first-drive-re...

> >2 seats, carbon fiber, magnesium, drilled billet, low hp, slow, gocart
> >feeling, no suspension, no chance of offering good value. Some
> >excellent engineering from a serious company, but still unproven
> >crashworhiness. With all those compromises, still 1800 pounds for a
> >two seater. So I think it's very safe to say that a radical 4 seater
> >that's a little less of a gocart and can reach market is bound to be
> >upwards of 3000, and therefore still have a conventional feel and be
> >saleable IF the price could magically be affordable.
>
> That's a big if. My gut feeling is that the fuel situation would have
> to be dire before plug-in hybrids would be competitive enough to carry
> their own weight.
>
> But we'll see. Right now, it makes sense to try some things in
> short-run production and see what looks viable in the long run.
> Serial, plug-in hybrids look like a good example.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

"It looks like a cricket with wheel pants, which may present a
marketing problem."

It's a marketing problem only if the economics don't work. If they do
work there are plenty of people who would love to own it and drive it.
It's original and unique in a way that you or KiddingNoOne can't and
never will be able to grasp.

[Ed Huntress]

Jon, when you pile up some automotive design engineering experience,
you'll have something of your own to talk about. In the meantime,
trying to second-guess and criticize the engineering behind the Volt
is an exercise in foolishness.

There's more to it than building some one-off that you can show off to
the press. There are a lot of one-offs and prototypes out there that
looked good at first glance. Then you look at the manufacturing that
would be required to make something like them in production, even in
modest quantities, and you realize that most of them don't have a
chance.

Hope springs eternal, however, and most of them keep going until, like
Aptera, they go Chapter 7. So now the Chinese may take another stab at
it.

Good luck. Car production in composites is an iffy proposition. Bodies
are one thing; structure is another. As I said, a production,
all-the-same IndyCar is $385,000 for a rolling chassis. It isn't
because there's so much composite material in it. It's because the
entire process is expensive and slow. These aren't fiberglass fishing
boats.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:04:55 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
<jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 30, 3:52�pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:14:55 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jonbanq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 30, 3:10�pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Too bad they can't sell anything. I wonder why? Maybe he thinks he's
>> >> building race cars, and can build production vehicles out of carbon
>> >> fiber and cure them in an autoclave?
>>
>> >> Let's see...look at something built cheaper than a F1, and built to a
>> >> price point...an IndyCar rolling chassis, maybe. $385,000.
>>
>> >> That's without an engine or transmission, of course. Or a body.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Ed Huntress
>>
>> >Too bad you haven't done any research so that you would know why they
>> >haven't tried to sell anything yet.
>>
>> Well, I know that Aptera went bust and sold out to the Chinese.
>> Anything else?
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Aptera didn't sell out. Their assets were purchased while they were in
>bankruptcy. Aptera suffered from very bad management / a lousy
>business plan, not from bad engineering.

They went Chapter 7, Jon. That's the end of the line. When they're in
Chapter 7 bankrupcy, their assets get sold off. They're liquidated.

But it isn't usually engineering that kills them. Sometimes it's "bad
management," but that's usually a general cover for marketing idiocy.
They tried to build something that no one wants to buy.

>
>Further, I was referring to the Edison II and not Aptera when I stated
>you haven't done any research so that you would know why they haven't
>tried to sell anything yet.

We'll be very interested to see if either of them ever reaches
production. But I doubt if they will.

We'll frack the nose off of Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore and
drive CNG Civics before all but a small number of people would buy one
of those wheeled insects.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 4:19 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

>
> Jon, when you pile up some automotive design engineering experience,
> you'll have something of your own to talk about. In the meantime,
> trying to second-guess and criticize the engineering behind the Volt
> is an exercise in foolishness.
>
> There's more to it than building some one-off that you can show off to
> the press. There are a lot of one-offs and prototypes out there that
> looked good at first glance. Then you look at the manufacturing that
> would be required to make something like them in production, even in
> modest quantities, and you realize that most of them don't have a
> chance.
>
> Hope springs eternal, however, and most of them keep going until, like
> Aptera, they go Chapter 7. So now the Chinese may take another stab at
> it.
>
> Good luck. Car production in composites is an iffy proposition. Bodies
> are one thing; structure is another. As I said, a production,
> all-the-same IndyCar is $385,000 for a rolling chassis. It isn't
> because there's so much composite material in it. It's because the
> entire process is expensive and slow. These aren't fiberglass fishing
> boats.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Ed,

You have no idea the experience I do or don't have with electric cars
or composites. Further, you have no idea the kinds of conversations
I've had with electric car engineers so stop making assumptions and
talking out of your ass.

"There's more to it than building some one-off that you can show off
to the press."

What part of winning the 5 million dollar X Prize don't you
comprehend? Instead of posting more bullshit, like you have above,
maybe it's time to do some actual research on the Edison II and what
they have already accomplished.

"In the meantime, trying to second-guess and criticize the engineering
behind the Volt is an exercise in foolishness."

Nothing to second guess. It's well accepted by even GM that weight and
price are a major problem with the Chevy Volt. I've posted the links.
Suggest you read them.

[Ed Huntress]

I don't think so.

>It's original and unique in a way that you or KiddingNoOne can't and
>never will be able to grasp.

So's the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.

http://tinyurl.com/clcbrx4

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 4:35 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:04:55 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ed, you often make statements that show you don't know what your
talking about and that you haven't done the proper research. This was
the case when you tried to shrink sheet metal and failed. The fact is
that lots of people wanted to buy Aptera's and many of them put down
deposits to be on a waiting list to buy it. Just because you don't
like the design of a car doesn't mean it won't be successful. For sure
I don't like the light weight, underpowered, wimpy sports cars that
you like but I recognize there is a market for those that do like
underpowered, wimpy sports cars.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 4:41 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >It's a marketing problem only if the economics don't work. If they do
> >work there are plenty of people who would love to own it and drive it.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> >It's original and unique in a way that you or KiddingNoOne can't and
> >never will be able to grasp.
>
> So's the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/clcbrx4
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Epic fail.

The Oscar Meyer Wienermobile is so successful that many of them have
been made.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

It's been apparent for quite a while that cars like the Volt, at their
subsidized price at least, could serve a sizeable portion of the
market. But sales were poor and I was getting skeptical that the
public at large was willing to make a change. I was thinking that in
general terms, at a time when purchasing power is in an inexorable
decline, it would be impossible to get enough people to take any pay
now to save later approach. Then there's the hair trigger knee jerk
reaction to things like the Toyota gas pedal and the Volt fires. An
irrational story can get legs and sink anything for no good reason.
But I'm slightly more optimistic now. Hybrid sales are improving and
no other shoe has dropped. Reviews remain overwhelmingly positive and
the miles driven are creeping up to the point that everyone might know
someone with an EV. Attitudes on gay marriage seemed to hit a tipping
point seemingly overnight, so maybe there's hope for EVs as well.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

Yeah, you don't have a linkedin group. :)

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 4:51 pm, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Right, but unlike you Ed isn't an anonymous posting pussy like you who
attacks others and hides behind an alias. That would be yet another
basic concept you can't grasp.

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 4:51 pm, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

You will never had a successful LinkedIn group because you have no
idea how to run one. No one I know and respect would want to have any
part of a group that you ran.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

The Aptera certainly got free press like the Wienermobile.

I liked the concept. If it could have been built for the $20k target I
think they could have had a niche market. Sales at least in the
hundreds per year, something like kit cars I imagine. But they
couldn't possibly make an EV version for that price, especially in
relatively small numbers. And anybody who bought one at any price
would have to accept the strong possibility of owning an orphan. The
company's best hope would have been an ICE kitcar version. As for mass
market, forget it, DOA. I can't believe they ever thought they should
get government funding for a doomed concept.

[Ed Huntress]

That makes a good press release. What do you do when the $5 million
runs out?

>Instead of posting more bullshit, like you have above,
>maybe it's time to do some actual research on the Edison II and what
>they have already accomplished.

They built one or two, right? Yahoo.

>
>"In the meantime, trying to second-guess and criticize the engineering
>behind the Volt is an exercise in foolishness."
>
>Nothing to second guess. It's well accepted by even GM that weight and
>price are a major problem with the Chevy Volt. I've posted the links.
>Suggest you read them.

I know about the Volt, Jon.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 5:06 pm, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Once again you're full of shit and KiddingNoOne who has a clue because
you have no idea how many people put down deposits to buy an Aptera.

[Ed Huntress]

You'd make a fine automobile industry marketing exec., Jon.

Let us know when they hit 32,000 Apteras. That's how many Volts were
sold since 2010. You need really deep pockets to survive on that kind
of production.

I probably won't still be living, but the other members here will be
interested.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Mar 30, 5:15 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:46:38 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You'd make a fine creator of sales and marketing bullshit, Ed and in
fact that's what you have done most of your life.

[Ed Huntress]

Yeah, 11 have been built since 1936. It's a real moneymaker. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

When was the last time your ideas won 5 million dollars, Ed?

[Ed Huntress]

My guess is that EVs of various types will fill a small market
segment, with serial plug-ins being the most viable. Now it's a matter
of cost.

And, of course, watching to see what new technologies may do. It
appears that we may be stalled in available battery technology for
now, but there are a lot of things in the pipeline. One or more could
emerge and change the whole landscape.

Meantime, GM is piling up some experience.

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:15:04 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:


>You'd make a fine automobile industry marketing exec., Jon.

Nope, they'd turf him just like everybody else has. First time he got
caught with his sockpuppeting act it would be game over.

"UPDATE -- July 8, 2007 -- I had to close this blog post to further
comments and to remove the personal attacks between Jon and some other
newsgroups readers. Before the interview, I made an agreement with Jon
about the style of the interview and the way to handle it. Jon didn�t
respect our agreement, posting comments under fake names. Jon�s
authentic and fake comments are all posted from the same IP address,
72.199.251.224. I can now see that my trust in Jon was misplaced."
http://blog.novedge.com/2007/07/an-interview-wi.html

[Ed Huntress]

And how did they make out with their deposits, Jon?

Maybe if Aptera actually could have built those little crickets for
the price they quoted, everyone would have come out better.

--
Ed Huntress