On 6/24/2010 11:17 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>
>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
>> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
>> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
>
> Because US buyers want gas guzzlers. The smart car in Europe came with
> a tiny turbodiesel. Fuel mileage was unbelievable, but acceleration was
> not good. They knew it wouldn't sell in the US, so they didn't even
> try, and instead put in a gas engine with twice the power, since gas is
> so cheap in the US that buyers don't care that much about fuel mileage.
>

I don't think it is that simple. Plenty of US drivers want, buy and
drive normal cars. I think the portion that does buy gas guzzlers can
easily be divided into two groups disregarding the few percent who
actually need a truck for towing or hauling 6 canoes etc.

One group consists of people who need to be trendy. When the my fluffed
up truck is bigger than your fluffed up truck and has 6 DVD players fad
started a lot of folks bought into it. My neighbor bought a huge pickup
truck with dual wheels, the folks across the street bought his and hers
Escalade ESVs (Extra Stupid Vehicle?) and they weren't unusual. Then
when the fuel cost went up and many might look at you and decide you
were something else besides trendy those vehicles largely disappeared
from driveways.

The second group are the aggressive get out of way I am much more
important than you types. Driving a truck adds to their ability to
intimidate on the road. I don't think the percentage of those types has
changed.

George wrote on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:18:10 -0400:

> On 6/24/2010 11:17 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd
>>> think it was a lightweight, electric car but it's not. At
>>> 1800 lb it seems awful heavy and why put in a gas engine in a micro
>>> car in this day and age?
>>
>> Because US buyers want gas guzzlers. The smart car in Europe
>> came with a tiny turbodiesel. Fuel mileage was unbelievable,
>> but acceleration was not good. They knew it wouldn't sell in
>> the US, so they didn't even try, and instead put in a gas
>> engine with twice the power, since gas is so cheap in the US that
>> buyers don't care that much about fuel mileage.
>>
> I don't think it is that simple. Plenty of US drivers want,
> buy and drive normal cars. I think the portion that does buy
> gas guzzlers can easily be divided into two groups
> disregarding the few percent who actually need a truck for
> towing or hauling 6 canoes etc.

> One group consists of people who need to be trendy. When the
> my fluffed up truck is bigger than your fluffed up truck and
> has 6 DVD players fad started a lot of folks bought into it.
> My neighbor bought a huge pickup truck with dual wheels, the
> folks across the street bought his and hers Escalade ESVs
> (Extra Stupid Vehicle?) and they weren't unusual. Then when
> the fuel cost went up and many might look at you and decide
> you were something else besides trendy those vehicles largely
> disappeared from driveways.

I have a SUV that is moderately economical as such things go. My shared
driveway has a slope that becomes slippy after a snow fall. The
four-wheel drive of my SUV has proven very useful, especially if I
compare my neighbors' efforts on the shared part of the driveway. If I
replace my SUV it will be for a hybrid car with four-wheel drive. The
Toyota Prius would be very attractive but it does not have four-wheel
drive and the choice of affordable cars with a good reputation is small.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Maybe it's time for some facts?
>
> http://www.smartusa.com/smart-fortwo...del=pure_coupe
> starting at $11,990* (US$)
> Fuel consumption
> 33 city/41 highway (2010 EPA estimated)
>
> http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/focussedan/
> US$16,290
> 24 city/35 highway

I get more like 27/38 with my Focus. If I were driving a Smart that
suggests I'd get comparable results in it. Call it 36/44 plus or minus.
That's better than the previously mentioned 25 versus 30. The price
difference is also nice.

I still think the best reason in favor of a Smart mentioned so far is
easier parking in a crowded downtown area.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person.

It's also strange that the front wheels are closer together than the bak
wheels. Some folks care about strange but eventually it will be
routine.

> You'd think it was a
> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?

In the US a car needs to be able to go 300 miles on a tank of gas or few
will buy it. Any car that can't go that far is automatically a second
car in the family for commuting only for the vast majority of the
purchasers.

It's still hard to make a battery-only car that goes that far and is
affordable. The price of hybrids continues to drop so it should be an
option in a couple of years in a car the size of a Smart.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:02:04 -0400, George >
wrote:

> The one friend I mentioned does high tech accident investigation and is
> a stickler for accuracy and detail. He fitted his Smartcar with a good
> fuel flow fuel economy meter and he meticulously records mileage and
> fuel he uses.
>
<snip>
>
> I then had an opportunity to check the fuel economy and averaged 46 MPG
> using both the meter and recording the fuel used and mileage driven.

Never heard of that gadget. Is it like the meter that's built into
BMWs and Mercedes that tells you how much gas you're using at xx mph
or does it track the average miles per gallon for each fill up?

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.

I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
transition.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 6/25/2010 5:15 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person.
>
> It's also strange that the front wheels are closer together than the bak
> wheels. Some folks care about strange but eventually it will be
> routine.
>
>> You'd think it was a
>> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
>> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
>
> In the US a car needs to be able to go 300 miles on a tank of gas or few
> will buy it. Any car that can't go that far is automatically a second
> car in the family for commuting only for the vast majority of the
> purchasers.
>
> It's still hard to make a battery-only car that goes that far and is
> affordable. The price of hybrids continues to drop so it should be an
> option in a couple of years in a car the size of a Smart.

An all electric car that can go 300 miles is probably not practical yet.
The Chevy Volt has a range of more than 300 miles although it needs a
small gas engine to recharge the battery seems like good idea although
the price tag is pretty hefty.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> Fuel cell _is_ all electric. You just charge the battery by putting
> hydrogen in it instead of hooking wires to it.
>
> And when I'm stuck in traffic in a New England winter, a big tank of
> hydrogen is a _much_ more reassuring heat source than a half-discharged
> battery.

It's pretty hard to drive a hydrogen car if you can't find the fuel it
up. Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
other alternate fuel within the city limits.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:01:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> On 6/25/2010 2:02 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:54:16 -1000, dsi1
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
> >> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
> >> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
> >
> > You're right. It should have a hybrid engine, but I don't think
> > they're made that way in Europe either.
>
> Well, if it was a hybrid, you'd add the weight of a generator and
> electric motor and a battery to that total, and the volume to hold them all.
>
I know nothing about technology, but extra weight and volume would be
a good thing in terms of personal safety.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:50:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> On 6/22/2010 6:47 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and it is
> >> amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't seem to
> >> have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
> >> think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
> >
> > If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
> > stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
> > the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.
>
> Why do you think that you need "heavier cars for freeway driving"? How
> does being on one kind of road require a different car than another?
>
> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any safer on
> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".

Your perception of safety is different from mine.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>
>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>
> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
> transition.
>

I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
years for all electric.

On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:50:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/2010 6:47 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and it is
>>>> amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't seem to
>>>> have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
>>>> think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
>>>
>>> If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
>>> stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
>>> the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.
>>
>> Why do you think that you need "heavier cars for freeway driving"? How
>> does being on one kind of road require a different car than another?
>>
>> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any safer on
>> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
>> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".
>
> Your perception of safety is different from mine.
>
And mine! I know too many people who are showing signs of their
motorcycling days of their youth. In some, it's just a gammy leg, in
others, full on quadriplegia.

I "like" my safety cell when I'm moving along the highway at 100 KPH+

Krypsis

On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>
>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>> transition.
>>
>
> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
> years for all electric.

I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a long
time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.

Krypsis

On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>
>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>> transition.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>> years for all electric.
>
> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a long
> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.

Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?
It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at this
point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those won't
be coming out until at least 2017. :-)

My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)

>
> Krypsis
>

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>
> > The problem is that most induction cookers have a pot-sensor that relies
> > on magnetism and they won't turn on if there's not a magnetic pot on the
> > burner.
>
> I wonder if there is a way to over-ride that? Like placing a small
> supermagnet in the bottom of the pot?

It's always a good idea to find out *why* safety devices are installed
on equipment *before* you attempt to bypass them. Would that cause the
elements to burn out so you have to buy a new stove, or would the stove
blow up, killing everybody in the kitchen? Makes a difference, you know.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/24/2010 11:17 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
> >> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
> >> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
> >
> > Because US buyers want gas guzzlers. The smart car in Europe came with
> > a tiny turbodiesel. Fuel mileage was unbelievable, but acceleration was
> > not good. They knew it wouldn't sell in the US, so they didn't even
> > try, and instead put in a gas engine with twice the power, since gas is
> > so cheap in the US that buyers don't care that much about fuel mileage.
> >
>
> I don't think it is that simple. Plenty of US drivers want, buy and
> drive normal cars.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "normal" car. I was being a little
silly, but the smart car in the US comes with a 1.0 liter, 70HP 3
cylinder engine, which gets 33 city/41 highway (2010 EPA estimated).
Sure, that's twice the horsepower of the European model, but it's still
pretty small for a car in the US. dsi1 wanted to know why they even put
a gas engine in it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/25/2010 8:45 AM, George wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 6:05 AM, Omelet wrote:
>> In >,
>> "J. > wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that most induction cookers have a pot-sensor that relies
>>> on magnetism and they won't turn on if there's not a magnetic pot on the
>>> burner.
>>
>> I wonder if there is a way to over-ride that? Like placing a small
>> supermagnet in the bottom of the pot?
>
> But that wouldn't accomplish anything. Induction heaters work because
> the strong magnetic field they create is coupled to a magnetically
> permeable object (the pot or pan in this case) which causes that object
> to be heated.

I thought it was ohmic heating from induced eddy currents. I mean an
induction furnace has no problem melting a batch of aluminum.

On 6/25/2010 4:41 PM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:50:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/22/2010 6:47 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and it is
>>>>> amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't
>>>>> seem to
>>>>> have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
>>>>> think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
>>>> stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
>>>> the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that you need "heavier cars for freeway driving"? How
>>> does being on one kind of road require a different car than another?
>>>
>>> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any safer on
>>> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
>>> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".
>>
>> Your perception of safety is different from mine.
>>
> And mine! I know too many people who are showing signs of their
> motorcycling days of their youth. In some, it's just a gammy leg, in
> others, full on quadriplegia.
>
> I "like" my safety cell when I'm moving along the highway at 100 KPH+

But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
highway?

There is this strange perception that driving on a controlled-access
highway is somehow more "dangerous" than driving on surface streets.
The reality is that no matter what you're driving, you're more than
twice as likely to die (on a per vehicle mile basis) on a surface street
than on a controlled-access highway.

On 6/25/2010 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:02:04 -0400, >
> wrote:
>
>> The one friend I mentioned does high tech accident investigation and is
>> a stickler for accuracy and detail. He fitted his Smartcar with a good
>> fuel flow fuel economy meter and he meticulously records mileage and
>> fuel he uses.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> I then had an opportunity to check the fuel economy and averaged 46 MPG
>> using both the meter and recording the fuel used and mileage driven.
>
> Never heard of that gadget. Is it like the meter that's built into
> BMWs and Mercedes that tells you how much gas you're using at xx mph
> or does it track the average miles per gallon for each fill up?

From the description it sounds like he's using a proper laboratory
instrument and not some piece of consumer crap.

On 6/25/2010 1:34 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2010 11:17 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
>>>> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
>>>> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
>>>
>>> Because US buyers want gas guzzlers. The smart car in Europe came with
>>> a tiny turbodiesel. Fuel mileage was unbelievable, but acceleration was
>>> not good. They knew it wouldn't sell in the US, so they didn't even
>>> try, and instead put in a gas engine with twice the power, since gas is
>>> so cheap in the US that buyers don't care that much about fuel mileage.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it is that simple. Plenty of US drivers want, buy and
>> drive normal cars.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by a "normal" car. I was being a little
> silly, but the smart car in the US comes with a 1.0 liter, 70HP 3
> cylinder engine, which gets 33 city/41 highway (2010 EPA estimated).
> Sure, that's twice the horsepower of the European model, but it's still
> pretty small for a car in the US. dsi1 wanted to know why they even put
> a gas engine in it.
>

The Europeans have misread the US automobile market yet again. The
buyers of this kind of car are only interested in one thing: getting the
highest MPG that they can get. The car looks like an ultralight, high
MPG car but doesn't deliver. That's the breaks.

On 6/25/2010 2:20 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> Fuel cell _is_ all electric. You just charge the battery by putting
>> hydrogen in it instead of hooking wires to it.
>>
>> And when I'm stuck in traffic in a New England winter, a big tank of
>> hydrogen is a _much_ more reassuring heat source than a half-discharged
>> battery.
>
> It's pretty hard to drive a hydrogen car if you can't find the fuel it
> up.

It's pretty hard to drive any car if you can't find the fuel. There was
a time when your city didn't have a gas station you know. Things change.

> Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
> other alternate fuel within the city limits.

Check again. Most major cities have a purveyor of industrial gases.
It's just not listed as an automotive filling station.

On 6/25/2010 5:49 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>> transition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>> years for all electric.
>>
>> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
>> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a long
>> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
>> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.
>
> Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?
> It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at this
> point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those won't
> be coming out until at least 2017. :-)
>
> My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
> difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
> with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
> probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
> molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
> wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
> post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)

In other words people a hundred years from now will live in a smaller
world where someone in Hartford doesn't date someone in New Haven, for
example (electric cars don't have the range for that).

I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.

On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:01:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/2010 2:02 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:54:16 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
>>>> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful heavy
>>>> and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
>>>
>>> You're right. It should have a hybrid engine, but I don't think
>>> they're made that way in Europe either.
>>
>> Well, if it was a hybrid, you'd add the weight of a generator and
>> electric motor and a battery to that total, and the volume to hold them all.
>>
> I know nothing about technology, but extra weight and volume would be
> a good thing in terms of personal safety.

Not if it's all behind you.

And extra weight and volume translate to increased energy required to
move the whole shebang.

On 26/06/2010 7:49 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>> transition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>> years for all electric.
>>
>> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
>> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a long
>> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
>> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.
>
> Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?

I'm 72

> It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at this
> point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those won't
> be coming out until at least 2017. :-)

I've seen the electrics come and go, come and go, and it's always the
same problem - lack of range. I suppose the other one is - what do you
do when you run out of volts at an inconvenient location?
>
> My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
> difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
> with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
> probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
> molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
> wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
> post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)
>
I laugh at those who suggest the electric cars (plug in overnight types)
are going to solve the emissions problems. You see, all our electricity
is generated, in my home state at least, by dirty brown coal generators.
All that's going to happen is a transferrence of pollution to where the
generators are.

Krypsis

On 26/06/2010 10:13 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 4:41 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:50:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2010 6:47 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't
>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>> have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
>>>>>> think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
>>>>> stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
>>>>> the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that you need "heavier cars for freeway driving"? How
>>>> does being on one kind of road require a different car than another?
>>>>
>>>> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any safer on
>>>> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
>>>> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".
>>>
>>> Your perception of safety is different from mine.
>>>
>> And mine! I know too many people who are showing signs of their
>> motorcycling days of their youth. In some, it's just a gammy leg, in
>> others, full on quadriplegia.
>>
>> I "like" my safety cell when I'm moving along the highway at 100 KPH+
>
> But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
> highway?
>
> There is this strange perception that driving on a controlled-access
> highway is somehow more "dangerous" than driving on surface streets. The
> reality is that no matter what you're driving, you're more than twice as
> likely to die (on a per vehicle mile basis) on a surface street than on
> a controlled-access highway.

Won't get any disagreement from me there! I remember back to my
motorcycling days when the difference between riding with and without
the headlight on made one hell of a difference to the number of
"externally caused" close shaves I had. Quickly learned to always ride
with the headlights on so I would be "seen" by drivers who were only
looking out for cars. Note too that this was in an era when there were
way fewer cars than now and controlled access highways were practically
unheard of, at least in this country.
Motorists only seem to see things large enough to be perceived as a
threat to them.

Krypsis

On 26/06/2010 10:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 2:20 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Fuel cell _is_ all electric. You just charge the battery by putting
>>> hydrogen in it instead of hooking wires to it.
>>>
>>> And when I'm stuck in traffic in a New England winter, a big tank of
>>> hydrogen is a _much_ more reassuring heat source than a half-discharged
>>> battery.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to drive a hydrogen car if you can't find the fuel it
>> up.
>
> It's pretty hard to drive any car if you can't find the fuel. There was
> a time when your city didn't have a gas station you know. Things change.
>
>> Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
>> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
>> other alternate fuel within the city limits.
>
> Check again. Most major cities have a purveyor of industrial gases. It's
> just not listed as an automotive filling station.

It IS hidden away in an industrial area though! At least, all the ones
in my city are quite a way off any major road.

Krypsis

On 6/25/2010 3:06 PM, Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/2010 1:34 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/24/2010 11:17 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>> In >,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it
>>>>>> was a lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems
>>>>>> awful heavy and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day
>>>>>> and age?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because US buyers want gas guzzlers. The smart car in Europe came
>>>>> with a tiny turbodiesel. Fuel mileage was unbelievable, but
>>>>> acceleration was not good. They knew it wouldn't sell in the US,
>>>>> so they didn't even try, and instead put in a gas engine with twice
>>>>> the power, since gas is so cheap in the US that buyers don't care
>>>>> that much about fuel mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it is that simple. Plenty of US drivers want, buy and
>>>> drive normal cars.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by a "normal" car. I was being a little
>>> silly, but the smart car in the US comes with a 1.0 liter, 70HP 3
>>> cylinder engine, which gets 33 city/41 highway (2010 EPA estimated).
>>> Sure, that's twice the horsepower of the European model, but it's
>>> still pretty small for a car in the US. dsi1 wanted to know why they
>>> even put a gas engine in it.
>>>
>>
>> The Europeans have misread the US automobile market yet again. The
>> buyers of this kind of car are only interested in one thing: getting
>> the highest MPG that they can get. The car looks like an ultralight,
>> high MPG car but doesn't deliver. That's the breaks.
>
>
> There was a Smart car parked next to me at the supermarket. I think it
> was a targa top car.
>
> Aside from a driver and passenger there's not much room for much else.
> You certainly wouldn't make a Costco run in one.

You certainly wouldn't - especially if you like to buy paper products in
bulk.

>
> I was curious to ask a Smart car owner how it handled in the winter on
> snow covered roads in the hills of Pennsylvania. I picture it parked for
> the winter.

They handle winter just fine - head South and don't stop.

>
> Andy

On 26/06/2010 1:07 PM, Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> I laugh at those who suggest the electric cars (plug in overnight
> types)
>> are going to solve the emissions problems. You see, all our electricity
>> is generated, in my home state at least, by dirty brown coal
> generators.
>> All that's going to happen is a transferrence of pollution to where the
>> generators are.
>>
>> Krypsis
>
>
> Krypsis,
>
> My boss from Adeliade, SA drove a Ute in his teen years. I don't recall
> the model but he loved talking about it.

We Aussies love our utes!! If you get a chance, come on down to our Ute
Muster!!!

http://www.deniutemuster.com.au/

More utes on hand than you can shake a stick at!

The muster just keeps getting bigger every year!
>
> It sounded like a truck to have, like I wanted a Corvette, [sigh] VW
> Beetle.

You lusted after a Beetle?? Ralph Nader would hate you!
>
> Meanwhile, I can't picture Australia with electric road trains. Recharge
> every 50 kilometers, overnight!?? With a monster horn over the cab that
> chirps?

They are scary enough with noisy diesel engines. They could really sneak
up on you with quiet electrics!

Some of the longer ones really "wag" that last trailer. Not nice if
you're heading in the opposite direction as yo can't see it for the dust
kicked up by the rest. Golden rule, if you see a road train coming, pull
over as far off the road as you can!
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

Krypsis

In article >,
Krypsis > wrote:

> >>> Then there are also donorcycles...<g>
> >>
> >> I have no idea what that is, Om.
> >
> > Motorcycles.
> > Particularly with helmetless occupants.
> >
> > It's what a lot of ER personnel (and blood bank personnel where donated
> > tissue from cadavers is banked and issued) call them...
>
> I like it!
>
> I will use it amongst the motorcycling fraternity I am in contact with!
>
> Krypsis

<lol> I am surprised that that term is new to you... ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any safer on
> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".

Interestingly enough, all three of the car accidents I've been involved
in (one as a child and 2 as an adult) have all been in town.

Never on the freeway...

I guess you could make that four if you count the one where I was a
pedestrian.

That one was in town too.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/25/2010 6:05 AM, Omelet wrote:
> > In >,
> > "J. > wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is that most induction cookers have a pot-sensor that relies
> >> on magnetism and they won't turn on if there's not a magnetic pot on the
> >> burner.
> >
> > I wonder if there is a way to over-ride that? Like placing a small
> > supermagnet in the bottom of the pot?
>
> But that wouldn't accomplish anything. Induction heaters work because
> the strong magnetic field they create is coupled to a magnetically
> permeable object (the pot or pan in this case) which causes that object
> to be heated.

The question was one of curiosity, so thanks. :-)
I know nada about induction stoves.


I need to eventually replace mine so am thinking out my options.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Food Snob® > wrote:

> > >>> Then there are also donorcycles...<g>
> >
> > >> I have no idea what that is, Om.
> >
> > > Motorcycles.
> > > Particularly with helmetless occupants.
> >
> > > It's what a lot of ER personnel (and blood bank personnel where donated
> > > tissue from cadavers is banked and issued) call them...
> >
> > I like it!
> >
> > I will use it amongst the motorcycling fraternity I am in contact with!
>
> A friend of mine is quadriplegic. When he was in the paralysis ward
> there were 20 other patients. He, and 19 others were there because of
> motorcycle accidents. One had jumped or dived into water that was too
> shallow.
> >
> > Krypsis
>
> --Bryan

We used to have a fenced off cliff locally where morons dove off and
broke their necks. They kept breaking thru the fencing.

Without exception (in the 23 years I worked there), alcohol was always
involved...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
> > Fuel cell _is_ all electric. You just charge the battery by putting
> > hydrogen in it instead of hooking wires to it.
> >
> > And when I'm stuck in traffic in a New England winter, a big tank of
> > hydrogen is a _much_ more reassuring heat source than a half-discharged
> > battery.
>
> It's pretty hard to drive a hydrogen car if you can't find the fuel it
> up. Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
> other alternate fuel within the city limits.

That is currently my biggest concern about all electric cars.
Get stuck on the freeway during an accident for 3 or 4 hours...

You are screwed.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >, dsi1 >
wrote:

> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
> >> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
> >> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
> >> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
> >
> > I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
> > transition.
> >
>
> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
> years for all electric.

From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well enough to
get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck for
up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is that most induction cookers have a pot-sensor that relies
> > > on magnetism and they won't turn on if there's not a magnetic pot on the
> > > burner.
> >
> > I wonder if there is a way to over-ride that? Like placing a small
> > supermagnet in the bottom of the pot?
>
> It's always a good idea to find out *why* safety devices are installed
> on equipment *before* you attempt to bypass them. Would that cause the
> elements to burn out so you have to buy a new stove, or would the stove
> blow up, killing everybody in the kitchen? Makes a difference, you know.
>
> :-)

Sweetie, it's not a matter of safety! It's trying to get the device to
work safely with alternative (currently owned) pans. <g>

For me, it'd not be a problem. Most of my cookware on hand is cast
iron... and very magneting SS. :-)
I was trying to consider the poor aluminum lovers!

But I knew you were just kidding... ;-D
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
> highway?

IMHO with donorcycles. all bets are off... especially if they are too
stubborn to wear helmets.

My few weeks training at a major trauma blood bank taught me that,
especially with the recent Austin donorcycle rally.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 26/06/2010 2:30 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In .au>,
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> Then there are also donorcycles...<g>
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what that is, Om.
>>>
>>> Motorcycles.
>>> Particularly with helmetless occupants.
>>>
>>> It's what a lot of ER personnel (and blood bank personnel where donated
>>> tissue from cadavers is banked and issued) call them...
>>
>> I like it!
>>
>> I will use it amongst the motorcycling fraternity I am in contact with!
>>
>> Krypsis
>
> <lol> I am surprised that that term is new to you... ;-)

Well, I'm not in the medical profession so I don't see motorcyclists
that way! Most people here call them "temporary Australians".

Krypsis

On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>
>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>> transition.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>> years for all electric.
>
> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well enough to
> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck for
> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.

Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.

Krypsis

On 26/06/2010 2:51 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> "J. > wrote:
>
>> But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
>> highway?
>
> IMHO with donorcycles. all bets are off... especially if they are too
> stubborn to wear helmets.
>
> My few weeks training at a major trauma blood bank taught me that,
> especially with the recent Austin donorcycle rally.

The new barriers that they are using on freeways and highways here are
perfect to slice and dice your "donorcycles". They are replacing all the
Armco Railings here with post and wire barriers. About the only thing
that the new railings won't do is package up the remains.

BTW, the remains will be less than useful for donating anything after a
slice and dice!

Krypsis

In article > ,
Krypsis > wrote:

> On 26/06/2010 2:30 PM, Omelet wrote:
> > In .au>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Then there are also donorcycles...<g>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no idea what that is, Om.
> >>>
> >>> Motorcycles.
> >>> Particularly with helmetless occupants.
> >>>
> >>> It's what a lot of ER personnel (and blood bank personnel where donated
> >>> tissue from cadavers is banked and issued) call them...
> >>
> >> I like it!
> >>
> >> I will use it amongst the motorcycling fraternity I am in contact with!
> >>
> >> Krypsis
> >
> > <lol> I am surprised that that term is new to you... ;-)
>
> Well, I'm not in the medical profession so I don't see motorcyclists
> that way! Most people here call them "temporary Australians".
>
> Krypsis

I am pleased to educate you. ;-) Hard fast traveling vehicle vs. non
metal protected body...

You do the math.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine