Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 520702 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #868 on:** April 06, 2019, 03:12:17 PM »

If I have summer tires, I need winter tires as well if the temperature drops below about 40°F fairly often, which it does here. I could probably drive less aggressively and get by though.

I was amazed at the traction those high performance summer tires did on wet pavement in Austin. They were Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s, really almost racing tires with some tread.

https://www.michelinman.com/tire/michelin/pilot-sport-cup-2

They changed the tires after each day's run.

utee94 · « **Reply #869 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:25:36 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on April 06, 2019, 07:27:28 AM

Just take a basic Honda Civic or Accord and compare 0-60 times with "muscle cars" of yore. They compare pretty well overall. The top Honda Civic would smoke nearly any muscle car.

So would the top Golf (which has AWD which really helps).

There was a period from about 1974 to 1984 when even the fastest cars were really slow, a 0-60 time under 10 seconds was "fast". That was the nadir for performance for cars.

True. My 1986 Chrysler Laser XT Turbo would make 0-60 in around 8.2 seconds and was considered "fast" for the era.

utee94 · « **Reply #870 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:32:11 AM »

Right now an electric car wouldn't really suit my needs, but a really well designed hybrid pickup or SUV would. The range for full electrics just isn't there yet for me, especially given my towing wants/needs. But combining the power/torque of an electric motor with the range of the gas engine would be a hell of a combination for towing.

Makes me wonder, is hybrid technology being applied in commercial long haul trucking? Seems like a logical place for it.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #871 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:52:47 AM »

I think a Diesel is a better engine for a hybrid, design one to run at constant RPM, like 2200, and do nothing but generate electricity as needed. Is the electric motors exclusively for drive, like on locomotives. That would simplify transmissions, eliminate the alternator, and increase fuel economy while providing immediate torque.

Regen braking would make brakes last a long long time. You would not need to downshift to brake, no need for a Jake brake. I don't know how many gears a transmission might need, depending.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #872 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:54:24 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on April 10, 2019, 10:25:36 AM

True. My 1986 Chrysler Laser XT Turbo would make 0-60 in around 8.2 seconds and was considered "fast" for the era.

That is the 0-60 time of my Chevy Sonic, which the daughter now drives. It was a turbo as well, 1.4 L. I actually liked that car.
The GTI is of course a lot better, some larger and a good bit faster and better handling. I thought it was a bargain.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #873 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:14:59 PM »

My Ford Flex, with a 285 hp motor, does 0-60 in 8 seconds. But that's due to it being a gigantic heavy pig, and only FWD.

The EcoBoost version with AWD and a 365 hp motor gets down to 5.7s, IIRC. Pretty fast for a kid-hauling station wagon.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #874 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:16:39 PM »

This is one of the reasons fuel cell technology (hydrogen) is potentially the next big deal. The batteries aren't there to power long-haul trucking, but fuel cells can generate their own electricity, without the need for the huge battery storage. With a little push, the diesel trucking fleet could convert to hydrogen and be able to make those long hauls (and hill climbs) on electricity--with torque to spare (and capable of a hydrogen refuel in minutes, rather than the time it takes to recharge EV batteries). Also, smaller batteries would be much better for the environment, as these lithium batteries aren't so awesome environmentally.

Right now the infrastructure isn't there, which makes hydrogen expensive--which itself is silly given how plentiful hydrogen is. California is trying hard to build it out, but seems to be swimming upstream at the moment.

I seriously considered getting a hydrogen-powered car a few months ago, but for a one-car family, it just couldn't quite pencil out. Again, with a little push, it's a real possibility.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #875 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:19:29 PM »

I think anything under 8 seconds or so is adequate these days, and the torque number of often the critical parameter, not horsepower. (They are of course related by RPM.)

Anything under 6 seconds can be considered "fast" or quick, whatever, and under 4 seconds is getting into supercar range, even though it's really Camaro/Mustang range today.

To get under 3 seconds, you need all wheel drive almost without exception. Somebody got a ZR-1 to do 2.95 seconds once.

The GTI is around 6 seconds and I've yet to floor it. I've mashed it a bit for fun. The CTS we had was around 6 seconds with a 4 cylinder engine and 4,000 pounds to haul around.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #876 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:21:33 PM »

Hydrogen is not plentiful. It's all tied up. And getting it out is energy intensive. Then you have transportation and storage and delivery of a very cryogenic fuel.

I saw the math somewhere long ago on generating and transporting and cooling hydrogen and it did not compare with shipping electrons by wire to batteries.

Single digit Kelvin.

CWSooner · « **Reply #877 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:45:54 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on April 10, 2019, 10:52:47 AM

I think a Diesel is a better engine for a hybrid, design one to run at constant RPM, like 2200, and do nothing but generate electricity as needed. Is the electric motors exclusively for drive, like on locomotives. That would simplify transmissions, eliminate the alternator, and increase fuel economy while providing immediate torque.

Regen braking would make brakes last a long long time. You would not need to downshift to brake, no need for a Jake brake. I don't know how many gears a transmission might need, depending.

If you don't need to downshift to have regenerative braking, does that mean that you can't just coast?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #878 on:** April 10, 2019, 12:52:21 PM »

Quote from: CWSooner on April 10, 2019, 12:45:54 PM

If you don't need to downshift to have regenerative braking, does that mean that you can't just coast?

In cars, you can adjust the the controls to do either. Many folks use one pedal driving, if they come off the "gas", they start slowing down rapidly. That would take some adjustment. You can also set it to coast normally and only brake when you hit the brakes.
I understand that many use the one pedal technique and only get on the brakes in an emergency.
In cars, there is no transmission, usually, beyond a step down gear, no gear changes. The motor has torque right off 0 RPM.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #879 on:** April 10, 2019, 02:42:52 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on April 10, 2019, 12:21:33 PM

Hydrogen is not plentiful. It's all tied up. And getting it out is energy intensive. Then you have transportation and storage and delivery of a very cryogenic fuel.

I saw the math somewhere long ago on generating and transporting and cooling hydrogen and it did not compare with shipping electrons by wire to batteries.

Single digit Kelvin.

I'm no scientist, so I'll leave those details to you. My understanding is that with dedicated infrastructure, it would be much less expensive than it is--still more expensive than generating electricity for EV cars. But, batteries capable of supporting long haul trucking are a long way off--whereas fuel cell technology for the same is not. While hydrogen through electrolysis is energy intensive--with whatever impact on the environment as the power generation it relies on--it is not as energy intensive as the internal combustion that currently drives long-haul trucking.

FearlessF · « **Reply #880 on:** April 10, 2019, 02:51:35 PM »

so the proposed Tesla Semi would be for short hauls, less than 500 miles?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #881 on:** April 10, 2019, 03:10:26 PM »

Hydrogen is most often derived from natural gas, leaving carbon as the residue. It's more energy efficient than electrolysis of water. It's still highly energy intensive, and the product has to be cooled which is even more energy intensive.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

utee94

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

utee94

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

SFBadger96

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

CWSooner

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

SFBadger96

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment