Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    shouldn't we use more hydrogen internal combustion engine now? because

    https://futurism.com/a-new-material-...from-seawater/



    https://www.thelancet.com/commission...ion-and-health

    https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcom...6#d6fed292dfc0
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Because this apparent 'breakthrough' in hydrogen generation is yet to be scaled up or properly tested. There are loads of claims of being able to create hydrogen for free, most do not actually work. Also pressuring hydrogen is very expensive and impractical. So it would end up being less energy-efficient, than it is to use hydrocarbons.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There are many problems with using hydrogen power, both in internal-combustion form and in fuel-cell form:
    • Hydrogen must be stored under extremely high pressure and needs a big heavy tank.
    • Hydrogen requires a huge amount of air - the stoichiometric ratio is about 40 parts air to 1 part hydrogen (for petrol it's about 14:1), but because this produces a lot of NOx, a ratio of 80:1 tends to be preferred. In other words, you need quite a big engine to get decent power.
    • There hasn't been much development on hydrogen.
    • Hydrogen fuelling stations are virtually nonexistent.
    • Hydrogen still needs to be produced which requires electricity.
    • Fuel cells aren't hugely efficient (I think the best is about 60%). Better than petrol, but electric motors get 90-95%.

    At least in this country where most people don't have to travel hundreds of miles in one go, electric is probably the better option, at least for cars. A hydrogen car is essentially carrying its own mini power station with it which is only a good idea if you really need range.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    yeah, if we have hydrogen buses why not hydrogen cars?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nikki haley)
    Can I park that at Tesco?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikki haley)
    shouldn't we use more hydrogen internal combustion engine now? because
    No. It's an energetical nightmare to get it, pressurize and store it, plus a hydrogen-powered car needs to carry either terribly heavy or terribly expensive composite tank, which isn't good to fuel efficiency or natural environment either.

    LPG is much better, because it's cheap, produces much less polluting fuses, the infrastructure is cheap to built and already popular in some European countries, and any engine can be easily adapted to run on it.


    (Original post by AngeryPenguin)
    yeah, if we have hydrogen buses why not hydrogen cars?
    Because they exist only because politicians are terrible at engineering. By far, hydrogen is an inefficient nightmare.

    Liquid Petrolium Gas, electrical engines and Ethanol are the only reasonable solutions by now.

    Plus, we should limit the vehicles weight.

    The first generation VW Passat had just 880kg of weight. The current has 1360-1700 kg. And neither uses lightweight materials.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    There's also the problem that unlike batteries or petrol hydrogen is rather explosive... i personally wouldnt want to be in a car crash when the fuel cells rupture... think hindenburg.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    There's also the problem that unlike batteries or petrol hydrogen is rather explosive... i personally wouldnt want to be in a car crash when the fuel cells rupture... think hindenburg.
    Agreed. There's also an issue when it's kept under pressure .. lots of energy waiting to be suddenly released. Whilst you can design a pressure vessel to leak safely, that's less useful with an explosive gas.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not with its current issues.

    Your chart doesn't give the number of years of life expectancy lost, but I'd assume that reducing smoking should be a higher priority. I'd still want to tackle air pollution in cities.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    The first generation VW Passat had just 880kg of weight. The current has 1360-1700 kg. And neither uses lightweight materials.
    You are well aware that you are not comparing like with like. A current Passat is much bigger, luxurious, and safer.

    We should NOT limit vehicle weight. You simply aren't taking all the variables into account, e.g. the energy required to produce a car. Your approach is far too simplistic.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    There's also the problem that unlike batteries or petrol hydrogen is rather explosive... i personally wouldnt want to be in a car crash when the fuel cells rupture... think hindenburg.
    Not quite. The Hindenburg burnt more than exploding, with its painted skin acting as a wick. Pressurised Hydrogen being released could explode - the Hindenburg wasn't pressurised, so didn't quickly mix the Hydrogen with Oxygen.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    You are well aware that you are not comparing like with like. A current Passat is much bigger, luxurious, and safer.
    I've already explained to you, that there are lighter vehicles that are safe as long as they don't hit something much heavier, and it is possible to decrease weight of vehicles even without reducing safety, plus it's not good to have extra weight durin an accident with you because that means more kinetic energy that has to go somewhere. If you're not much heaver than the obstacle and ram it, that energy will go against your vehicle and you.

    Currently, the cars are made of steel, but if you used aluminium and composites it is possible to significantly decrease the weight without reducing confort or safety

    Another way to reduce the weight of vehicles is to get rid of unnecessary comfort equipment, such as power seats, power mirrors, full glass roofs and damping mats from the places that didn't have them just 10 years ago- like wheel alcoves.
    Only by removing power seat regulation, power windows regulation, and unnecessary , mats, you'll save about 50-70kg, for the cost having to adjust the seats and mirrors manually a couple of times a year, and lets say 2dB more.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    We should NOT limit vehicle weight. You simply aren't taking all the variables into account, e.g. the energy required to produce a car. Your approach is far too simplistic.
    I'm taking. Lighter vehicle both consumes less fuel, and takes less resources to produce.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    luxurious
    Very well, you choose luxury and make the peasants suffocate.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    I've already explained to you, that there are lighter vehicles that are safe as long as they don't hit something much heavier, and it is possible to decrease weight of vehicles even without reducing weight, plus it's not good to have extra weight durin an accident with you because that means more kinectic energy that has to go somewhere. If you're not much heaver than the obstacle and ram it, that energy will go against your vehicle and you.
    You don't need to explain it to me - I studied Engineering Science at Oxford. I've no idea what the bold bit was meant to mean.

    Again, your approach is far too simplistic.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Currently, the cars are made of steel, but if you used aluminium and composites it is possible to significantly decrease the weight without reducing confort or safety
    There are cost and manufacturing process implications, not to mention energy. There are cars that use a lot of Aluminium, e.g. many Lotus chassis, Audi A8. Even my 25 year old Porsche has several panels made of it.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Another way to reduce the weight of vehicles is to get rid of unnecessary comfort equipment, such as power seats, power mirrors, full glass roofs and damping mats from the places that didn't have them just 10 years ago- like wheel alcoves.
    People want those features. My 25 year old car has sound deadening material over the wheel arches.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Only by removing power seat regulation, power windows regulation, and unnecessary , mats, you'll save about 50-70kg, for the cost having to adjust the seats and mirrors manually a couple of times a year, and lets say 2dB more.
    Again, people want them.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    I'm taking. Lighter vehicle both consumes less fuel, and takes less resources to produce.
    You talk about using Aluminium. You appear not to know that Aluminium takes an order of magnitude more energy to extract from the ore than steel.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Very well, you choose luxury and make the peasants suffocate.
    Exactly which pollution are you talking about? Cars are not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses. There are issues with particulates, where Diesel engines are particularly bad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    You don't need to explain it to me - I studied Engineering Science at Oxford. I've no idea what the bold bit was meant to mean.
    An obvious typo, I meant it is possible to reduce weight without reducing safety.
    Yes, my approach is simple. Save on materials by making lighter cars that save on fuel because it takes far less energy to accelerate them.
    If selfish people don't agree with this, that's why we have state regulations to deal with such problematic individuals that way or another.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    There are cost and manufacturing process implications, not to mention energy. There are cars that use a lot of Aluminium, e.g. many Lotus chassis, Audi A8. Even my 25 year old Porsche has several panels made of it.
    It wouldn't be a problem if cars were used for longer periods of time to compensate for the costs. Plus, Renault used composites to produce body panels for some popular models such as Megane (the front fenders eg) - that would help to reduce weight as well.
    (Original post by RogerOxon)

    People want those features. My 25 year old car has sound deadening material over the wheel arches.
    Obviously a big and expensive model. Most of cars did not have them.
    Panda doesn't have them and the noise levels are perfectly tolerable.
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Again, people want them.
    That's their problem.
    Lots of cars still don't have these features and they are not even close to be essential. I have already been generous by stating it's ok to have AC, while for most of the automobile's industry history cars did not have AC (which consumes quite a lot of engine power we might add). I've got 3 cars, and neither of them has air condition and it hasn't killed me.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    You talk about using Aluminium. You appear not to know that Aluminium takes an order of magnitude more energy to extract from the ore than steel.
    It is also much more resilient to corrosion than steel, so a combination of aluminium bodywork and highly durable powertrain could last for decades with very little repairs, plus drivetrains can be easily replaced. With the current knowledge on aerodynamics, the only thing that prevents us from making many-decades living fuel-efficient cars, is that people want to have something new every 2-5 years.

    We might also imagine a standardised aluminium roof panel that is used in several car generations and it's not produced again only taken from the scrapped units. Let's say we have a car that has a standard steel body, but the roof panel is a standarised multi-use aluminium panel, while parts such as hood, fenders, and external skin are made of lightweight composites - this isn't such an expensive technology, Renault used composites for fenders, while Daewoo used to them as pillar's skin.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Exactly which pollution are you talking about? Cars are not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses. There are issues with particulates, where Diesel engines are particularly bad.
    Every pollution. I have already explained that industrial pollution is not a concern for a pedestrian in a non-industrial city.
    Visit some big city flooded with heavy traffic, walk around close to the bigger streets and you'll understand what I mean. It's not a factory tens or hundreds miles away that makes it difficult to breathe in such situation, it's the cars.


    And my approach, is exactly as the Ford WRC's technical director


    "I don't understand roadcars. We must move towards greener cars, and yet we put more electronics into them. People want so much comfort in their cars. Do you have central locking in your house? Do you have electric windows, heated seats and air conditioning in your house? No. But people must have this in their car.

    "Things like ABS, we should never get rid off because they are included for safety, but a lot of electronics like folding mirrors are just gimmicks.

    "The best way to save fuel is to make cars lighter. When you see nice sports cars like a Porsche weighing 1600kg, this is wrong. Cars used to be 850kg 20 years ago and we need to get back to this," he said. µ

    https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...rc-cars/page/2
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    An obvious typo, I meant it is possible to reduce weight without reducing safety.
    For most accidents, yes. For head-on ones, no.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Yes, my approach is simple. Save on materials by making lighter cars that save on fuel because it takes far less energy to accelerate them.
    Simplistic. It's not what most people want. For those that do, there's always a Lotus.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    If selfish people don't agree with this, that's why we have state regulations to deal with such problematic individuals that way or another.
    Most people don't *need* their own car. Where do you draw the line?

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    It wouldn't be a problem if cars were used for longer periods of time to compensate for the costs.
    Cars are Engineered to last a certain time / mileage. They can be made to last longer, but they would cost more and be heavier.

    As I repeatedly say, there are many factors that feed into the design of a car. The end-result is a compromise between them all.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Obviously a big and expensive model. Most of cars did not have them.
    Panda doesn't have them and the noise levels are perfectly tolerable.
    Not to a lot of people. For example, try getting your babdy to sleep in it on a long journey.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Lots of cars still don't have these features and they are not even close to be essential. I have already been generous by stating it's ok to have AC, while for most of the automobile's industry history cars did not have AC (which consumes quite a lot of engine power we might add). I've got 3 cars, and neither of them has air condition and it hasn't killed me.
    I live in California. All my cars have air conditioning.

    Again, most people don't need a car. They are not essential.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    It is also much more resilient to corrosion than steel, so a combination of aluminium bodywork and highly durable powertrain could last for decades with very little repairs, plus drivetrains can be easily replaced.
    Powertrains can be made to last a long time. I know of several examples of my 25 year old car that have done over 800K miles without any internal engine work. The gearboxes typically 'only' last 250K miles before needing work though. This level of longevity adds weight and cost.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    With the current knowledge on aerodynamics, the only thing that prevents us from making many-decades living fuel-efficient cars, is that people want to have something new every 2-5 years.
    We advance, so can make newer cars more fuel efficient. There are also cost and weight issues. IMO, fossil fuel powered cars will be replaced by electric ones, so will not all be used for their viable lifetime.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    We might also imagine a standardised aluminium roof panel that is used in several car generations and it's not produced again only taken from the scrapped units.
    It's not going to happen in the mainstream. Aluminium has issues too (energy to extract, metal fatigue, etc), as does the paint finish.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Every pollution.
    Please be more specific - list them.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Visit some big city flooded with heavy traffic, walk around close to the bigger streets and you'll understand what I mean. It's not a factory tens or hundreds miles away that makes it difficult to breathe in such situation, it's the cars.
    Actually, that's not the case in California. There is no MOT test here - just an emissions test every two years (for most cars). The regulations are overly presecriptive, but they do a good job.

    Do you know what percentage of cars are responsible for the majority of polluiton?

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    And my approach, is exactly as the Ford WRC's technical director

    "I don't understand roadcars. We must move towards greener cars, and yet we put more electronics into them. People want so much comfort in their cars. Do you have central locking in your house? Do you have electric windows, heated seats and air conditioning in your house? No. But people must have this in their car.

    Lots of houses where I live have air conditioning. Some have central locking, electric windows (hard to reach ones) and heated toilet seats. People like convenience and luxury. Having a car is more a convenience than need, for most people.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    "The best way to save fuel is to make cars lighter. When you see nice sports cars like a Porsche weighing 1600kg, this is wrong. Cars used to be 850kg 20 years ago and we need to get back to this," he said.
    Better ways to save fuel are:
    1. Walk;
    2. Use public transport.

    Twenty years ago, fewer accidents were surviable. Long trips were a pain. Cars had narrower tyres, cornered less well, took longer to stop, and used more fuel (like for like). Technology has moved on, along with peoples' expectations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    For most accidents, yes. For head-on ones, no.
    Very well. Explain then how the removal of power assistance for seat adjustment, mirrors, glass roof or removal of 4 damping mats decreases safety in head-on collision.

    Unless you want to ram the obstacle, therefore, do more harm someone else if an obstacle is a lighter car, removal of these elements is irrelevant to safety. Actually it even increases safety as lower mass means lower kinetic energy.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Simplistic. It's not what most people want. For those that do, there's always a Lotus.

    That is their problem. We are discussing here, should the hydrogen powered cars should be introduced. I know that an average American wants a big V8, but we are not discussing what people want, only what should be done to protect the environment and improve air quality. I've proposed to limit weight of vehicles as this would be cheaper than hydrogen, or even hybrid propulsion.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Most people don't *need* their own car. Where do you draw the line?
    Use the famous British commons sense.
    While taking away a possibility of using a private transport would make everyday life much more difficult, getting rid of electrical engines that move seats and mirrors while the same work can be done manually and is done only a couple of times a year isn't really demanding from vehicle users.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Cars are Engineered to last a certain time / mileage. They can be made to last longer, but they would cost more and be heavier.
    Is it beyond of your ability to think of more than one factor at the time?
    A cylinder with ceramic bonding costs more? Very well, then don't put the electric motors to the seats you'll save money (and mass) there.
    Gearbox bigger and heavier? Very well, then get rid of a few other unnecessary things, add some composite skin parts and you will save the weight there.
    Plus as I remarked, it is relatively easy to replace components.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    As I repeatedly say, there are many factors that feed into the design of a car. The end-result is a compromise between them all.
    That is why we need state-regulations to counter ridiculous wishes of the customers.
    In the early 70ies there were cars in the US that had 6.6 or even 7-liter engines. Increasing oil prices made customers to turn to much smaller capacity cars. We could very well put weight limitations on new cars, so eventually the manufacturers would be force either to restrict sizes, change materials or get rid of unnecessary and excessive equipment. With the same engine technology it would decrease both fuel consumption and pollution.
    This would be much more reasonable than going beyond the Euro 6 norm which will force the manufacturers to hybridise their cars and make them much less affordable to buy.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)

    Not to a lot of people. For example, try getting your babdy to sleep in it on a long journey.
    Have you ever driven the car actually? Do you know the noise levels?
    Moreover you don't know much about children.
    In the 80ies my uncle's way to make his younger daughter asleep was to put her inside his Polski 125p and drive- it was a very poorly noise-dampened car, with bodyshell and drivetrain dating back to 60ies. It was very loud for today's standards, yet the children could sleep in it during a drive.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    I live in California. All my cars have air conditioning.
    Your defence of irrensponsible attitude may cause places like California inhabitable some day.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)

    We advance, so can make newer cars more fuel efficient. There are also cost and weight issues. IMO, fossil fuel powered cars will be replaced by electric ones, so will not all be used for their viable lifetime.
    As an engineer you should have know than any bodyshell can be equipped with any sort of propulsion. If only the drivetrain configuration is the same, and the engine+transmission module of the same size, it is easily done and normal cars were converted to electrical for many years already.

    All we need is an aerodynamical bodyshell- the manufacturers are not even trying hard now, putting lots of fake vents which become airtraps.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    It's not going to happen in the mainstream. Aluminium has issues too (energy to extract, metal fatigue, etc),
    Nothing is going to happen if you don't have the will to make this happen.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    as does the paint finish.
    This is irrelevant... Paint can be polished or repainted when that doesn't help. Effectively it's 1 000$ every 15-20 years.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)

    Please be more specific - list them.
    We all know what sorts of pollution there are, but I can list them if you start using arguments instead of saying just that something can't be done because people don't want it.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Actually, that's not the case in California. There is no MOT test here - just an emissions test every two years (for most cars). The regulations are overly presecriptive, but they do a good job.
    If you know any town-planners from Oxford, ask them how big is the difference in ventilation between American cities with their vast open spaces, and European cities with narrow streets and whole being placed often in dells.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Do you know what percentage of cars are responsible for the majority of polluiton?
    According to the EPA, motor vehicles collectively cause 75 percent of carbon monoxide pollution in the U.S. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) estimates that on-road vehicles cause one-third of the air pollution that produces smog in the U.S., and transportation causes 27 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. has 30 percent of the world's automobiles, yet it contributes about half of the world's emissions from cars.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Lots of houses where I live have air conditioning. Some have central locking, electric windows (hard to reach ones) and heated toilet seats. People like convenience and luxury. Having a car is more a convenience than need, for most people.
    No surprise an average American's weight is 3.7 tons. :]
    Again, this is their problem. If it will be necessary, the government can stop this stupidity. You have already seen a 90% income tax, perhaps electricity prizes going sky high would make you to rethink your usage of electric windows at home.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Better ways to save fuel are:
    1. Walk;
    2. Use public transport.
    Of course but by this silly argument you could say that we can make cars heavy as tanks because it's better to save fuel by not using them.
    Don't pretend being stupid because you can't be if you studied at Oxford, and it doesn't help the discussion at all.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Twenty years ago, fewer accidents were surviable.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Long trips were a pain. Cars had narrower tyres, cornered less well, took longer to stop, and used more fuel (like for like). Technology has moved on, along with peoples' expectations.
    There are ways and way to achieve same targets. American motoring is a fine example here: american cars were even bigger and heavier in some periods but they were not safer. Also after the year 2000 they were incredibly backward. Push-rod engines were considered obsolete in Europe already by the end of the 60ies, while in the US they were produced after the year 2000. Even Soviet Lada's from the 70ies had more advanced SOHC engines. Same with the live axles, they completely disapeard from European motoring in the early 80ies except for some of communist cars and off-road vehicles, while the US manufacturers kept using them up to 2008 and beyond.

    There was a similar problem in Europe in other matters. The 1970ies ESV prototypes were safer than production models from the early 90ies, but European manufacturers did not launched production of such safe vehicles untill EuroNCAP hasn't shown how dangerous the produced vehicles are. And I bet the people who decided not to use the ESV technology used exactly the same arguments as your's: that it would make cars more expensive and people expect something else.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Very well. Explain then how the removal of power assistance for seat adjustment, mirrors, glass roof or removal of 4 damping mats decreases safety in head-on collision.
    It's somewhat concerning that you don't know, but think that you should be able to prescribe technical solutions to people that do. You should become a politician.

    In a head-on collision, what decides the total acceleration that a car and its occupants will experience? Think about it.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    I've proposed to limit weight of vehicles as this would be cheaper than hydrogen, or even hybrid propulsion.
    Where is your evidence for those assertions? You have already claimed that Aluminium would be cheaper than steel, due to using less of it, not appearing to know how much energy it takes to extract it.

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    While taking away a possibility of using a private transport would make everyday life much more difficult, getting rid of electrical engines that move seats and mirrors while the same work can be done manually and is done only a couple of times a year isn't really demanding from vehicle users.
    Again, you've no idea. Some cars are used by more than one person, which you should be encouraging,

    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Is it beyond of your ability to think of more than one factor at the time?
    No, it clearly isn't. I'm done discussing this with you - you don't seem to want to understand the technical aspects that disagree with your conclusion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Sure... The problem is that most auto manufacturers are focusing on electric cars with batteries. Those that think hydrogen is the way forward, like Toyota, aren't really getting anywhere. Not to mention hydrogen cars, much like electric cars, will suffer from a lack of infrastructure. If there's a lack on infrastructure, people will be less likely to buy, and if people aren't buying, people wont invest in infrastructure. It's a vicious loop that relies on 'early adopters' to kick start adoption and make the infrastructure worth investing in.

    The best alternate fuel at this stage, is probably LPG. Just hope you don't spring a leak part way through your journey, cause that sh*t stinks like hell, it's one of the few smells that nearly make me throw up when I smell them, it seriously smells that bad. Smells fine coming out the back end, but straight out the bottle? Awful smell.

    That being said, the automotive industry is a very minor problem regarding pollution compared to other industries like shipping. In 2015, the ICCT claimed that if the shipping industry were a country, it'd be the sixth largest polluter, which, at least at the time, put it between Germany and Japan. 1 large cargo ship pollutes just as much as ~50M cars. ~20 large cargo ships to equal pollution from cars.

    So I ask you this; Why are we still victimising cars and their owners, when we should actually be pushing our primary focus (not to say that we shouldn't have any focus on the automotive industry) to bigger polluters like the shipping industry.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    No, it clearly isn't. I'm done discussing this with you - you don't seem to want to understand the technical aspects that disagree with your conclusion.
    Despite being more competent, you have not written anything specific on technical aspects of the problem, so how am I supposed to the said aspects?
    All you did was saying that aluminium bodyshells would be more expensive and completely ignored my proposition to extend use of cheap solutions that have already been present on the market in recent years.


    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    It's somewhat concerning that you don't know, but think that you should be able to prescribe technical solutions to people that do. You should become a politician.

    In a head-on collision, what decides the total acceleration that a car and its occupants will experience? Think about it.
    Right now you're not saying anything but eristics.

    I've spoken my knowledge, that additional mass means additional kinetic energy. I also know that the bodyshell has a rigid cocpit and crumple zone- the first has to provide space where the passengers can survive, the crumple zone has to absorb the kinetic energy. There are cars of different weights that do the job well, only as long as they don't get hit by a heavier vehicle.

    It can't be different that it is not a safe situation when a lighter vehicle has an accident with a heavier vehicle, and there will always be lighter and heavier vehicles, so sacrificing the air quality for the sake of the safety of the privileged who can afford heavy vehicles is not a fair solution.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Where is your evidence for those assertions? You have already claimed that Aluminium would be cheaper than steel, due to using less of it, not appearing to know how much energy it takes to extract it.
    No, I didn't say so, you're making a straw-man argument here.
    I said that a lighter vehicle can be cheaper and more environment friendly because it takes less energy to power it, as well as less energy to produce it- it was a a bit sloppy statement, because I meant that lighter vehicle is cheaper to produce if the same materials are used to produce it- lighter steel car=less steel used to produce.
    Later on I said that vehicle which uses composites and aluminium (to some extent) would still be cheaper than a hybrid. Hybrids are mechanically extra-complicated and their batteries are extremely expensive.
    A car that is lighter because it has less equipment onboard, some plastic elements of external skin, and an aluminium roof panel, would surely be still cheaper than a hybrid.
    The fact that there are cars on the market which are light either because they are small, they have very little equipment, and they use plastic or aluminium body panels (like Renault or Audi) and they are relatively cheaper by comparison to the offered size and performance than the hybrid, proves my point.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Again, you've no idea. Some cars are used by more than one person, which you should be encouraging,
    You say I have no idea. I would say it's surprising that people with your attitude to difficulties such as setting up a seat, actually are not to lazy to ever get up from their beds. Setting seats and mirrors manually and takes half a minute or less, and takes next to zero effort. The only reason the idiotic feature of power mirrors and power seats ever appeard in any car, is that marketing departments invented a gadget to impress the potential customers.

    You haven't referred to the rest of my points, therefore I must presume that either you agree with them or you refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong.
    I'm sure you're a splendid engineer, but you don't seem to have a clue what is the point of the features you design and are they actually
    useful.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.