| Author |
Message |
|
Written on: 06 August 2009 [01:04]
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 105
|
I guess it just goes back to what different people would consider assets toward a better / more perfect vehicle ... or EV.
For some creature comforts have a very high priority.
For some they want those rarely ever used features ... just to have them for the few times they might use them.
For some vehicle efficiency per passenger has a much higher priority.
For some it is more about the $ alone.
etc... etc...
Almost everybody has different priorities... and values they put on things.
------------
I tend more toward the efficiency / green side of it myself ... but I admit I don't go as far as some people do ... I don't personally like bicycling in the rain... while to others that is a non issue... For every day I drive when they bicycle they are more efficient , more green, spending less money , and staying more fit than I am ... That is them going better than me ... and there is pretty much always something / someway for me to strive to improve... Is the Twike the end of the road of vehicle perfection... no ... but it is much better to my priorities than what I have now... So I seek to improve ... I might end up with a Twike ... something Twike / Velomobile like... etc... but no matter what it is... I will continue to strive to improve what I have.
-------------
Don't worry about me wanting different things than you ... don't worry about my desire to continue to down size ... go as far as you can ... than when you get comfortable with that ... take a look around and see if you can't take one more step further... often times going to far in one step seems overwhelming... go as far as you are comfortable ... one step at a time.
2000 MT Honda Insight
MIMA & FAS equipped ... PHEV in progress.
Franken E-Bike 36V NiMH 600W Hub-Motor.
|
|
Written on: 06 August 2009 [10:48]
|
|
a2b.sustainably
Topic creator
registered since: 23.07.2009
Posts: 10
|
I just don't understand what you think is so ecologically bad about an EV without pedals. I buy my electricity from a commercial wind provider at competitive rates. This is more efficient and cheaper than making it myself (though some day I may go off grid, just for fun). If I had an EV charged with this wind power, I would save money in operating costs and save the planet. In this scenario, why is it so bad if I have AC in the car, and enough room to carry the kids? The power is from the wind.
Please explain the scenario where "some day" energy will be so expensive that we won't be able to afford electrically powered personal transport unless we pedal. I personally don't see it happening. Ever. If energy prices go that high, western countries will turn to nuclear power en mass, and the political road blocks associated with nuclear will melt away due to public outcry and national security concerns. Even if renewable energy never becomes affordable, don't think for a second that Europe and the US won't go nuclear if things get as bad as you predict. There may be spikes in price as nuclear plants are built and oil peaks, but over the long term, the issue of affordable electricity is not an issue. Have you seen how much the EU is investing in nuclear energy research through the EURATOM program? Check it out. And, as I'm sure you know since you live next door in Germany, France is already powered by nuclear. As soon as the words "energy" and "national security" mean the same thing, nuclear will make a comeback in short order. And it will be cleaner and safer than ever.
I may well own a fared recumbent some day, and may use it for my commute (depending on road conditions). But I would do it to stay in shape more than for ecological reasons. I would also own an EV for times when I was in a hurry, or had to carry kids, or the weather was foul, etc.
You say that extra seats are wasteful in an EV. But the twike has a second seat, (and I believe you said a third in the back?). It is one thing to have extra "wasteful" seats in a car. It is another to have them in a vehicle that you have to pedal! Please explain this apparent contradiction in logic. How can you say that it is wasteful in a car, but be a big fan of a twike where the added weight translates directly into extra work for the driver (and extra work for the electric motor).
Let me see if I understand your ideal EV as described to far: Slow, no AC, pedals, not crashworthy, minimal number of seats. How is this ideal? It fits with your gloomy view of the future, but I’m asking about IDEAL, assuming energy is clean and abundant, through renewable energy and/or nuclear. If you are willing to make such an assumption for just a second here in virtual world, I’d be interested to know what your IDEAL EV would look like.
|
|
Written on: 07 August 2009 [00:01]
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 105
|
a2b.sustainably wrote:
I just don't understand what you think is so ecologically bad about an EV without pedals.
Perfect isn't 100% for every one exclusively about an items greeness... if it was ... the bicycle is greener than any EV will ever be, to make or travel per mile.
For me personally having pedals is an asset ... and not having them is a disadvantage.
A vehicle like a EV can be more green than some other vehicle with or without pedals ... but the pedals for me are one more thing... that can be a pro .. or a con.
My own personal reasoning for this goes something like this... If I am going to be traveling around ... weather it is for 5 minutes or 50 minutes ... having pedals available for me to get exercise allows me to make better use of my time... Exercise one form or another is good for my health... If I am going to exercise anyway the Wh of energy I put into exercising is even better if those Wh of energy also go to benefit me in some other way as well... If I just exercise to exercise I will put out the same Wh of energy during the exercising ... but if some of that Wh of exercise energy can go to move me for my transportation needs ... or to light my house ... or do any number of other beneficial things ... it is a double benefit.
Any source of renewable energy is good... but even if I already have double the renewable energy production than I use ... I still have a health benefit to exercising ... and any form of exercising involves me putting out Wh or energy.
So no matter how much renewable energy I have ... the pedals still offer a benefit.
Sense efficiency is an assist to me... as the vehicle becomes more efficient and my commuting distance becomes more efficient ... the vehicle needs become lighter and lighter ... eventually increasing the % of power contribution that the pedals can offer.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
In this scenario, why is it so bad if I have AC in the car, and enough room to carry the kids? The power is from the wind.
You misunderstand... getting the power for AC or for a 5 seat car ... from wind to do these things is better than getting it from burning coal and such.
But when you ask about 'perfect'... being good isn't good enough... not being bad isn't good enough ... as long as there is any way to improve ... it isn't 'perfect'... of course what counts as an improvement and an asset toward perfection is subjective.
It isn't bad... but it can still be better.
Less energy will be used to travel if you do not use AC... thus the vehicle is more efficient and greener... even if by loosing the AC you loose the personal comfort that AC gives.
If you want the AC ... than keep the AC... and I would say... offsetting that AC energy needs with a renewable energy source is great... if you are going to use AC ... than powering that AC from a renewable energy source is a great way to power it.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Please explain the scenario where "some day" energy will be so expensive that we won't be able to afford electrically powered personal transport unless we pedal.
Different people have different things that offer benefits and serve as assets toward a vehicle to become closer to 'perfect'.
As long as efficiency is at the top or near the top of a persons list ... the $ cost of energy is not a controlling factor ... it could cost as little as $0.01 per 1 GhW and to a person who puts a high enough value on energy efficiency the price doesn't matter.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
I may well own a fared recumbent some day, and may use it for my commute (depending on road conditions). But I would do it to stay in shape more than for ecological reasons. I would also own an EV for times when I was in a hurry, or had to carry kids, or the weather was foul, etc.
That is great. 
Those are great reasons to pedal.
Those are great reasons for a EV secondary vehicle.
But for every day you pedal in to work... it will cost you less energy per mile ... and you will be more efficient per mile ... and you will be greener per mile ... than on the days you use the EV.... even if that isn't the reason you pedal... it is still a benefit of the pedal... even with the EV 100% powered from renewable energy.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
You say that extra seats are wasteful in an EV. But the twike has a second seat, (and I believe you said a third in the back?). It is one thing to have extra "wasteful" seats in a car. It is another to have them in a vehicle that you have to pedal! Please explain this apparent contradiction in logic. How can you say that it is wasteful in a car, but be a big fan of a twike where the added weight translates directly into extra work for the driver (and extra work for the electric motor).
No contradiction at all
A 1 Person Twike would me more Efficient and more green per mile etc... than the current Twike.
I am a big fan of the Twike because of what it offers in comparison to other vehicles.
But for many types of trips ... a Velomobile is a more efficient and greener vehicle than the Twike is... thus under some conditions the Twike is not the 'perfect' vehicle.
But if you want to go ~50 MPH and have 2 seats ... and some more cargo capacity ... and headlights ... etc. all those things begin to reduce the efficiency and greenness per mile... but the Twike can still offer you those things greener and more efficiently than a EV1 could... or a Aptera will... etc.
It goes back to what I wrote earlier about personally wanting some things while recognizing that those things reduce the greeness and efficiency of the vehicle to get them... and sometimes we want them enough so that it is ok to us in our own perspective ... but that will change from person to person... For me ... it is more than 2 seats that becomes the breaking point of not useful enough to justify the weight of the seat itself ... much less the losses of the vehicle modifications needed... for other people it might be at 1 seat ... or someone else 4 seats ... etc... no matter where the personal preference is... unused seats are a waste of vehicle efficiency and materials every single mile they go unused.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Let me see if I understand your ideal EV as described to far: Slow, no AC, pedals, not crashworthy, minimal number of seats. How is this ideal? It fits with your gloomy view of the future, but I’m asking about IDEAL, assuming energy is clean and abundant, through renewable energy and/or nuclear. If you are willing to make such an assumption for just a second here in virtual world, I’d be interested to know what your IDEAL EV would look like.
Even if we had cold fusion and energy were extremely abundant ... efficiency itself would still be a benefit to me personally.
Vehicle efficiency reduces with increased speeds ... laws of physics there... no way to avoid it.
The pedals or a way to exercise while in transit would still be a benefit to me personally.
AC can be a benefit sometimes... like when I am trying to transport a wedding cake... but just to have it as an option adds cost, materials, and weight to the vehicle... the less I use it the more efficient the vehicle is... If I use is rare enough it becomes a waste to even have it there at all.
Crashworthiness is subjective ... how much is enough ... how much becomes just dead weight, and wasted materials and cost?... this is subjective... there are thousands of people riding motorcycles every day who have no issues with far less safety and crash worthiness than a Twike has... while other people I have met are down right afraid to go out on the roads even in large SUVs... the faster you travel the less safe you... if safety dominates , it still results in slower speeds.
2000 MT Honda Insight
MIMA & FAS equipped ... PHEV in progress.
Franken E-Bike 36V NiMH 600W Hub-Motor.
|
|
Written on: 07 August 2009 [13:04]
|
|
a2b.sustainably
Topic creator
registered since: 23.07.2009
Posts: 10
|
I can't argue with the advantage of exercise, especially if you work somewhere with a shower and can transport your suit to work without ruining it.
Since you go on and on about twike efficiency, let’s look at some numbers.
Aptera: 300-400 MPGe, with a 100 mile range and 85+mph top speed.
Twike: 250-550 MPGe, with only a 40-50 mile range and a 50mph top speed (I'm guessing you don't usually cruise around that fast).
So, there is some overlap in the efficiency figures, and the Aptera is faster, safer, and goes twice as far. The purpose of efficiency is to save money and save the planet. When comparing the numbers above, it is clear that the twike does not provide significant savings for the planet or the wallet, and there are some big performance sacrifices to be made for those very small gains in efficiency.
Maybe you can retrofit some pedals into the Aptera so you can multi-task on your commute and get some exercise too. I wonder what your MPGe would be in that case? Check my math. How many kWh's does a cyclist produce (a quick search says .052 kWh per mile)? So, over 100 miles, you could produce 5.2 kWh’s if you didn’t get tired and that .052 number is right. The Aptera has a 13 kWh battery for 100 miles (.13 kWh/mile). So, you could knock that down to 8kWh per 100 miles (.08 kWh/mile) by pedalling. What is the percentage increase in efficiency from .13 to .08 kWh/mile? About a 1/3rd increase. So, a 400-533 MPGe. Better than, or the same as a Twike, depending on which twike efficiency numbers you believe. But faster and safer, and going twice as far. Another way to look at it is an extra 33 miles on the range. Is it worth all that work when you can already go 100 miles and don’t need the extra range like you do on a Twike? A matter of opinion.
If only the Aptera wasn’t flammable, could be easily recycled at the end of its life, and didn’t look so goofy...and offered pedals as an optional extra...I’d buy it.
|
|
Written on: 08 August 2009 [01:44]
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 105
|
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Aptera: 300-400 MPGe
Twike: 250-550 MPGe
Your MPGe changes depending on the assumptions you make for the cost of a gallon .. and on the cost of a kWh... and the drive cycle used for the vehicle energy consumption.
Do you have a source to say what those assumptions were in your MPGe numbers?
Without that source data to make sure the two are comparing against the same Gasoline prices and the same kwh prices and the same driving cycles ... the MPGe numbers are not directly comparable to each other in an accurate way.
I can post about a PreProduction Aptera 2e that uses up to 13kwh of batteries to travel 100 miles ... which results in ~7.7 Miles per kwh ( or 130 Wh / Mile ) ... which is very good ... but I can also post about the Twike that goes as far as 12.5 miles per kwh ( or ~80 Wh / Mile ) ... which gives the Twike ~62% efficiency Benefit over the Aptera per mile.
Without being able to see and verify where those numbers come from... they don't end up meaning much of anything for either vehicle.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
The purpose of efficiency is to save money and save the planet.
Those are some good reasons... but not the only reasons.
It is incorrect to claim they are the only reasons anyone would have to value efficiency.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
When comparing the numbers above, it is clear that the twike does not provide significant savings for the planet or the wallet,
Or using different numbers there is a 62% efficiency difference... which is significant.
Plus this also introduces another subjective term... 'significant'.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Maybe you can retrofit some pedals into the Aptera so you can multi-task on your commute and get some exercise too.
That would be a nice option... but for the cost of Aptera + Retrofit... I could just buy a Twike... which weighs far less than the Aptera... oh... and I can't buy the Aptera now even if I did want to... but the Twike is available.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
How many kWh's does a cyclist produce (a quick search says .052 kWh per mile)?
That would be some crazy power bicyclist...most people bicycle between 10MPH and 20 MPH... at 10MPH that is 10 miles in 1 hour... or 520 Wh ... or an average of 520 Watts of bicycle power ... at 20 MPH that is 20 miles in 1 hour ... or 1,040wh ... or and average of 1.04 kW of bicycle power... considering that 1 HP is ~746 Watts ... I think that this 0.52 kwh per mile number is actually crazy high... at best it would be the peak kinds of power someone might be able to put out for a few seconds at most.
The average bicyclist puts out an average of about 100 to 200 watts depending on the person... at an average of 15 MPH ... that would be 15 miles in the 1 hour it would take to put out between 100Wh and 200Wh... or about 0.006kWh to 0.013 Wh per Mile.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
The Aptera has a 13 kWh battery for 100 miles (.13 kWh/mile). So, you could knock that down to 8kWh per 100 miles (.08 kWh/mile) by pedalling...
not quite... the Aptera will burn up its 13 kwh battery in less than 2 hours of driving... even if you could find that mythic 520 wh bicyclist in 2 hours he would have produced only ~1 kwh... or reducing the 13 kwh battery to a 12 kwh battery... or a ~8% improvement to the 130 wh / mile... or ~120 Wh / Mile ... compared to the ~80Wh / Mile of Twike ... the Aptera still uses ~50% more energy per mile than the Twike.
If you got a normal human bicyclist for ~200Wh ... or ~400 Wh in 2 hours ... that would be a ~3% improvement... for 130 Wh / Mile to ~126 Wh / Mile... which in my book would still be worth doing... but would still not reach Twike efficiency per mile numbers.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
But faster and safer, and going twice as far. Another way to look at it is an extra 33 miles on the range. Is it worth all that work when you can already go 100 miles and don’t need the extra range like you do on a Twike? A matter of opinion.
I agree it is a matter of opinion.
I agree the Aptera is faster than the Twike... I just matter very little to me.
I agree the Aptera Shell is stronger than the Twike... without being able to compare crash tests ... I am not willing to say which might actually be safer... but the Twike is safe enough for me... so the the additional ~1,000 pounds of vehicle are not needed or wanted.
With Li Batteries the Twike can go ~100 Miles as well... so there is not a significant range difference.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
If only the Aptera wasn’t flammable, could be easily recycled at the end of its life, and didn’t look so goofy...and offered pedals as an optional extra...I’d buy it.
Flammable ??? you mean more so than normal cars?... what's your source?
How do you know it can't be easily recycled at the end of its useful life?
It looks Aerodynamic ... which to me is +1 for good looks ... Goofy looking are SUVs, cargo Vans, every pickup truck ever made.
Pedal accessory definitely on my list... and a +1 for the Twike sense it has it... and a -1 for the Aptera sense it does not. 
2000 MT Honda Insight
MIMA & FAS equipped ... PHEV in progress.
Franken E-Bike 36V NiMH 600W Hub-Motor.
|
|
Written on: 08 August 2009 [23:43]
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 505
|
Sorry to interrupt guys, but as a Twike driver I need to step in
To make it clear: I like the Aptera and I like the Twike. I think both vehicles bring fresh wind into the discussion of what is needed to get from A to B. And thats excellent and needed badly. 
The consumption figures used for the Aptera (300-400mpg) are only correct at constant speed and flat terrain (please see wikipedia). Because of the vehicle weight of about 680kg it will consume approx. twice the energy compared to a Twike. Law of physics...
From my own experience a Twike travels approx. 9.5miles/kWh under mixed road conditions and the new Li-Ion Twike goes easily the 100 miles. Please also note that a charge is much quicker compared to a regular sized car since it does not need such a big battery capacity to do the 100 miles. And the best of all: Its available and it has been thouroughly tested over the last years. Don't get me wrong, I really hope the Aptera will make it. It has some similarities to the Twike, offering more comfort but at the cost of efficiency. For me the Twike is the perfect EV, but I do see that it is not perfect for everyone. The Aptera will make excuses for EV No-sayers very difficult because its comfort is very much comparable to a smaller gas powered car. Ok, agree, the design might not suit all tastes...
Important is we understand the problems associated with the current situation and act accordingly. For me also an important factor: Where my money goes when I buy a car. Basically all big automakers failed to do their job correctly and keep telling us that nobody wants greener cars. A simple lie. Their propaganda machine does not support green vehicles. And so the majority keeps buying what is advertised.
To summarize: I want(ed) a Twike and got one. Perfect for me.
To help the EV to be successful with its market introduction, it should be approx. of the weight of the Aptera, have four wheels and look trendy but not too futuristic and carry 2 people. Thats what I understand under 'perfect EV'. There are some projects underway (e.g. Loremo) but it remains to be seen if they make it to the serial production...
Regarding use of energy, nuclear is a no-go for me. It will be difficult to power everything with renewables, so its always good to save and downsize. This lesson we should have understood by now. Energy independance can only be fully achieved by producing energy locally. This is often not true for nuclear and the risks too high. We have good and possible alternatives. Lets pursue them!
ecocarforum.com - Green Car Network
|
|
Written on: 10 August 2009 [17:07]
|
|
a2b.sustainably
Topic creator
registered since: 23.07.2009
Posts: 10
|
Price per gallon does not weigh in at all unless you are talking price per mile.
Aptera reports a 100 mile base range. Base battery pack is 10kWh.
(100 miles/10kWh)*(36.6kWh/1gallon gasoline)=366 mpg.
Ultimately you have to take into account the energy required to generate and transmit 1 kWh of electricity to your house, and also the amount of energy required to refine and transport 1 gallon of gasoline to the pump. I didn't do that. It varies. There is a lot of debate here. The X-prize website has some numbers they are using. In addition, the twike numbers have to account for how much pedalling a person does (highly variable). The comparison is nearly impossible to do accurately. I just used numbers available on the internet to make the point that pedalling an EV has diminishing returns as efficiency improves.
There is a lot of debate on Aptera Forum about what drive cycle (if any) was used to get a 100 mile range. From my own detailed calcs for a different car of similar specs, I think they used some kind of drive cycle, probably an official one.
Based on your calcs showing more realistic power generated by pedalling, I'd say that it would be pointless to add pedals to an Aptera or any other crash worthy car that goes any reasonable distance at any reasonable speed. An extra 10 miles? Who cares! The further and faster you travel, and the more efficiently you travel, the less of an impact pedalling makes. I guess it works for the twike since it is so small and slow. To each his own. I think I’d rather have a real car that can easily fit a bike inside (in the “wasted” space provided by all of those extra seats). Drive efficiently at high speed in crash worthy protection to the outskirts of a city, and bike in from there if the weather is good, but the traffic is bad. Remember, I live too far away from work to twike it. I’m not alone, and not everyone can move closer to work, for any number of legitimate reasons. Let’s not rehash that conversation please.
It is possible that the Aptera is not super flammable if they included a significant amount of fire resistant additives in their composite resin matrix. They have made no mention of this. My source is Apteraforum. There is a whole thread on the topic with no answer from Aptera. Phenolic resin is the only resin type that is inherently fire resistant, but it is only conducive to dark colored finishes. It can be painted, but auto paint is pretty eco-intensive and is mainly geared around corrosion prevention, which is unnecessary with composites. Maybe a recyclable PVC film like those used on commercial vans would be a good alternative. Every car could be unique, and made to order. Change it when you get tired of it. It’s recyclable.
Aside from saving money and the planet, what are some other reasons for efficiency that don’t fall under those two umbrellas? Energy independence (political reason-applies more to nations than individuals) is the only one I saw mentioned. Maybe corporate image as another reason (make money through increased sales-applies to companies more than individuals). Neither of these applies to individual car buyers directly. What are some other reasons that you personally have (any of you)? I’d be interested to find out since you are all such eco-warriors.
|
|
Written on: 10 August 2009 [22:33]
|
|
iamian
registered since: 23.02.2009
Posts: 105
|
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Price per gallon does not weigh in at all unless you are talking price per mile. Aptera reports a 100 mile base range. Base battery pack is 10kWh.
(100 miles/10kWh)*(36.6kWh/1gallon gasoline)=366 mpg.
Unfortunately that is only one method of MPGe calculations... their is no international standard for it... not everyone uses the same method... if one person uses one method and other uses a different method the two different methods can give very different MPGe numbers even for the same vehicle even on the same route and same conditions ... so you have to know where they each got the MPGe number from for both MPGe numbers that you want to compare... in order to make sure they used the same method to get both of those MPGe numbers.
Here are some examples of different ways people calculate MPGe numbers:
#1> MPGe ( via energy content ):
This is the method you described above... That particular method is an energy based calculation... It references the amount of energy content of the gasoline ... and gives a MPGe number that could contain an equal amount of energy.
Aptera Example:
This Method as you described yields ~366 MPGe.
#2> MPGe if the same vehicle were powered by Gasoline:
This is an example of if you take a gasoline powered car that you know its MPG performance ... then convert it to run as an EV of the same weight ... then you compare how many kwh/mile it takes as a EV vs how many gallons per mile it took as a gasoline powered car... This gives you an equivalent amount of kwh to travel a mile vs how many gallons it would take to travel a mile ... so it gives a more accurate relationship between kwh/mile and MPGe
Aptera Example:
The same Aptera under gasoline power gives ~120 MPGe
#3> MPGe by cost $ of fuel
This is what allot of people really care about... How many MPG would a gasoline vehicle need to cost you the same $ per Mile to drive it... this method requires you to pick a price $ per kwh ... which varies from place to place and source to source ... and to pick a price $ for a gallon of Gasoline... than pick an energy per mile consumption amount for the EV and the ICE.
Aptera Example:
Given the U.S. national average mix this would give over ~150 MPGe
#4> MPGe by pollution:
This method targets the greenness of the vehicle... and it requires asumptions about the pollution per mile of a gasoline engine to compare against ... and it varies depending on the type of source of electrical kWh.
Aptera Example:
Given the U.S. national average mix this would give ~200 MPGe
----------------
I've seen different people use each of these 4 different MPGe methods to come up with a MPGe number.... in the end all 4 methods result in a MPGe number ... but they can be very different numbers , and they do not necessarily directly compare with each other just because they are a MPGe result.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Ultimately you have to take into account the energy required to generate and transmit 1 kWh of electricity to your house, and also the amount of energy required to refine and transport 1 gallon of gasoline to the pump. I didn't do that. It varies. There is a lot of debate here.
I agree 100%
a2b.sustainably wrote:
I just used numbers available on the internet to make the point that pedalling an EV has diminishing returns as efficiency improves.
I would actually go the other way myself... as the vehicle efficiency improves the limited 100 to 200 Watts of power that a person can put out give larger and larger returns... 100 to 200 Watts of pedal power doesn't make much of a % contribution to move a horribly inefficient Hummer H2 ... but the % of energy contribution for a much more efficient Twike or Aptera type of vehicle goes up significantly... by the time the vehicle gets to Solar Racer or Velomobile efficiencies the pedal power % contribution can become a dominate energy source.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
There is a lot of debate on Aptera Forum about what drive cycle (if any) was used to get a 100 mile range. From my own detailed calcs for a different car of similar specs, I think they used some kind of drive cycle, probably an official one.
I 100% agree... the route / course can make a massive difference ... the method of driving over that route can also make a massive difference ... and the more energy efficient a vehicle becomes the more and more these other factors can effect the results.
1 kwh energy difference for a Hummer H2 would hardly even be noticeable over the massive amount of kwh it will need to cover 100 miles... but 1 kwh difference for a more efficient vehicle like the Aptera or the Twike makes a very big difference of the amount of energy either of these two would need to travel 100 miles.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
I'd say that it would be pointless to add pedals to an Aptera or any other crash worthy car that goes any reasonable distance at any reasonable speed. An extra 10 miles? Who cares! The further and faster you travel, and the more efficiently you travel, the less of an impact pedalling makes.
who?? I would... 10 miles more per trip... if I do that much even just 1 time per week... I have traveled over 500 miles per year on pedal power... that I didn't have to use kwh of electrical energy or the gallons of gasoline... plus all the exercise I got along the way.
Pedal power still has the same benefits for exercise to me... weather it is a 5 minute trip .. or a 50 minute trip... either way I personally benefit from getting the exercise / activity ... no matter how little the number of miles it moves me... or how little I push myself... maybe because I don't want to get sweaty I only put in ~25 Watts worth of pedaling ... that exercise still benefits me more than Zero from not having the pedals.
The further you travel the more minutes of time you spend in transit ... this just offers more opportunities for the pedals for you to exercise even if just a little bit here or a little bit there.
The more efficiently you travel the less energy you use per mile ... thus the greater / larger the benefit the pedals become.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
To each his own.
I 100% agree.
We are all different... as people and we all live in different situations.
While it is less efficient than a Twike ... I do like the rear cargo area I have in my Insight ... for those times when I have to transport wedding cakes ... the AC is also very useful... some cake designs and materials will not take humidity or temperatures that I might be fine with myself... so for those features that I have a use for... I take the efficiency hit... and I am less green as a life style because of it... Intil I find a better alternative, one way or the other.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
not everyone can move closer to work, for any number of legitimate reasons.
I 100% agree... not everyone can this is very true.
I also agree that even if I can move closer I might just not be willing to make the sacrifices that sometimes would be required... and there is nothing wrong with that either.
My only personal stance on it... is that people should at least look into it... It might work out... or as you say... for any number of good reasons maybe it doesn't.
a2b.sustainably wrote:
Aside from saving money and the planet, what are some other reasons for efficiency that don’t fall under those two umbrellas?
Energy independence (political reason-applies more to nations than individuals) is the only one I saw mentioned. Maybe corporate image as another reason (make money through increased sales-applies to companies more than individuals). Neither of these applies to individual car buyers directly. What are some other reasons that you personally have (any of you)? I’d be interested to find out since you are all such eco-warriors.
Eco-warriors ... ahahaha 
Not 1/2 as much as many people I've met ... at most I would consider myself an advocate ... definitely interested ... in learning about as much as doing.
Energy Independence you listed is another very good reason for better efficiency... and it very often can be a reason for individual car buyers.
Sales you listed is also another very good reason for better efficiency... not just the company the sells / makes a car... but for the consumer who wants resale value... the salesman who wants to make a sale... the mechanic who wants to sell the tune up... etc... etc.
More efficient CPUs / electronics allow them to run faster without melting / breaking.
More efficient electronics can handle more power for acceleration / deceleration without breaking.
More efficient electronics can be smaller to do the same job... saving part space.
More efficient parts can experience less wear & tear and last longer.
More efficiency means less other systems in order to prevent parts from killing themselves ... an ICE need much more cooling to prevent it from killing itself than a Electric motor does... because the of the efficiency... so increased efficiency can lead to less complexity of the support systems... and maybe the over all system.
More efficient means safer... reduced part failure , reduced need for support systems , etc.
More efficiency gives bragging rights... to those who like to brag.
More efficiency just as a goal / personal challenge ... like why did that guy climb the mountain.
I'm sure there are many many other variations of reasons for improved efficiency to be a benefit.
[This article was edited 1 times, at last 10.08.2009 at 22:35.]
2000 MT Honda Insight
MIMA & FAS equipped ... PHEV in progress.
Franken E-Bike 36V NiMH 600W Hub-Motor.
|
|
Written on: 10 August 2009 [23:48]
|
|
prasad1
registered since: 10.08.2009
Posts: 4
|
Hi,
This is prasad.
I am tierd of glorious plans and wonderful promisses.
I just care for cars i can actually buy. Now. Not tommorow.
A good car transports the nessecary weight and volume efficiently from point A to point B. How much weight and volume can not be answered generaly.
We don't need a perfect car right from the start, we need cars actually on the road and then evolution.
-----------------------
Prasad.
.
|
|
Written on: 11 August 2009 [10:55]
|
|
a2b.sustainably
Topic creator
registered since: 23.07.2009
Posts: 10
|
iamian,
Good discussion of MPGe methods and reasons for being efficient. I never directly associated a more efficient drive train with lower maintenance, but in reality they are often one and the same, and certainly electric motors are a case in point. Make that one more reason why the average motorist should want an EV. Lower operating costs due to lower maintenance. Wait, that comes down to saving money, which is back to my original two reasons. Is a higher resale value making money or saving money? I'll have to think that one over. Bragging rights is good thinking. You can't discount the "peer influence" factor when considering people's motivation for buying a new car, and green bragging rights are the up and coming way to strut your stuff.
You make another good point about the relative contribution of pedal power. What I should have said (if I was thinking straight) is that as speed increases, the contribution of pedal power decreases. In my mind, I was associating more speed with aerodynamic efficiency. You are right that slower is always more efficient due to lower aerodynamic drag, even for aerodynamically efficient shapes. And since it takes longer to get from A 2 B, you have more time to contribute pedal energy, so it is a larger percentage of the total energy required to get there. For a car travelling at normal highway speeds, the relative contribution of pedalling is very small. Subtract from that extra energy required to transport the weight of the pedals, gearing and electronics (where the pedals turn a generator, not the wheels) and it is smaller still.
For a highway speed car, I'll stick to putting my bike in the back of my ideal EV when I want it, and leaving it out when I don't want it, so as to save weight and keep the usage of the vehicle flexible. This covers all my bases, including exercise.
In a perfect world, if everyone had a twike, no one would be fat, and crash worthy wouldn't be an issue since all vehicles would be the same and slow. We'd also have smaller families, be more flexible with dress codes at work, provide shower facilities, live closer to work, and be in less of a rush. But that is not the real world, so I'm just saying what I would want in the perfect EV for the real world of big families, large heavy fast cars, rushed schedules, suits at work and long commutes.
Why doesn't twike market to India or China where people would love protection from the rain and most still ride bikes (sometimes 3 to a bike)? I guess it will be hard to beat the price of the Tata Nano. Build an Indian version of the twike with Indian labor costs, and it may be possible...They could turn India and China into the transport Utopia twikers dream about.
|
