Searching \ for '[EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=bimota+centre+hub
Search entire site for: ': Bimota centre hub steering'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering'
2006\12\09@055015 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Very pretty

       http://www.bikeweb.com/images/img_0102-975_640x480.jpg

Suzuki do it too.
Very ugly

       http://www.suzukicycles.org/Concept-Suzuki/Nuda.shtml

           http://www.suzukicycles.org/photos/concept/Nuda/1987_Nuda_AC-London_02_768.jpg


2006\12\09@073405 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Very pretty
>
>         www.bikeweb.com/images/img_0102-975_640x480.jpg
>
> Suzuki do it too.
> Very ugly
>
>         www.suzukicycles.org/Concept-Suzuki/Nuda.shtml
>
>            
>
www.suzukicycles.org/photos/concept/Nuda/1987_Nuda_AC-London_02_768.j
pg


Good golly, look at size of the Suzuki.  Big wheels too.  That's assuming
those mirror tiles are 300mm (foot) square.  Were they trying to take the
all-important title of 'widest turning circle' from Harley Davidson?  I
wonder what it actually handled like.  Maybe someone watched Akira too many
times.

I thought Honda did a single swingarm front, but it must have been Yamaha -
http://www.bikepics.com/yamaha/gts1000/95/pics.asp.  Ducati does it on the
back these days.

And as usual, cheap wins.  Back to forks it is then.

Tony

2006\12\09@104246 by David VanHorn

picon face
I wonder how long it takes to get all the pretty cowling off when something
goes wrong.

2006\12\09@105413 by Martin Klingensmith

flavicon
face
My back hurts, looking at it!
--
Martin K

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\09@142936 by Peter P.

picon face
David VanHorn <dvanhorn <at> microbrix.com> writes:

> I wonder how long it takes to get all the pretty cowling off when something
> goes wrong.

Because it's really easy to fix with parts from the local Harley shop and
caulking from the gas station ?

Peter


2006\12\09@162751 by Jinx

face picon face
> Were they trying to take the all-important title of 'widest
> turning circle' from Harley Davidson?

> And as usual, cheap wins.  Back to forks it is then.

Those concept bikes are all very nice but as demonstrated, to
the hosts' embarrassment, on Top Gear, you can't parallel park
with a flappy-paddle gearbox, big turning circles make a mockery
of a 3-point turn (and really annoy other motorists who have to
wait while you shuffle back and forth 1 degree at a time), and
super cars have such rotten ground clearance you should probably
not leave the motorway

2006\12\11@041642 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>big turning circles make a mockery of a 3-point turn
>(and really annoy other motorists who have to wait
>while you shuffle back and forth 1 degree at a time),

I remember how embarrassed Clark was when Hammond and May had him on about
how he got on the traffic news one morning because the turning circle of his
Ford GT40 was so large he held up the traffic while trying to manoeuvre onto
one of the bridges across the Thames in London ...

2006\12\11@045050 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamMIT.EDU [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@MIT.EDU]
>Sent: 09 December 2006 10:40
>To: PIC List
>Subject: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
>
>Very pretty
>
>        http://www.bikeweb.com/images/img_0102-975_640x480.jpg
>
>Suzuki do it too.
>Very ugly
>
>        http://www.suzukicycles.org/Concept-Suzuki/Nuda.shtml


Not a fair comparsion though, as the Suzuki is also 2 wheel drive.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\12\11@054500 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >Very pretty
> >
> >        www.bikeweb.com/images/img_0102-975_640x480.jpg
> >
> >Suzuki do it too.
> >Very ugly
> >
> >        www.suzukicycles.org/Concept-Suzuki/Nuda.shtml
>
>
> Not a fair comparsion though, as the Suzuki is also 2 wheel drive.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike


So it does.  That'll come in very handy on a sports bike.  For all those
times when you..... need to round up wild pigs and..... navigate steep
driveways.

Tony

2006\12\11@055500 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

In which case the same could be said for the performance oriented Audi Quatro's, e.g. RS6

Driving both/all wheels is not just about ultimate grip for off road use, it affects the handling and balance of the vehicle on tarmac as well.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\12\11@221839 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Not a fair comparsion though, as the Suzuki is also 2 wheel drive.

> So it does.  That'll come in very handy on a sports bike.  For all
> those
> times when you..... need to round up wild pigs and..... navigate
> steep
> driveways.

Audi Quattro introduced 4WD to rallying.
Have  a look at the drive systems on most-all top rally cars a few
decades on. Which is not to say the rule is directly transferable to
bikes.

       Russell

2006\12\11@233635 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >> Not a fair comparsion though, as the Suzuki is also 2 wheel drive.
>
> > So it does.  That'll come in very handy on a sports bike.  For all
> > those times when you..... need to round up wild pigs
> and..... navigate
> > steep driveways.
>
> Audi Quattro introduced 4WD to rallying.
> Have  a look at the drive systems on most-all top rally cars
> a few decades on. Which is not to say the rule is directly
> transferable to bikes.
>
>         Russell


Yamaha have been fiddling with 2WD for while, (so have KTM), and had the
WF450 2WD (called 2-trac) as a production model for a while.  I'm not sure
if you can still get it.

I know someone who tested one, and as far as road use goes, his opinion was
that it (2WD) would be 'a good thing' for the average rider.  It gives much
better traction in the wet.  The downside is it doesn't turn as fast, so
while not good for racing, it may not matter for street use.  As a bonus,
now you can get punctures in your front wheel more often too.

Naturally, negative attitudes to price, reliability and user perception will
kill it off.  Much the same as 4 wheel steering in cars.

Tony

2006\12\15@044742 by tachyon 1

picon face
I don't find myself surprised by any of these since Dodge made the
ultimate in ridiculous, impractical crap concpet bikes.
The Dodge Tomahawk


 {Original Message removed}

2006\12\15@071354 by Master Yager

picon face
You just wish you has a Tomahawk,,or at least the money for one !! I know I
wish I 500K.

On 12/15/06, EraseMEtachyon_1spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTemail.com <tachyon_1spamspam_OUTemail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't find myself surprised by any of these since Dodge made the
> ultimate in ridiculous, impractical crap concpet bikes.
> The Dodge Tomahawk
>
>
>   {Original Message removed}

2006\12\15@130918 by Denny Esterline

picon face
You do realize you can't actualy _drive_ a Tomahawk, right?
Yeah, it has a real V10 from a viper, but where's the radiator? It doesn't have one, all the promotional video of it running/driving has been shot in 30 second increments before it overheats. Plus, the ones you can buy ar required to be rendered non-drivable. They do this by leaving several gears out of the transmission, so replacemnts could be found or made, but still....

-Denny


{Quote hidden}

2006\12\15@142713 by Master Yager

picon face
I did not know that. It still made a lot of publicity for the company. That
is all they were looking for anyway.
Pete

On 12/15/06, Denny Esterline <RemoveMEfirmwareTakeThisOuTspamtds.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\12\16@023109 by tachyon 1

picon face
Or I could jump off an over-pass in front of a truck and get the same
outcome for free.

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Master Yager"
 To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."
 Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:13:47 -0500


 You just wish you has a Tomahawk,,or at least the money for one !! I
 know I
 wish I 500K.

 On 12/15/06, RemoveMEtachyon_1spamTakeThisOuTemail.com wrote:
 >
 > I don't find myself surprised by any of these since Dodge made the
 > ultimate in ridiculous, impractical crap concpet bikes.
 > The Dodge Tomahawk
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: Jinx
 > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."
 > Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
 > Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:27:45 +1300
 >
 >
 > > Were they trying to take the all-important title of 'widest
 > > turning circle' from Harley Davidson?
 >
 > > And as usual, cheap wins. Back to forks it is then.
 >
 > Those concept bikes are all very nice but as demonstrated, to
 > the hosts' embarrassment, on Top Gear, you can't parallel park
 > with a flappy-paddle gearbox, big turning circles make a mockery
 > of a 3-point turn (and really annoy other motorists who have to
 > wait while you shuffle back and forth 1 degree at a time), and
 > super cars have such rotten ground clearance you should probably
 > not leave the motorway
 >
 >

--

Search for products and services at:
http://search.mail.com

2006\12\16@203447 by tachyon 1

picon face
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Tomahawk

Sales
In 2005, Dodge decided to sell 10 versions at US$550,000 each through
Neiman Marcus. While the Tomahawk is not street legal, it could,
theoretically, be ridden. The Tomahawk, as sold, is missing a few trivial
parts necessary to make it a running bike*. Dodge has done some minimal
testing on the first bike built, and then COO Wolfgang Bernhardt drove it
onto the stage at the Detroit Auto Show. The Tomahawk is officially sold
as a "rolling sculpture" to show the Viper engine.

Specifications

* 500 bhp (373 kW) @ 5600 rpm (45 kW/L); 525 ft·lbf (712 Nm) @ 4200 rpm
* 10-cylinder 90-degree V-type, liquid-cooled, 505 in³ (8275 cc)
* 356-T6 aluminum alloy block with cast-iron liners, aluminum alloy
cylinder heads
* Bore x Stroke: 4.03 by 3.96 in (102 x 101 mm)
* Two pushrod-actuated overhead valves per cylinder with roller-type
hydraulic lifters
* Sequential, multi-port electronic fuel injection with individual
runners
* Compression Ratio: 9.6:1
* Max Engine Speed: 6000 rpm
* Fuel Requirement: Unleaded premium, 93 octane (R+M/2)
* Oil System: Dry Sump; takes 8 quarts (8 L) Mobil 1 10W30 Synthetic
-->* Cooling System: Twin aluminum radiators mounted atop engine intake
manifolds, force-fed from front-mounted, belt-driven turbine fan. Takes
11 quarts (10 L) of antifreeze.<--*******
* Exhaust System: Equal-length tubular stainless steel headers with dual
collectors and central rear
* According to the official specs 0-60 mph times have been estimated at
2.5 seconds, with a top speed of 300+ mph. But there are also reports
that the top speed is 676 km/h (about 450 mph). (NOTE: These speed
estimations do NOT account for wind resistance. They are gearing
estimates only. A motorcycles top speed is determined by many variables.)


*Note that the "few trivial parts are basically DOT parts. Mirrors,
lights, signals etc.

See also -> http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/tomahawk.html

 {Original Message removed}

2006\12\16@225749 by Jinx

face picon face
> The Tomahawk is officially sold as a "rolling sculpture" to show
> the Viper engine.
>
> Specifications
>
> * 500 bhp (373 kW) @ 5600 rpm
> * 10-cylinder 90-degree V-type, liquid-cooled, 505 in³ (8275 cc)

A not uncommon observation on Top Gear is that Americans get
fewer HP out of their engines than anyone else. 1000cc bikes are
delivering up to190HP per litre, compared with the Tomahawk's 60

Wish that I could, I can't have anything that big anyway. My legs
are so short they barely touch the ground when I'm standing

2006\12\16@232651 by Tachyon

picon face
That's probably true, BUT the North American market has different design
goals. And the Tomahawk hardly represents the state of American technology.
Vehicles are heavier here, and tend to carry larger loads. What
horsepower is developed is developed at lower RPM in a larger engine
that makes torque that would rip a European engine in half. Americans
themselves tend (unfortunately) to be more interested in a throttle
response that can be felt, especially from a stand still. This is a
function of torque, not horsepower.  Multi-valve, normally aspirated,
8500 RPM 4cyls don't cut it in the US for the most part. Plus there are
North American engines that make over 500lb/ft of torque, find me a euro
vehicle with those numbers.
What's irritating about the US market is that diesels provide exactly
the type of seat of the pants torque that Americans crave, but they
won't buy them here because Americans are too marketing and perception
driven. I wish every American would test drive a Mercedes 320-CDI. Given
the _mere_ 204 horsepower, it has torque up the wazoo, and is a blast to
drive. It shames the gas powered BMW 530 I drove back to back with it.
Despite the BMW having a HP advantage. Also remember that speed limits
are depressingly low in America and Americans don't much like manual
transmissions. Most of those euro engines need a stick, high RPM, and an
Autobahn to be worth driving. That or be small enough that they become a
mini-coffin in US traffic. I'd hate to get hit by a Ford Excursion while
driving a Mini

On the other hand, look at the Corvette Z06. It will smoke most foreign
sports cars costing upwards of 2-3 times the price.
It's not that Americans can't make horsepower. It's that the conditions
and markets are different.

Jinx wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2006\12\17@194253 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Tachyon wrote:

> 8500 RPM 4cyls don't cut it in the US for the most part. Plus there are
> North American engines that make over 500lb/ft of torque, find me a euro
> vehicle with those numbers.

Um, you get to it below.  VW's Touareg comes very close to 500 lb/ft in
the V10 model.

Any giant SUV that can beat most of the production "sports" cars off the
line and in the 1/4 mile always is impressive.  :-) :-) :-)

Hell, it comes within a couple tenths of a second of beating the Porche
Cayenne in the 0-60 MPH test.

> What's irritating about the US market is that diesels provide exactly
> the type of seat of the pants torque that Americans crave, but they
> won't buy them here because Americans are too marketing and perception
> driven. I wish every American would test drive a Mercedes 320-CDI. Given
> the _mere_ 204 horsepower, it has torque up the wazoo, and is a blast to
> drive. It shames the gas powered BMW 530 I drove back to back with it.

As an American who bought a VW Jetta Wagon Diesel for my wife, I'm
wholeheartedly overjoyed with it.  Less than 100 HP in that little
turbo-diesel without the turbo, and a nice German suspension where they
paid attention to detail, and a nice acceleration "feel" from the
torque, which is up around 160 lb/ft, if I remember correctly.  That's a
great little car.

Now that refineries in the U.S. have been forced to lower the sulfur
content -- diesel is a nice way to go.

Now if the Germans, Brits, or Japanese would just put a REAL pickup
truck with a diesel into the U.S. Market...

The Nissan Titan wallops the current older-generation U.S. trucks for
quality, fit-and-finish, and various other things -- while still
maintaining a good price point -- but where's the diesel version?  I
need to TOW heavy things, and I don't want to lower my fuel economy to
drop to about 8-10 MPG to do it.

Nate

2006\12\17@200052 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face
> Now that refineries in the U.S. have been forced to lower the
> sulfur content -- diesel is a nice way to go.

Diesel is bad news for air in the US.  Europe may have diesels that are
as clean as gas but over here they are all, Mercedes included, really
dirty.  The EPA OTAQ WWW page has an excel spreadsheet with every single
model.  The jetta is worse than a 3/4 ton Suburban.  Low sulphur diesel
may allow for better emissions control equipment, but it alone doesn't
make a diesel engine cleaner.



> The Nissan Titan wallops the current older-generation U.S.
> trucks for quality, fit-and-finish, and various other things
> -- while still maintaining a good price point -- but where's
> the diesel version?  I need to TOW heavy things, and I don't
> want to lower my fuel economy to drop to about 8-10 MPG to do it.

I don't think the Japanese make anything but a half ton pickup, do they?

--steve


2006\12\17@201541 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Got a 96 Ford Bronco with 5.8L. When the Tundra first came out, on I-71
in Tenn. a long upgrade, the Tundra could barely get by us. He was
empty, I was pulling 6000 lbs. (a body damaged Pathfinder on a U-haul
car haul trailer). Mileage Atlanta to Cleveland was 12 MPG, most of the
time over 70 mph. No trailer, realtively flat open highway 75- 80 mph
its around 18 mpg, and best was 24.2 mpg ATL -CLE light weight, cruising
with 135 miles on the blue grass parkway around 35 mph. It's 0 - 60
close to 9 seconds. The E4OD tranny isn't as good off the line as the
C-6. The 89 Bronco would easily give a Mustang GT fits to 50, but at 60
he was gone. The Bronco can haul 5 people, drop the people off, stop the
lumber yard and pick a dozen sheets of plywood, just slide it in and
drive down the road, no rope needed. :) When hitting snow drifts at 50
MPH, better be ready to look out the side window when the snow piles on
the hood. :)

Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\18@044643 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Plus there are North American engines that make over
>500lb/ft of torque, find me a euro vehicle with those numbers.

Perhaps you need to watch the UK TV program Fifth Gear, where they took a
stock brand new Bentley car down to a drag strip. It blasted whatever Yank
Tank it was pitted against into the weeds - and not just by a car length or
two, it was a significant portion of the 1/4 mile.

However to be fair, while the car it ran against was of US origin, no claims
were made for what motor was fitted, but I would have thought that anyone
doing normal drag racing would have had some form of large V8 with super
charger.

2006\12\18@052712 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
>Plus there are North American engines that make over
>500lb/ft of torque, find me a euro vehicle with those numbers.

How much is that in Nm (Newton meters)?

Anyway, in Europe it is more important to have a small but efficient engine
that works all right in a town where you have to waste your time in a
traffic jam instead of travelling thousands of miles in a one go with a
constant high speed. But diesel usually have a much higher torque than
petrol car. Mine for example is a 6 cyl. BMW one, is a bit old, but
the 2.5liter turbo diesel have 320Nm. One of my ex-boss had a
Volkswagen Tuareg
with a massive 10 cyl. 5.2 liters diesel engine, that had 320 Hp with 740
Nm! And that one is even was very efficient, travelling at 90Km/h the
consumption was like 10 liters only. I do not know how do they do this, but
it was tested by us, not telling this just reading papers. Another colleague
had a Mitsubishi Carisma GDI, that had a unique engine that is petrol one
but the fuel system is more like a diesel one. With 1.8 liters of engine
they achieved 150Hp and with 90Km/h it needs only 5.5 liters / 100Km. The
torque again is much higher than an ordinary petrol engine and the power is
higher than a diesel one.

About this unique engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection

Tamas

2006\12\18@140935 by Tachyon

picon face
The fact is that diesel is cleaner than gasoline in almost all aspects.
Especially in important greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes, given the horrendously low quality diesel sold in the US until this
year, diesel did have higher NOx and particulate emissions in _some_
configurations and conditions, but not all. However this will change
with the newly mandated low-sulphur diesel.

Looking at actual data from fueleconomy.gov you find the following:

Volkswagen Jetta, 2006

Engine                                MPG Cty/hwy                Yearly greenhouse

                                                        gas emissions/tons

1.9L Diesel                        36/41                        5.6 tons

2L Premium Gas                        25/31                        6.7 tons

2.5L 5cyl reg gas                22/30                        7.4 tons

Chevrolet Suburban
5.3L gas                        15/20                        10.6 tons
5.3L E85                        11/15                        8.6 tons
6L Gas                                14/18                        11.3 tons
Honda

Accord Hybrid

Hybrid/reg gas                        25/34                        6.6 tons

Mercedes E320CDI

3.2L Diesel                        27/37                        7.0 tons

Lincoln Town Car

4.6L reg gas                        17/25                        9.3 tons

Ford F150

Pick-up 5.4L gas                14/18                        12.0 tons


You can see that diesels do far better than gasoline engines in fuel
economy and in greenhouse gas emissions.
The former disadvantage in particulate emissions will be reduced or
eliminated by the new low-sulphur diesel and by increased use of bio-diesel.


Steve Ravet wrote:
{Quote hidden}

What is the basis of your Jetta vs Suburban statement?

The EPA ratings are based on mostly effect on human health, not on
environmental impact. Certainly this is important, but also can be
misleading when trying to compare technologies. It's a lucky coincidence
that the more directly harmful emissions to humans are also the easiest
to deal with. For example particulates. These can be simply trapped.
Mercedes has already made huge strides with Blue-tec on NOx and
particulates. Greenhouse gases are more complex, and more difficult to
deal with.

{Quote hidden}

At present diesel is at least as clean as gasoline, and provides greater
fuel-economy. However diesel technology has more room to grow. It's
potential has yet to be maximized. Also, it's cheaper to produce than
gasoline, and has higher yields from crops for bio-fuels than Ethanol.
Not to mention Ethanol produces a lot less energy per acre than biodiesel.

2006\12\18@145423 by Tachyon

picon face
I wasn't talking about overpriced status symbols. I meant real cars that
normal people drive.

If you want to play that game, there's the Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper,
Ford GT and the various Vector models.
For the price of that ridiculous rapper's bling-mobile I could buy a
Corvette Z06 and a new home and still take my wife out for a fine dinner.

The average daily driver in europe is smaller, lighter, with a smaller,
higher revving engine and a higher percentage of manual transmissions or
electronically controlled automatics.

My statement wasn't any sort of attack on any country's automotive
abilities, rather a response to one. The statement was made that North
American manufacturers can't make horsepower. I was pointing out that
it's because the market demands torque instead. So while the original
statement about HP might on average might be true, it's also not a
complete representation of the facts.


Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> Plus there are North American engines that make over
>> 500lb/ft of torque, find me a euro vehicle with those numbers.
>>    
>
> Perhaps you need to watch the UK TV program Fifth Gear, where they took a
> stock brand new Bentley car down to a drag strip. It blasted whatever Yank
> Tank it was pitted against into the weeds - and not just by a car length or
> two, it was a significant portion of the 1/4 mile.
>  
I do watch it. I loved the Hi-lux episode.
> However to be fair, while the car it ran against was of US origin, no claims
> were made for what motor was fitted, but I would have thought that anyone
> doing normal drag racing would have had some form of large V8 with super
> charger.
>
>  
Bentley GT
- $172,000
- 0-60 4.7 seconds
- Drive-train  W12 engine, 6sp auto, All Wheel Drive, 552HP @6100,
479lb-ft Torque @1600

Cadillac CTS-V
- $50,675
- 0-60 4.6 seconds
- Drive Train V8 engine, 6sp manual, Rear Wheel Drive, 400HP @6000,
295lb-ft Torque @4400

Corvette Z06
- $65,640
- 0-62 3.7 seconds
- Drive Train V8 engine, 6sp manual, Rear Wheel Drive, 505HP @6300,
470lb-ft torque @4800

>From those numbers, it seems to me that Bently couldn't make a sports
car if Porsche helped them.
For nearly 200 grand, a W12 engine and all wheel drive, it gets spanked
by both those much cheaper, 2 wheel drive, American cars.

If I was going to waste nearly 200 grand on a car, it might be more
something like

Mercedes S65 AMG
- $182,275
- 0-60 4.2 seconds
- Drive Train, V12 Engine, Rear Wheel Drive, 604HP @4800, 738lb-ft
Torque @2000-4000
Plus it gets 13/20 MPG

2006\12\18@154229 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu
> [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Tachyon
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:10 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> The fact is that diesel is cleaner than gasoline in almost
> all aspects.

Not currently in the US, it isn't.  Automotive diesels in the US are
dirty, and heavy/industrial diesels are unbelievably dirty.  So dirty
that you can't put enough people on a bus or a commuter train to make
them pollution competitive to all of those people driving a single
passenger Suburban.

> Especially in important greenhouse gas emissions.

If I spend 5 seconds worrying about greenhouse emissions in a year, then
I consider it 5 wasted seconds that I'll never get back.  I'm a lot more
concerned with car drivers getting stuck with the pollution blame (and
cost) for pollution they don't generate, and with the very real
particulates, NOx and HCs that diesels put out.

> Yes, given the horrendously low quality diesel sold in the US
> until this year, diesel did have higher NOx and particulate
> emissions in _some_ configurations and conditions, but not
> all. However this will change with the newly mandated
> low-sulphur diesel.

There are 3 diesel cars in the 2006 EPA certification database:  Jetta,
Jeep Liberty, and Mercedes.  They're all dirtier than heavy duty gas
pickups/SUVs.

It may change with low sulphur fuel but I'm skeptical.  The numbers will
tell.

--steve


2006\12\18@163329 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> If I spend 5 seconds worrying about greenhouse emissions in a
> year, then I consider it 5 wasted seconds that I'll never get back.

true you won't get them back, but I don't consider them wasted. but I
live in a country that is already mostly below sea level...

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\12\18@185051 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu
> [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Wouter van Ooijen
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:33 PM
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> > If I spend 5 seconds worrying about greenhouse emissions in a year,
> > then I consider it 5 wasted seconds that I'll never get back.
>
> true you won't get them back, but I don't consider them
> wasted. but I live in a country that is already mostly below
> sea level...

There is nothing humans can do to cause, or reverse, global warming.
Therefore, pointless to worry about emissions.

--steve


2006\12\18@191328 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> Not currently in the US, it isn't.  Automotive diesels in the
> US are dirty, and heavy/industrial diesels are unbelievably
> dirty.  So dirty that you can't put enough people on a bus or
> a commuter train to make them pollution competitive to all of
> those people driving a single passenger Suburban.

I would very much like to see any study or figures that backs up that
statement.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspamspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2006\12\18@193536 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Steve Ravet wrote:
{Quote hidden}

www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=d0d351a5cf6b48d1&ex=1309060800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
QED

2006\12\18@194201 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Me too! The more current diesels from the smallest pickup truck > city
buses > heavy over the road trucks and even 4000 hp. railroad
locomotives use electronic fuel injection with significant improvements
in fuel economy (mileage)  and pollution.  The fuel per ton-mile  of a
modern locomotveis next to amazing. The days of smoky diesels are gone,
just look at the exhausts (mainly realtively  harmless particlates) and
the non-visibles are down also. And then there is soy diesel fuel!

I don't hear anything about the added water vapor and Co2 from high
flying airplanes. 9/11 showed a significant change in cloud cover when
skies were void of man made structures. When's the last time you saw a
really clear starlight night??

Or natural occurance like vocanic eruptions and forest fires.

James Newton, Host wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\18@194654 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu
> [KILLspampiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu] On Behalf Of James Newton, Host
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:13 PM
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> > Not currently in the US, it isn't.  Automotive diesels in
> the US are
> > dirty, and heavy/industrial diesels are unbelievably dirty.
>  So dirty
> > that you can't put enough people on a bus or a commuter
> train to make
> > them pollution competitive to all of those people driving a single
> > passenger Suburban.
>
> I would very much like to see any study or figures that backs
> up that statement.

You can start here:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm

That's the OTAQ WWW page I referred to previously.  There are links to
2007 and previous year certification data in tab delimited format.  The
file is straightforward, although you may have to do some reading to
understand the acronyms they use.

That file makes it easy to compare cars and trucks.

Heavy duty diesels are different.  These engines are rated on one or
more SAE schedules that contain various load points (ie idle, max
torque, max power, etc.).  These load points are combined together to
obtain a single rating in grams/hp-hr for the various pollutants.  The
schedule is chosen to mimic the expected use of the engine.  A
stationary generator would use a schedule of something like 90% full
throttle max power and 10% idle.  An engine for a bus would use
something like 30% idle, 30% full throttle, 40% part throttle, etc.

So a diesel engine rated at 4 grams/hp-hr would take some massaging to
turn it into grams/mile, how cars are rated.  You can find the heavy
duty diesel certifications here:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm.  To use this you'll have to get
the certification ID number off the diesel engine in question.  Then
look that up in the certification data to find the pollution.

Here's an article I wrote about buses:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ravet1.html

And here's something I wrote about trains:

------------------------------------------------------

It's difficult to form a detailed opposition to the rail plan because
Capital Metro hasn't released any details.  But, the EPA has emissions
requirements for trains starting in 2007 that can be used as a starting
point.  The Colorado Railcar company has a DMU that will meet these EPA
requirements now.  You can find their brochure here:

http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmubro.pdf

Page 21 compares the railcar NOx emissions to the federal standard.  It
emits 4.1 grams of NOx per horsepower-hour (bhp-hr). That's really
dirty, it takes a lot of passengers to get that to an acceptable level
per passenger mile.  The following numbers are a _best_case_ example for
the railcar here in Austin:

1)  each train is 1 bi-level DMU plus 2 bi-level coaches, completely
full with 550 passengers.
2)  Since the route is fairly level, the train averages 800 bhp (of the
available 1200 bhp) over the trip
3)  The route is 32 miles, and takes an hour (per Capital Metro).

This scenario of full trains would result in 6600 passenger trips per
day.  Capital Metro is only predicting 2000 passenger trips per day.

With that we have:

4.1 g     | 800 bhp | 1 hr
------------------------------------
1 bhp-hr  |  32 mi  | 550 passengers

Multiplying that out and cancelling units gives .186 grams of NOx per
passenger mile.  Compare this to 2005 model year emissions data from the
EPA:

Toyota Prius:               .01 grams/mile
Honda Accord:               .03 grams/mile
Dodge Caravan:              .08 grams/mile
Dodge Viper:                .1 grams/mile
Chevy Corvette:             .1 grams/mile
Chevy K1500 4WD Suburban:   .15 grams/mile
Chevy H2                    .75 grams/mile

These numbers can be found here:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm

The result of this analysis is that Central Texas would be better off
pollution-wise if Cap Metro just bought each of their initial 1000
riders a Suburban and scrapped the train.  1000 Suburbans would only
cost about $35M, less than half of what Cap Metro will spend on the
train.

A more likely scenario is that each train is a single DMU with a coach,
at something less than capacity.  This more typical scenario gives an
NOx number of .83g/passenger mile.  This is terrible, more pollution
than the H2 Hummer.  And it will only get worse as Capital Metro adds
spurs.  It also doesn't include the increased car pollution caused by
cars waiting for the train to pass, or waiting for the circulator busses
which will be able to pre-empt lights at intersections.

---------------------------------

If you've gotten this far I'll just add one more thing, for 2006
Chevrolet recertified the Hummer so that it's now comparable to the
Suburban and other light duty trucks.

--steve


2006\12\19@035831 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > > If I spend 5 seconds worrying about greenhouse emissions
> in a year,
> > > then I consider it 5 wasted seconds that I'll never get back.
> >
> > true you won't get them back, but I don't consider them
> wasted. but I
> > live in a country that is already mostly below sea level...
>
> There is nothing humans can do to cause, or reverse, global warming.
> Therefore, pointless to worry about emissions.
>
> --steve


Fire off a few nukes, that'll sort it out one way or the other.

Tony

2006\12\19@074946 by olin piclist

face picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:
> Tachyon wrote:
>> North American engines that make over 500lb/ft of torque,
>
> VW's Touareg comes very close to 500 lb/ft

This is getting rediculous.  Unless you're discussing windup spring engines,
lb/ft is not a meaningful unit, and is NOT a unit of torque.  If you're
going to discuss this stuff, at least get the units right.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2006\12\19@091042 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> VW's Touareg comes very close to 500 lb/ft

> This is getting rediculous.  Unless you're discussing windup spring
> engines,
> lb/ft is not a meaningful unit, and is NOT a unit of torque.  If
> you're
> going to discuss this stuff, at least get the units right.

Including the spilling? :-)
lb/ft is the 'spring constant' of a spring in its linear mode, so
indeed quite useful for many spring operated things.

It's also torque per area - a bit hard to see what that's liable to be
useful for.

BUT I think about 98.3% of the people following this thread would read
that annotation as "foot-pounds": the reversed order and "/"
notwithstanding.

Perhaps

       "How about changing the units to ft-lbs, as they should be?"

may be a more efficacious approach.
Maybe not :-).


       Russell


2006\12\19@173733 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Ok, now we understand the confusion:

Steve is talking about NOX emissions and Tachi is on about greenhouse
gasses.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm NOX data
http://www.fueleconomy.gov Greenhouse gas data

But the NOX issue is due to the sulfur content in the fuel, no? And the
newest small diesel cars even filter that out and will have lower NOX as
well as lower everything else.

Finally, I may be reading this wrong, but in the crttst.htm data, it would
appear to me that the VW is lower than most standard cars on NOX anyway. And
this is the car that they banned in California because it wasn't clean
enough?

I have a friend who purchased one out of state (which is legal) and is
running bio-diesel in it. I wonder what the emissions are from that? And
does it matter, since the plant has to have absorbed all that when it was
growing? And if we can't have diesel cars, how will we brew bio-gasoline?

Over all the future of diesel cars looks good to me.

Rebuttals?

---
James.


2006\12\19@185143 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamEraseMEmit.edu
> [@spam@piclist-bounces@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf Of James Newtons Massmind
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> Ok, now we understand the confusion:
>
> Steve is talking about NOX emissions and Tachi is on about
> greenhouse gasses.
>
>  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm NOX data  
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov Greenhouse gas data
>
> But the NOX issue is due to the sulfur content in the fuel,
> no? And the newest small diesel cars even filter that out and
> will have lower NOX as well as lower everything else.

NOx comes from the design of the engine.  High combustion temperatures
combine the N2 and O2 from the air into NO2 and NO3.  This can happen in
gas engines if they run a little bit lean, because lean mixtures burn
hotter.  But gas engines generally don't emit that much NOx.  Diesel is
much higher compression and much hotter combustion temperature, so
generate lots of NOx.  Doesn't have much to do with the fuel, other than
the fuel burning supplies the heat.

I think the low sulphur allows the use of exhaust filtering, including
some way of storing the NOx, and then using a brief rich cycle to reduce
(or oxidize?) the NOx.  Basically some out of cylinder fuel burning to
balance the lean and hot conditions in the cylinder.

> I have a friend who purchased one out of state (which is
> legal) and is running bio-diesel in it. I wonder what the
> emissions are from that? And does it matter, since the plant
> has to have absorbed all that when it was growing? And if we
> can't have diesel cars, how will we brew bio-gasoline?

I've read in various places that bio diesel has lower emissions, but
given the above I don't see how it can make much difference in NOx.
Maybe, given it's origin, the particulates are more "friendly" than
petro diesel.  The EPA doesn't rate diesel engines on biodiesel.  Other
groups may have tested biodiesel, but how comparable are their results
to EPA testing (and therefore to gas cars)?

>
> Over all the future of diesel cars looks good to me.

In Europe diesels are apparently just as clean or cleaner than gas
engines.  I don't know any details, just know that this came up about a
month ago on the diy_efi list and that was one of the results.  For 2007
diesels supposedly have to meet the same pollution requirements as gas
engines, but emissions ratings are just as much politics as they are
science.  A diesel engine may have literally the same number as the gas
engine, but will it be tested on the same schedule or a more forgiving
one?

What I don't have much hope for is heavy duty diesels, and that's where
most of the pollution comes from anyway.

--steve


2006\12\19@190717 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> But the NOX issue is due to the sulfur content in the fuel, no? And
> the
> newest small diesel cars even filter that out and will have lower
> NOX as
> well as lower everything else.

NOX levels are affected by fuel compositions but burning air, with
it's nearly 80% Nitrogen content, is the major source of the NOX.
Internal combustion processes which are only reasonably controllable
across the reaction can not totally eliminate NOX production. External
(ie continuous constant conditions) combustion allows better control.
While you can never totally eliminate NOX by-products when you burn
air, it's far easier to make them much lower with external combustion.
But it will be a wee while yet before the other issues related to
automotive external combustion engines are solved :-)


       Russell

2006\12\19@224902 by Tachyon

picon face
No big deal, semantics. Half of the magazine reviews and even some sales
literature make that mistake.

Foot Pounds or ft-lbs is the correct unit. But I'm quit sure that no one
reading these things even cares about the units being correct because
they all know what is really meant. And given that all engines are rated
in these same units when listed in imperial units, it's really only the
number that matters anyway. In fact my error came from pasting from a
very large and popular automotive review magazine's site. I certainly do
know the difference, but frankly I didn't notice, likely because my
brain stripped the units as irrelevant while reading it. It's the number
that matters. Though I suppose maybe I noticed subconsciously as I added
the word 'torque' after them.


Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\19@235238 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Foot Pounds or ft-lbs is the correct unit.

Or lb-ft or pound foots :-)
(ie as it's a multiplicative product the order is commutative)(ie
order ain't important), even though it's invariably expressed as
ft-pounds.

[[[Probably really foot-pound  with no "s" but if Olin doesn't mention
it, which he well may, then I won't either]]].[[ie units are properly
singular BUT vulgarly often plurali[s|z]ed.

Interestingly, while we are trying to be oh so correct, the common
equivalently used metric units are incorrect :-).
ie kg.m is NOT a proper unit set for torque. One should use N.m, as
torque is the product of force x distance, and kg is a measure of
mass. The two are, as you all know perfectly well, linked by a
constant of proportionality g which conveniently happens to be close
enough to 10 in the mksa system as to be able to be taken as being 10
and thereby inviting a whole world of order of magnitude errors.

The imperial system is saved from such 'error' only by the fact that
the imperial (fps system) mass unit is too sluggish for common use as
g in fpsa units has a value of about 32, and they have made up an
artificial mass unit named the pound mass (lbm) which is a gravityith
(1/g) of the actual unit of mass, the slug. As 1 lbm 'weighs' 1lbf in
a 1g gravity field everyone is uproariously happy and blissfully
unaware. Were it not for this ingenious feat (not to be confused with
acoustically eponymous 0.30480000000r meter unit) then the Brits may
well be torquing about foot-slugs and thereby annoying the unit
police. (Or slug/foot, as per this instance, and annoying them even
more).

It's interesting (depending on who you are and how your brain works)
to ponder what would have been the fate of some common measures if the
Brits had not so brilliantly invented the lbm. (Note that nobody has
ever invented the N_m (Newton_mass)(not to be confuse, though it
certainly would be,  with the N.m) and nobody ever seems to
(correctly) ask for goods by weight in Newtons. But, I digress (still
more). Lacking the lbm we have to deal in slugs and parts thereof. The
ounce (Oz) = 1/16 of the lbf (and therefore having a mass of ~= 1/32 x
1/16 slug) would be about 1/512 slug or about 2 millislug (ms). As s
is already taken as a unit of time they'd have to find some other
convenient letter. [[It must have one but people seem to be mealy
mouthed about what it is]]. An 8 ounce glass of anything would then be
about 15.6 millislugs - say 16 to allow for foam (should the
'anything' have foam). Asking for 16 millislugs of anything is liable
to lead to some strange responses.

Rather gratifyingly, Gargoyle has 5 hits for millislugs.





       Russell



2006\12\20@041952 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>then the Brits may well be torquing about foot-slugs

Sorry, it is cold here, with the first decent frost of the season, so my
brain is feeling rather sluggish ...

And don't try skiing in Europe - green grass is the new white snow.

2006\12\20@071336 by olin piclist

face picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> Over all the future of diesel cars looks good to me.
>
> Rebuttals?

I think electric is definitely the future.  I'm working on some ideas now.

By the way, does anyone know of a good source for really long extension
cords?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2006\12\20@080736 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>> Over all the future of diesel cars looks good to me.
>>
>> Rebuttals?

Good technology but still not good enough long term.

Std diesels make particles of a size which make them amongst the most
carcinogenic substance known to man. Doesn't seem to be well known.
Hard to filter and filters that work tend to be somewhat power
robbing. Not insurmountable.

Still a hydrocarbon IC engine. Less refined fuels than petrol and
easier from a bio base but still energy intensive to produce. Still
caught up in the peak oil catastrophe and /or "in real terms
everything takes more energy to produce than it makes". Fusion escapes
that web, but a fusion powered car seems unlikely this millennium.
(BTTF notwithstanding).

Hydrogen, alas, is liable to have more long term potential once the
storage and distribution issues succumb to volume market.
Nasty stuff. Terrible mass density. Terrible volume density. Nasty
storage issues. Dangerous flames (invisible). Superb energy per mass.

Stirling will save you, but only after you put 100 billion odd into
R&D.
If you really really really must you could make an essentially
identical Stirling run on petrol, diesel, LPG, alcohol, Hydrogen,
Methanol, bio whatever, wood, coal, tar, rice husks, paper, garbage,
solar, nuclear thermal, ... .  ie most thermal sources. External
combustion so NOX emissions can be vvvv good.










2006\12\20@081218 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
?I think electric is definitely the future.  I'm working on some ideas now.
>
>By the way, does anyone know of a good source for really long extension
>cords?

Trolley Wires ??? ;))

2006\12\20@113008 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
I think the big thing in the next 5 years will be diesel-electric
hybrids. Which people will then modify, like the prius, to be plug-in
vehicles by adding 500 pounds of batteries and charging circuitry.

Few people in our culture want to be potentially limited by not being
able to drive their car all day every day, even though we don't. This is
a main reason that people aren't as quick to adopt electric vehicles.
The person trying to sell it says "It has 120 miles range" and the
potential buyer says "that's not enough" though they probably only drove
30 miles that day.

Hydrogen is nice in theory and all, but you mention all of the main
problems. There are promising advances in solid oxide fuel cells that
could run on alcohol, CNG, or some other hydrocarbon, but then their
efficiency and PRICE has to surpass already mature and dirt-cheap IC
technology to become viable.

Electric vehicles are quite viable, despite jokes like Olin's. Most
people don't need to drive very far. If you commute 20 miles to work, an
electric is a very real possibility for you. The only problem is that
you either need to build it yourself, buy someone else's conversion
(which may be a mixture of compromises), or buy a really expensive
rich-boy-toy (tzero, etc) - which is why I come to the conclusion that
plug-in diesel hybrids will be the next logical step.

--
Martin K

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\20@120744 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 11:29 -0500, Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> I think the big thing in the next 5 years will be diesel-electric
> hybrids. Which people will then modify, like the prius, to be plug-in
> vehicles by adding 500 pounds of batteries and charging circuitry.
>
> Few people in our culture want to be potentially limited by not being
> able to drive their car all day every day, even though we don't. This is
> a main reason that people aren't as quick to adopt electric vehicles.
> The person trying to sell it says "It has 120 miles range" and the
> potential buyer says "that's not enough" though they probably only drove
> 30 miles that day.

Very true, but you are forgetting something that is VERY big with
electric cars: refilling takes forever.

I can stand a car that doesn't have a huge range. But at least with gas,
I can refill the car in 5 minutes (at MOST). An electric car takes
HOURS.

I've had this discussion with a colleague of mine. While we disagreed on
many items, we both felt that the distance limitations ARE serious
because of the refill time. Yes, one may only drive 30 kms a day, but
what about the weekend where you want to drive to a provincial park to
do some camping on crown land? It's 400km away, and there is nowhere to
plug your car in. So even if your electric car had a range of 1000kms,
it's still not enough (what if you have to reroute because of
construction).

Sure, you could rent a car, but that is so limiting, and annoying.

It's the same reason that most people want unlimited internet. Most
people rarely use any large amount of bandwidth, but at the same time
they don't want to WORRY about using up their bandwidth.

A solution would be a "reverse" hybrid. Make an electric car with a
range of say 1000kms (minimum). Put a small gas generator in powerful
enough to let you drive say 80km/h on flat terrain. This sort of setup
gives you the benefit of the electric car, but also gives you an "out"
in case something does happen. Sure, you won't be able to drive 120km/h
up a hill, but at least you won't be stranded for 10 hours waiting for
your car to recharge (assuming you are stranded somewhere with a power
outlet).

Of course, none of this discussion tackles the fact the electric cars
are NOT zero emission. The manufacture of the batteries can be VERY
energy intensive, and even after you have the car in your hands, how
clean is that electric power coming over the wires? Does it come from
hydro, or is it mostly coal in your area? Another fact many people
ignore.

TTYL

2006\12\20@121527 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Tachyon wrote:

>> Diesel is bad news for air in the US.  Europe may have diesels that
>> are
>> as clean as gas but over here they are all, Mercedes included, really
>> dirty.  The EPA OTAQ WWW page has an excel spreadsheet with every
>> single
>> model.  The jetta is worse than a 3/4 ton Suburban.

> What is the basis of your Jetta vs Suburban statement?

Presumably here: http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/
>
> The EPA ratings are based on mostly effect on human health, not on
> environmental impact. Certainly this is important, but also can be
> misleading when trying to compare technologies.

Right.  Greenhouse gases, regardless of whether they are a real problem,
are not traditionally what makes a vehicle "dirty."  The above EPA site
puts the greenhouse emissions in a separate category.

{Quote hidden}

It looks to me like those greenhouse numbers are based directly on
the milage, which makes sense.  Gas vs Diesel getting about the same
milage have about the same greenhouse emissions.  CH2(n) fuels, eh?


> The fact is that diesel is cleaner than gasoline in almost all aspects.

There appears to be some conflicting data on that :-)
Or perhaps "except in all past and current implementations."

>
> Especially in important greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't think you can elevate "greenhouse gases" to "more important
than other pollutants" all that easily.  It's controversial enough
to raise it to 'as important as'...

> this will change with the newly mandated low-sulphur diesel.
>
Sure it will.  Show me.

BillW

2006\12\20@125521 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:37 PM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Ok, now we understand the confusion:
>
> Steve is talking about NOX emissions and Tachi is on
> about greenhouse gasses.
>
>  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm NOX data
>  http://www.fueleconomy.gov Greenhouse gas data
>
Traditional pollutants include particulate matter, unburned
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen
oxides, right?  The EPA site seems to have info on all those,
though not in easily decipherable formats (IMO.)  Low sulphur
fuel isn't going to fix all of them.  And I'd expect some of
them to conflict with each other; increasing combustion temp
would decrease hydrocarbon emissions but increase NOX, for instance.

"Greenhouse gasses" is mostly CO2; lacking special recovery
techniques, that's going to be about the same emissions per
pound of fuel for any hydrocarbon, so the only variable is
milage per pound of fuel.

> But the NOX issue is due to the sulfur content in the fuel, no?

I don't think so.  NOX happens when O and N from the air get
combined due to combustion energy.

BillW

2006\12\20@134231 by Tachyon

picon face


William Chops Westfield wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Maybe, but you get a lot more work per MPG from a diesel. For example,
how many people and how much luggage can a gasoline powered vehicle
carry that gets the same MPG as the Mercedes E320 CDI BlueTec?
It makes more sense to compare similar vehicles based on MPG and
emissions. That's why I put the Lincoln in with the Mercedes. Note that
that is the old E320 CDI, not the BlueTec.
>> The fact is that diesel is cleaner than gasoline in almost all aspects.
>>    
>
> There appears to be some conflicting data on that :-)
> Or perhaps "except in all past and current implementations."
>  
None at all. In comparable vehicles and engines, a diesel produces less
emissions in all but NOx and particulates.
That's not speculation, that's tested fact.
>  
>> Especially in important greenhouse gas emissions.
>>    
>
> I don't think you can elevate "greenhouse gases" to "more important
> than other pollutants" all that easily.  It's controversial enough
> to raise it to 'as important as'...
>  
I elevate it because it's the greenhouse gases that are harder to
reduce. In that regard it gives diesel an advantage in being simpler to
clean up. Where as gasoline engines are already at the edge of their
envelope for efficiency. It will be difficult to wring lower greenhouse
emissions from gasoline engines.
>  
>> this will change with the newly mandated low-sulphur diesel.
>>
>>    
> Sure it will.  Show me.
>  
It already has. There's nothing to show. The only thing that diesel has
needed to be cleaner than gasoline is for the greedy US refineries to
get off their butts and produce a better quality, low sulphur diesel
fuel. It didn't happen so the government finally forced them to and it's
in pumps now. With the upcoming BIN5 emissions regs taking effect in
2009, diesel will be _required_ to be cleaner. Given that diesel is
already cleaner in all but NOx and particulates, and that BIN5
specifically requires lower NOx and particulates, then therefore, all
2009 diesel vehicles will be cleaner than gasoline vehicles or they
won't exist. Pretty simple logic. Mercedes has already done it with the
BlueTec and the 08 BlueTec powered Mercedes, Jeeps and Chryslers will
meet BIN5. BIN5 will be the most stringent vehicle emissions in the
world, so I imagine every country will benefit from manufacturers having
to meet BIN5 in the largest automobile market in the world (for now).
Add the fact that diesel is more efficient, provides better fuel
efficiency, and engines tend to have greater longevity, the consumer
benefits as much as the environment.
> BillW
>
>  

2006\12\20@142143 by Tachyon

picon face
There's no such thing as an 'electric car'.
In the US these are primarily coal powered cars. Hardly cleaner than diesel.
Essentially electric cars are only as clean as whatever powers the
outlet they are plugged in to.
The US is notoriously behind in this area, with most of it's electric
production coming from hydrocarbon burning power plants.
Also, I like how the green types love yapping on about electric cars,
but they totally forget about the hundreds of pounds of batteries in
these cars. Batteries that will wear out and need replaced in less miles
than a gasoline engine will provide. Batteries that must then be
disposed of. Yet all the years of screaming by greens to reduce the
amount of batteries we put in landfills seems to be forgotten when it
comes to the electric car discussion.
Also they are totally impractical for a large percentage of the
population. It's usually these California bus pass types that think they
are a great idea. But if they had to ever live in a rural environment
like half the population, they'd find out pretty quick that the range of
today's electric vehicles suck. Not to mention the amount of time spent
recharging is effectively time you don't have a car. Also, these cars
are less efficient in the colder climates that much of North America lie in.

Diesel-electric hybrids do make a lot more sense than gas-electric
hybrids. I don't know why they aren't already in use other then
consumers have stupid misconceptions about diesel based on following
dump trucks, buses, and cars from the 70's.

Hydrogen is a pipe dream. A stupid one. Why waste electricity cracking
water to create hydrogen to burn? Just use the electricity directly. It
only makes sense as an energy storing medium. Since we don't have solar
panels on every house, or wind turbines, etc. And we don't have hundreds
of next generation hydrogen producing nuclear power plants, there's no
clean way to create hydrogen...yet. We're back to the problem of the
electric vehicles. A hydrogen powered car at present is really a coal
(or whatever) powered car, just like the electric car. Except its a much
less efficient one.

If I were 'in charge' I'd quit wasting resources on E85 and use what
ethanol is produced to replace Methanol in bio-diesel reactors. Then I'd
create subsidies for farmers to convert the remaining ethanol crops to
crops most suitable for bio-diesel production based on their local
climate. For example rapeseed or canola. Also set-up federal regulations
on disposal of waste vegetable oil. Requiring it be picked up and
recycled into bio-diesel, bio-heat (fuel oil), etc.
Next promote clean diesel, bio-diesel, and diesel-electric hybrid
vehicles. Increase taxes on gasoline to encourage consumers to switch
and give manufacturers subsidies and tax breaks to produce more clean,
diesel and bio-diesel capable vehicles and diesel-electric hybrids. Next
work on simple, modular, fail-safe nuclear power plant designs that can
also produce hydrogen as a side effect. Once the design is complete and
tested, implement them all over the country. Think county power plants.
Start mandating hydrogen pumps at fuel stations. Tax subsidies for
hydrogen research and vehicles to move there in the future. Use nuke
plants to power national and local rail lines, maybe even mag-levs. And
work on a rail gun project to dispose of nuclear waste into space, or
into the sun. Promote building of bases and processing plants on the
moon to mine helium-3. Tarif foreign oil and use funds to provide
subsidies, grants and loans for residential alternative power
installations like solar, wind, etc.

Well, that's my pipe dream for now.

Martin Klingensmith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\20@144914 by Mike Hord

picon face
> There's no such thing as an 'electric car'.
> In the US these are primarily coal powered cars. Hardly cleaner than diesel.
> Essentially electric cars are only as clean as whatever powers the
> outlet they are plugged in to.

True, but it's easier to control the emissions at a centralized power
plant than locally at an automobile.  For example, the CO2 from a
coal gassification plant can be piped underground for storage.  I'd
be willing to bet that fewer greenhouse gases come out of a coal
gassification or natural gas plant per kilowatt-hour than out of a
standard automobile.  That's just a guess, though, and it doesn't
take into account the massive number of old, outdated power plants
belching filth into our skies.

> Also they are totally impractical for a large percentage of the
> population. It's usually these California bus pass types that think they
> are a great idea. But if they had to ever live in a rural environment
> like half the population, they'd find out pretty quick that the range of
> today's electric vehicles suck.

"Have to" is such a harsh phrase.  With 20+ mile commutes pretty
common these days, we waste an awful lot of gas.  Many of these
folks that "have to" drive into town from the country and so can't use
an electric car really just don't want to live in town.  They "have to"
have a big yard and "have to" have a big house.  We'll all find out what
becomes of those "needs" if the peak oil predictions come true.

> Hydrogen is a pipe dream. A stupid one. Why waste electricity cracking
> water to create hydrogen to burn?

Agreed, although there are a number of promising possible alternatives
involving microorganisms and chemical reactions.  Hydrogen will never
be a "fuel" any more than batteries will be a fuel.  It's just a convenient
means to transport (hopefully) clean energy from where it's made to
where it's used.

Mike H.

2006\12\20@150107 by Timothy Weber

face picon face
Tachyon wrote:
> There's no such thing as an 'electric car'.
> In the US these are primarily coal powered cars. Hardly cleaner than diesel.
> Essentially electric cars are only as clean as whatever powers the
> outlet they are plugged in to.

Interesting - around here (upstate NY), for some years now, all
electricity customers have had the option to select hydro/wind-generated
power for a higher price.  It's just a choice you make when signing up
for an account with the local monopoly.  Does that not happen elsewhere?
--
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org

2006\12\20@150528 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face
> None at all. In comparable vehicles and engines, a diesel
> produces less emissions in all but NOx and particulates.
> That's not speculation, that's tested fact.

That's not what the EPA says.  Here's an excerpt I posted to the diy_efi
list that had this discussion back in October:

-------------------------------------------

Thanks for the summary.  You may have missed the beginning of the thread
where I posted certification levels for the 2006 VW Jetta.  There are 3
non pickup diesel vehicles available in the US, the Jetta, MB E320, and
Jeep Liberty.  Here are the Jetta and MB numbers, and a gas Honda for
comparison.

       Jetta                MB E320        Accord
CO        .11                .1                .3
NOx        .55                .39                .01
HC        .824                .76                .01
part        .069                .064                NA

I didn't put in the V8 SUV, it would be too embarrassing.  How do you
clean up the emissions from your diesel Jetta?  Buy a gas Suburban and
use it to tow your Jetta around town.  You'll be faster, cleaner, and a
lot more stylish.

---------------------------------------------

Those numbers came directly from the tab delimited file with EPA
certification data for 2006 that I posted previously.

--steve


2006\12\20@151508 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Interesting - around here (upstate NY), for some years now, all
> electricity customers have had the option to select hydro/wind-generated
> power for a higher price.  It's just a choice you make when signing up
> for an account with the local monopoly.  Does that not happen elsewhere?
i'd like to know if the use by customers on theese deals is counted on top of statutory obligations to increase renewable use (assuming your country has any) or counted as part of them. If the latter then unless the signups for such services exceed the statutory obligations then they achive nothing.



2006\12\20@165215 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Tachyon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

A common first-order approximation is that "IT'S A COAL CAR!", though
many people who use their electric cars opt to use wind or hydro energy.
You aren't the first person to realize that electricity has to come from
somewhere. Nobody claims that electric cars are perfect for everyone. I
certainly didn't.

--
Martin K


2006\12\20@181708 by Peter P.

picon face
What about alcohol ? 15:1 compression, 30% more power for the same capacity,
'race ready', low NOx emissions ?

I was doing some calculations: A (US) gas car does ~20mpg. 50000 miles per year
are about 2500 gal./year or 5750 USD/year in fuel. So one can talk about a
break-even price of an average car, in fuel-years at 50thou*mi/yr, of 2-4 years.

This is to be able to compare to the break-even if using an alcohol-only car
which is presumably slightly more expensive (but in countries with taxes per
engine volume alcohol users can save a lot by dropping lower by two or three tax
brackets - imho a 900cm^3 engine run on alcohol with turbo can produce in excess
of 150hp - the savings in insurance cost probably pay for the alcohol conversion
in the first year, at most in two - and nobody will beat you again at the
standing mile from the traffic light, even if the car is a Fiat Panda).

In Europe small cars are much more popular and mpg is 35-60 ish so the break
even would be longer (but small cars are cheaper).

Also check these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_alcohol_fuel
www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=alcohol+fuel+price+gallon&btnG=Search
http://www.flexiblefuelcars.org/history_of_alcohol_fuel.html

Note that from the point of view of green fuel E85 is 'adulterated' alcohol.
The adulterant is gasoline and this is what prevents its use with high
compression ratio engines. I think that the adulterant is about to be phased out
... also the price of alcohol is largely set by taxes (just like gas). Without
taxes alcohol may be very competitive BTU for BTU.

Peter P.

2006\12\20@210519 by Tachyon

picon face
You continue to misuse those numbers.
Those numbers are essentially an absolute measurement of what amount of
contaminants are present in each fixed amount of exhaust.
For example. If a vehicle produced 1kg of exhaust, 1mg of it might be
contaminant X (or 1ml per Liter if Olin prefers).
To compare these numbers directly is comparing apples to oranges.
You have to take into account efficiency. The 4cyl accord for example
gets 68% the fuel economy of the Jetta .
If you want to compare pollution levels, you cannot continue to use the
units you are using because you are flat wrong to do so. What you would
need to do is create a new unit.
Something like ml per Kilometer.

It's like saying Bob makes more money than Joe because Bob makes $6.60
per hour and Joe make $5.60 per hour.
That statement is meaningless unless you know how many hours they each
work per week. If Joe works 41 hours, and Bob only works 28, then Bob
doesn't really make more money does he? (ignoring overtime)
In fact Joe makes $229 per week and Bob makes $184 per week.

Get it?

That comparison is based on current, pre low sulphur, pre BIN5 emission
numbers.
On a comparison like this, the Mercedes BlueTec kills nearly everything
on the market, right now today.

Also to the equation you should probably add things like cargo room,
passenger capacity, etc.
In a comparison like this, the E320 CDI BlueTec trounces nearly all
gasoline powered cars.
If fact given the actual MPG numbers of the highly inflated Prius, I bet
it would beat that too.
It'll be nice to see Hybrids forced to give real world numbers under the
new EPA testing rules this year.
The Prius' real world HWY MPG is within a few MPG of the E320CDI, but at
greatly reduced cargo/passenger room.




Steve Ravet wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\20@223716 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu
> [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Tachyon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:05 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> You continue to misuse those numbers.
> Those numbers are essentially an absolute measurement of what
> amount of contaminants are present in each fixed amount of exhaust.
> For example. If a vehicle produced 1kg of exhaust, 1mg of it

The numbers in the files are grams/mile of pollutant.  For previous
years the data is in an excel spreadsheet and the units are in the file.
I don't see them in the comma delimited file, hence the confusion.
There wouldn't be much point in publishing the numbers if they were ppm
or something like that.

> That comparison is based on current, pre low sulphur, pre
> BIN5 emission numbers.
> On a comparison like this, the Mercedes BlueTec kills nearly
> everything on the market, right now today.

That's what I've heard from Europeans.  It may happen here also.  Wait
and see.

--steve

2006\12\20@225401 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
> I have a friend who purchased one out of state (which is legal) and is
> running bio-diesel in it. I wonder what the emissions are from that? And
> does it matter, since the plant has to have absorbed all that when it was
> growing? And if we can't have diesel cars, how will we brew bio-gasoline?
>
>  
Don't they use petrochemical-derived fertilizers to grow plants?
Carey

2006\12\21@000117 by Mike Singer

picon face
> There's no such thing as an 'electric car'.
> In the US these are primarily coal powered
> cars. Hardly cleaner than diesel. Essentially
> electric cars are only as clean as whatever
> powers the outlet they are plugged in to.
>
> The US is notoriously behind in this area,
> with most of it's electric production coming
> from hydrocarbon burning power plants.


Numbers makes an engineer (rephrasing Olin)
From
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/coal-plant.htm
-------
Approximately 52% of the United States' electricity is generated using
coal as fuel.
-------
That's closer to "only half of" than "most of its electric production".


> Hydrogen is a pipe dream. A stupid one.

I would be a bit careful using strong words about the whole existing
industry of researches on future technologies until I'm chief of
something like GM, BMW or similar.


> If I were 'in charge' I'd quit wasting resources
> on E85 and use what ethanol is produced to
> replace Methanol in bio-diesel reactors. Then
> I'd create subsidies for farmers to convert the
> remaining ethanol crops to...

> Increase taxes on gasoline to encourage
> consumers to switch and give manufacturers
> subsidies and tax breaks to produce more clean,

> And work on a rail gun project to dispose of
> nuclear waste into space, or into the sun.
> Promote building of bases and processing
> plants on the moon to mine helium-3. Tariff
> foreign oil and use funds to provide subsidies,
> grants and loans for residential alternative
> power installations like solar, wind, etc.


Good intentions could lead to economy crash, again.
Been there, seen that.

L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions :-)

MS

2006\12\21@000457 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Also to the equation you should probably add things like cargo room,
> passenger capacity, etc.

I'm in agreement with the principle - but note that you need several
'real world' comparison standards to suit differing requirements
At least one such should siply be "per mile driven" to cover the
single passenger to and from work usage which is all too prevalent
worldwide.
It doesn't matter how many passengers you COULD carry if you carry
none. And cargo room is irrelecvant if not used.

> The Prius' real world HWY MPG is within a few MPG of the E320CDI,
> but at
> greatly reduced cargo/passenger room.

Somewhere I read a real world account by a Prius owner of achieved
mpgs and the conditions under which they were achieved and I was very
impressed. No doubt, therefore, I'd also be impressed with the
E320CDI.


       Russell.




2006\12\21@005544 by Tachyon

picon face
haha, someone at the EPA needs a new proofreader.
I couldn't figure what was going on  'till I re-read the actual test
spec document.
The spreadsheets you pointed to didn't jive with the numbers in them
which match other data using ppm and other static units.

It's supposed to be grams per MOLE. I bet some secretary thought they
were correcting an error and changed it to mile.

There are two major units used in these tests and a few minor ones. The
major two are parts per million (ppm) and grams per mole g/mol.

If you live in a state that does emissions testing, then you've seen
that the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or chassis dyno to
derive a per distance unit.

Steve Ravet wrote:
>  
>
>  
>> {Original Message removed}

2006\12\21@010531 by Tachyon

picon face
New, cleaner diesel fuel is turning heads
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061104/AUTO03/611040301/1149/rss26

Diesel fuel cleaner than natural gas, according to new CARB information
http://bulktransporter.com/mag/transportation_diesel_fuel_cleaner_2/

Since a couple of references were asked for....

2006\12\21@020826 by Tachyon

picon face


Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Also to the equation you should probably add things like cargo room,
>> passenger capacity, etc.
>>    
>
> I'm in agreement with the principle - but note that you need several
> 'real world' comparison standards to suit differing requirements
> At least one such should siply be "per mile driven" to cover the
> single passenger to and from work usage which is all too prevalent
> worldwide.
> It doesn't matter how many passengers you COULD carry if you carry
> none. And cargo room is irrelecvant if not used.
>  
Heh, sure, until it's time to take your family on vacation. ;')
{Quote hidden}

The misrepresentation of the real world economy of the Prius is nearly
legendary. In fact the only thing that saved them from a class action
law suit was that they quoted the EPA fuel economy ratings. The problem
was so bad that the EPA has now revised those tests.

The Prius is rated at 60/51 mpg, but to quote
www.automotive.com/2005/43/toyota/prius/reviews/driving-impressions/index.html
"...Most Prius owners report much lower fuel economy, while others argue
this point. Published reports have pegged actual fuel economy at 44 to
48 mpg or 20-percent less than the government's EPA rating."

On the other hand, most owners report higher real world MPG for their
diesels than the EPA numbers.

As for the E320 CDI, I really encourage you to test drive one. Even if
you'll never even consider buying one, it's an interesting experience to
see where diesel has come since the 300D days. I think everyone should
test drive one.
>         Russell.
>
>
>  
>
>  

2006\12\21@023151 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 20, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Tachyon wrote:

> You have to take into account efficiency. The 4cyl accord for example
> gets 68% the fuel economy of the Jetta.

>>        Jetta                MB E320        Accord
>> CO        .11                .1                .3
>> NOx        .55                .39                .01
>> HC        .824                .76                .01
>> part        .069                .064                NA

Um.  If I multiply the Jetta numbers by .68 to take into account
better fuel efficiency, it still looks awfully dirty compared to
the Accord...  I mean, you're looking at 55 TIMES the NOx emissions,
and 82 TIMES the HC emissions.


> That comparison is based on current, pre low sulphur, pre BIN5
> emission numbers. On a comparison like this, the Mercedes BlueTec
> kills nearly everything on the market, right now today.

So please point at us a credible site that quote numbers on your
"ideal" diesel configuration.  Not that I'm sure it matters much;
I think most of us are complaining about the diesels on the road
today, which are likely to be poor emissions performers for quite
some time, given the typical lifetime of diesel vehicles (or ANY
vehicle, for that matter.  Who was it that pointed out that one
of the cheapest ways to clean up city air might be to replace the
10-y old gas-hog junker cars many people were driving with brand
new modern cars (at public expense)?)

BillW

2006\12\21@024100 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 20, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

>> The Prius' real world HWY MPG is within a few MPG of the
>> E320CDI, but at greatly reduced cargo/passenger room.
>
> Somewhere I read a real world account by a Prius owner of achieved
> mpgs and the conditions under which they were achieved and I was
> very impressed.

I know several prius owners, and they do indeed quote real-world
numbers that are pretty impressive (this IS the in SF bay area,
where perhaps "highway" driving resembles "city" driving elsewhere.)
Moreover, a number of these prius owners are large and/or overweight,
and I'm impressed that they even find a fuel-efficient car comfortable.

On the other hand, the recent trend in "hybrid" "performance" cars
is rather depressing.  A coupe with a V6 gas engine and electric
hybrid (like the Honda Accord Hybrid) seem to me to reflect a
company that just doesn't "get it."  Sigh.

BillW

2006\12\21@024352 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 20, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Tachyon wrote:

> the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or chassis dyno to
> derive a per distance unit.
>
The "new" (as of a couple years ago) emissions test has little
rollers for your car to "move" on...  In california, anyway.

BillW

2006\12\21@063038 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> It doesn't matter how many passengers you COULD carry if you carry
>> none. And cargo room is irrelevant if not used.


> Heh, sure, until it's time to take your family on vacation. ;')

No.
It's still irrelevant if not used when you take your family on
vacation.
However, if that were to happen with my family (or me!) I'd know there
was something very wrong :-)


       Russell

2006\12\21@115553 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bounces.....spamTakeThisOuTmit.edu On Behalf Of William Chops Westfield
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:44 AM
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Tachyon wrote:
>
> > the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or chassis dyno to
> > derive a per distance unit.
> >
> The "new" (as of a couple years ago) emissions test has little
> rollers for your car to "move" on...  In california, anyway.

Massachusetts has also used a dynomometer in it's emissions test for a few
years.

Paul

>
> BillW

2006\12\21@125842 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspamspammit.edu
> [.....piclist-bouncesspamRemoveMEmit.edu] On Behalf Of Tachyon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:56 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> haha, someone at the EPA needs a new proofreader.
> I couldn't figure what was going on  'till I re-read the
> actual test spec document.
> The spreadsheets you pointed to didn't jive with the numbers
> in them which match other data using ppm and other static units.

Hi Tachyon, it's grams per mile.  It's how the cars are rated by the
manufacturer, with the car on a treadmill that varies the load to
simulate both city and highway driving.  It's called the federal test
procedure and I would think that google would return you a whole
evenings worth of reading material about it.

{Quote hidden}

Texas does emissions testing, although my particular county doesn't, and
I can assure you that in some parts of the state pre OBD2 cars (1995 and
older) are put on a treadmill.  Denver I believe puts all cars on the
dyno, they found that most of the cars that failed the OBD2 (computer
only) test were in fact perfectly clean.

--steve


2006\12\21@152909 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 23:55 -0600, Tachyon wrote:
> If you live in a state that does emissions testing, then you've seen
> that the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or chassis dyno to
> derive a per distance unit.

While I agree with you on the units, you are incorrect about the lack of
"motion" during emission tests, at least in my area.

The emission tests done in Ontario, Canada are on a 2 wheel dyno. While
full time AWD cars are tested in neutral (like my current car), the vast
majority of cars and trucks are tested at speed (4WD trucks obviously
are kept in 2WD mode), and the majority of cars are 2WD only.

So, if they WANTED, they could use a "per distance" unit, but they
don't. In my case they use PPM and %. The numbers from my last emission
tests were:

2001 Subary Legacy - 2.5L 4cyl Gas
2 speed idle tailpipe emissions test:

2500RPM

       Limit        Reading        Result
HC ppm        150        14        PASS
CO%        0.7        0.00        PASS
NO ppm        N/A        N/A        PASS
       RPM        2702        VALID
       Dilution 13.6        VALID

IDLE

       Limit        Reading        Result
HC ppm        150        44        PASS
CO%        0.7        0.00        PASS
NO ppm        N/A        N/A        N/A
       RPM        677        VALID
       Dilution 13.5        VALID

Notice there are no NO readings, I believe that's because they don't
have a 4 wheel dyno, so they test my car with no load. My previous car
was FWD and was run on the dyno, with the following results:


1988 Oldsmobile Delta 88 - 3.8L 6cyl Gas

ASM 2525

       Limit        Reading        Result
HC ppm        58        31        PASS
CO%        0.32        0.05        PASS
NO ppm        652        108        PASS
       RPM        1474        VALID
       Dilution 14.8        VALID

Curb Idle

       Limit        Reading        Result
HC ppm        200        18        PASS
CO%        1.00        0.02        PASS
NO ppm        N/A        N/A        N/A
       RPM        735        VALID
       Dilution 14.7        VALID


Due to the lack of load testing on the Subaru you can't really compare
those results between the cars. So, comparing only the IDLE tests, the
interesting part is, as expected the older car has a HIGHER limit for HC
and CO, however it actually tests LOWER in HC then the newer car! Of
course, the CO% reading is 0.00 on the newer car, so I guess it would
take ALOT longer to fill the garage with CO with the newer car... (good
to know!).

TTYL

2006\12\21@162809 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamBeGonemit.edu
> [spamBeGonepiclist-bounces@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf Of Herbert Graf
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:29 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Bimota centre hub steering
>
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 23:55 -0600, Tachyon wrote:
> > If you live in a state that does emissions testing, then
> you've seen
> > that the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or
> chassis dyno to
> > derive a per distance unit.
>
> While I agree with you on the units, you are incorrect about
> the lack of "motion" during emission tests, at least in my area.

Yearly emission testing measures pollutants in ppm and %, as you note.
But the EPA certification data that I've been quoting is in grams per
mile, and the heavy diesel engines are grams per hp-hr.

--steve


2006\12\21@205736 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Steve Ravet wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 23:55 -0600, Tachyon wrote:
> > > If you live in a state that does emissions testing, then
> > you've seen
> > > that the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or
> > chassis dyno to
> > > derive a per distance unit.
> >
> > While I agree with you on the units, you are incorrect about
> > the lack of "motion" during emission tests, at least in my area.
>
> Yearly emission testing measures pollutants in ppm and %, as you note.
> But the EPA certification data that I've been quoting is in grams per
> mile, and the heavy diesel engines are grams per hp-hr.

I see, interesting. That said, my response was to the statement that
emissions testing doesn't have motion, making those units unavailable,
which was incorrect, at least in my area.

TTYL

2006\12\22@020456 by Ray Warren

flavicon
face
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:08:12AM -0600, Tachyon wrote:

>
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> >> Also to the equation you should probably add things like cargo room,
> >> passenger capacity, etc.
> >>    
> >
> > I'm in agreement with the principle - but note that you need several
> > 'real world' comparison standards to suit differing requirements
> > At least one such should siply be "per mile driven" to cover the
> > single passenger to and from work usage which is all too prevalent
> > worldwide.
> > It doesn't matter how many passengers you COULD carry if you carry
> > none. And cargo room is irrelecvant if not used.
> >  
> Heh, sure, until it's time to take your family on vacation. ;')
Does your family get bigger when you go on vacation? Luggage will
probably increase but you can use the money you saved driving a smaller
vehicle the rest of the year to rent a large vehicle for 1 or 2
weeks.I believe part of the problem is the perception that you have to
own and use a vehicle that satisfies occasional peak needs for everyday use.
Ray Warren

2006\12\22@042611 by Tachyon

picon face
You're confusing tier certification with emissions testing.

When a new card is ready to go on sale, it must pass a certification
test for the tier it falls into. eg Tier 2 Bin 10.
In these tests, the cars are tested in a real world simulator which is
an advanced system that includes wheel rollers, and even wind
resistance. In these tests, very accurate, real world conditions are
simulated and accurate, emissions per distance units are calculated.
However, they are NOT what the EPA uses to list the vehicle. The number
must only pass the tier minimums (or maximums as the case may be).

While newer emissions testing uses wheel rollers, it is only to put the
engine under load. It does not generate a per distance unit, as has been
posted.
I should have spoken more clearly though. I said

"If you live in a state that does emissions testing, then you've seen
that the cars don't go anywhere. There's no motion or chassis dyno to
derive a per distance unit."

I stand by this, but I should have expanded to point out that some do
use rollers. But these are not dyno's. A dyno resists the vehicle at a
specific rate calculated to simulate highway load for that vehicle.
Rollers, just allow the wheels to spin.
You'll note the lack of any per distance unit in the testing output.

And I got the grams per mole unit from the spec documents. That's why I
laughed in my post. I was reading it imagining some data entry person
'correcting' the unit from mole to mile.

Steve Ravet wrote:
>  
>
>  
>> {Original Message removed}

2006\12\22@042625 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Of course, the CO% reading is 0.00 on the newer car, so I
>guess it would take ALOT longer to fill the garage with CO
>with the newer car... (good to know!).

I guess that depends what else depletes the oxygen ... ;))

Sounds like a test I don't want to try ;)

2006\12\22@091516 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 03:26 -0600, Tachyon wrote:
> I stand by this, but I should have expanded to point out that some do
> use rollers. But these are not dyno's. A dyno resists the vehicle at a
> specific rate calculated to simulate highway load for that vehicle.
> Rollers, just allow the wheels to spin.
> You'll note the lack of any per distance unit in the testing output.

I'm sorry, but at least in my province, they ARE dynos. What would be
the point of letting the wheels spin if you don't put them under any
real load???

I've seen the test done, the car is OBVIOUSLY under a load (heck, the
sound of the engine is WAY different when a car is under load, that
alone would tell me it's under load, if I didn't already confirm it
otherwise), a real world load.

If you don't believe me for some reason:
>From http://www.driveclean.com/how/howis.html

______________________________________________________________________
At an accredited Drive Clean facility, an emissions inspector will drive
your car or light-duty truck onto a dynamometer. This machine is like a
treadmill that allows the vehicle to be "driven" on one spot at
different speeds.

A probe is placed in the tailpipe of your vehicle. The probe is
connected to a gas analyzer and computer, which can measure the
concentration of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons (HC), which
includes volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide (CO).

Your vehicle is accelerated to a steady speed of 40 km per hour. Several
emissions readings are taken and then averaged by the computer during
this driving simulation. The simulated driving conditions result in
measurements of NOx, HC and CO. Then, when the vehicle is returned to
idle, the emissions are measured again, in what is called a “curb idle”
test. The idle portion of the test measures HC and CO.
_______________________________________________________________________

"Simulated driving conditions" certainly means under load, and not
"wheels just spinning".

TTYL

2006\12\22@173351 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:07:32 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

>...
> Hydrogen, alas, is liable to have more long term potential once the
> storage and distribution issues succumb to volume market.
> Nasty stuff. Terrible mass density. Terrible volume density. Nasty
> storage issues. Dangerous flames (invisible). Superb energy per mass.

You failed to mention "Zero harmful emissions" !  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\12\22@181919 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Hydrogen, alas, is liable to have more long term potential once the
>> storage and distribution issues succumb to volume market.
>> Nasty stuff. Terrible mass density. Terrible volume density. Nasty
>> storage issues. Dangerous flames (invisible). Superb energy per
>> mass.

> You failed to mention "Zero harmful emissions" !  :-)

Lower, not zero.
Burning air with Nitrogen in it still potentially and probably
actually generates NOX. No CO2 though. Using Hydrogen with a Stirling
engine [ :-)  (tm)] will generate much less NOX.


       Russell.

2006\12\22@184457 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> Hydrogen, alas, is liable to have more long term potential

> You failed to mention "Zero harmful emissions" !

You can still get NOx...

BillW

2006\12\22@184934 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Hydrogen, alas, is liable to have more long term potential...

It does bug me, however, that the probable source of hydrogen
for the foreseeable future is from fossil fuels :-(

BillW

2006\12\23@133012 by Tachyon

picon face
OK, so even if diesel isn't the cleanest, it's the baddest.

www.speedarena.com/news/publish/sportscar/article_7243.shtml
www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/06/audi-diesel-wins-lemans-changes-perceptions.html
http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_dieselperf.cfm

Happy smokey holidays!

Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...