Talk:Hybrid vehicle/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Hybrid saving potential?

The reason for modern hybrid concept is to harverst the low-power-efficiency-penalty of the today high power vehicle engine, generally used with only 15% average load factor. This is a 50% fuel saving potential, of which half could be harvested the hybrid way. But getting extra efficiency this way requires additional power components and energy storage, with associated counter-productive increases in weight, space, maintenance, cost and environmental recycling process".

Development of the photo-detonation engine would provide more direct means to acheive the same as it would have very little low-power-efficiency-penalty; would be more environment friendly as it would require low octane additive-free gasoline or diesel fuel; would be multi-fuel compatible, including direct hydrogen combustion; and would offer a drastic reduction in the overall propulsion system weight, size, maintenance and cost. The Quasiturbine is one of such photo-detonation engine of the future.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, particularly when promoting unproven inventions (your own, perhaps?) like this one. Andrewa 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For now however, the hybrid concept is attractive, until such time when fully electric vehicles will efficiently "fuel" from the electrical grid." ...

Said differently, the efficiency of a 200 HP gas engine falls dramatically when used at 20 HP because of high vacuum depressurization needed in the intake manifold, which vacuum is less as the power produced by the engine increases. Photo-detonation engines do not need intake vacuum as they intake all the air available, and mainly for this reason, efficiency stay high even at low engine power. This is the objective of the hybrid concept to save on low efficiency at reduced engine power. More is said on the inventor website. Salutations, Gilles

[edit] Hybrid types subsection, 3rd paragraph

The mechanical connections between ICE, MG1 and MG2 are nearly identical in the 1997-2003 Prius as in the 2004-present Prius. The improvements to the current shipping Prius were focused on being a much more competitive car in terms of size, form, function, performance and luxury. Many improvements were made to the power plant, however the implementation of the power split device has not changed any.

I hope the main author will rework that paragraph so that it is more accurate than it is currently.

--Mtgops 19:33, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! You can rework it yourself. If you don't feel confident with Wiki syntax, don't worry, others can neaten it. —Morven 20:32, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
It is true that the PSD is the same, and the basics of the THS and HSD are the same. Toyota gave the HSD a new name because the design parameters and many implementation details have changed. For example, the electrical components were redesigned for much higher voltage, the new HSD runs the motor at 500+V. Given the higher output from the motors, the energy equation and the software that control the optimal operation of the drive train must be fine tuned to adapt too. Kowloonese 21:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 71% softer skin?

What does "while delivering 50% better fuel efficiency" mean? A car doesn't deliever fuel efficiency, it delivers mileage while having fuel consumption. So do hybrids consume 50% less fuel or drive 50% farther (meaning they consume 33% less)? Paranoid 19:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volvo in the 70s

During the gass shortage in the 70s Volvo created a car that should probably be mentioned here. Alison9 06:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid What?

Moved to Gas-Electric Hybrid. --D0li0 09:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge by Rmhermen

I can't find any where what exactly Rmhermen is proposing to merge.

Or what? Cburnett 20:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'de like to find a better structure for the whole lot of ZEV PZEV BEV PHEV hybrid vehicle Gas-Electric Hybrid Gas-electric hybrid engine Hydrogen car and probable a few others... ( Say, does wikipedia have any sort of tree view other than catagories or am I thinking too old-fassion directory structure-ish? )

Hybrid:

  • Fueled[PV/Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo, Tidal, Waste-Bio, Biofuels, NG, Coal, Oil, Nuclear, unknown]
  • Powered[Motors(DC/AC/Induction/BLDC/SepEx), Engines, Turbines, unknown]
  • Storage[Gassoline-Tank, Electricity-Battery, Elec/Chem/Therm(H2)-FuelCells]

Non-Hybrids use one of each, a Hybrid would use multiple from any one catagory, and it's important which ones and how many of each a platform is capable of. For example a non-hybrid BEV is easily modified to use gas/ice, becomming a more advanced and versitile hybrid than todays hybrid powered but not fueled vehicles. ie: An Insight or Prius can not use PV/Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo, Tidal, Bio-electric, coal, NG or nuclear fuels but only oil-gas. While the BEV-Hybrid is capable of using nearly any fuel and even achieves fair "mileage" as a series-hybrid running on gassoline. --D0li0 09:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was first inclined to VFD Gas-Electric Hybrid but thought to offer a chance to merge anything useful into this article. Rmhermen 20:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that this article Hybrid vehicle contains information to specific for it's title such information might be moved to a Hybrid gas-electric powered vehicle article, the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle article might be renamed Hybrid gas-electric fueled vehicle. This article should contain the more generic information in Gas-Electric Hybrid and expand to include other hybrid vehicular technologies not limited to Gas-Electric such as Hybrid diesel-electric powered vehicle such as GM's new Diesel "Hybrid" bus, Hybrid diesel-electric fueled vehicle such as transit busses with city overhead wire fuel sources, existing "Bi-fuel" Hybrid Gas-LPG-NG fueled vehicle, or Hybrid human-electric fueled vehicles like E-bikes. .oO( I know that's probably a lot to ask ) --D0li0 22:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


However, I do not support the fracturing of information about hybrid vehicles into 10 different sub-pages. I think most people looking up hybrid vehicles will be looking up the Honda/Toyota/Ford hybrid cars that make up the vast majority of hybrid vehicle sales. Therefore, I would ideally like to see a Hybrid Automobile page that covered the bulk of the information in the current Hybrid vehicle page, and then gave links to other pages with information on things like Hybrid Locomotives, PHEVs, etc. Splitting the pages into esoteric categories like Hybrid-Battery-Conventional-Fueled is helpful to about .001 percent of Wikipedia readers and does a disservice to everyone else. With that said, I fully support the integration of Gas-Electric Hybrid into this article, and do not support the development of further pages on each sub-sub-class of hybrid vehicle. --Aeki 5 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

Fracturing may be to harsh a term and there are 6 different sub-pages, half of which already exist. How about renaming Hybrid vehicle to Hybrid electric vehicle (ie: HEV) simply to make room for the more generic and misnamed Gas-Electric Hybrid page. This along with the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle page, two diesel, a Flexible-fuel vehicle, and human hybrid make up all 6 types which can be found in production. Granted the Prius may be all people are looking for but the wonder that is Wikipedia is the amazing Insights which you never intended to find. Besides, it would give us a place to move some of the more fringe information which is not very gas-electric hybrid powered (ie: Production HEVs) specific. Anyway Hybrid is to generic and Hybrid What just sounds funny. <Shrugs> --D0li0 6 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Criticism of hybrid vehicles' section; discuss!

I have removed the 'Criticism of hybrid vehicles' section on the grounds that it is an unsourced, POV rant by an anonymous user. This is not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of the hybrid in its current form; rather, this is not an accurate summation of them. Here's the original text. How about trying to get this to be a more accurate, and preferably sourced, list of the criticism?

== Criticism of hybrid vehicles ==
{{sectfact}}
{{SectNPOV}}
In Europe, hybrid vehicles are seen with suspicion. Many people assume hybrids are meant to forward a particular U.S. political agenda, one which refuses to conserve energy to combat global warming. Instead hybrid propulsion technology is the alleged way to preserve the american SUV and big block full-sized car culture, which still wastes energy regarless of its origin (which is fossil or nuclear based after all). The Californian Governor's solicitation of hidrogen and hybrid Hummers has received negative publicity in the old continent.
Most european car vendors follow a path of refining the traditional car with further reduction in the capacity of internal combustion engines and a trend towards smaller overall vehicle sizes to reduce fossil fuel consumption to 60MPG and beyond. Recently manufactured multi-phase direct injection commonrail turbo-diesel engines are quite powerful, have good acceleration and the RPM range is no longer limited (e.g. Toyota D-4D, Fiat Multijet, Peugot HDi). The inclusion of a particle filter drum or Euro-4 standards compliance reduces solid emissions dramatically. Such developments remove the need for auxillary electric propulsion in diesel-powered cars. Economic pure diesel vehicles continue to conquer the european market, having reached an 50% share of all new sales as of mid-2005 and hybrids are practically unheard of.
The use of batteries for automotive power is controversial, because rechargeable batteries are amongst the least efficient forms of power storage known to mankind[SIC]. A partially or fully electric-powered vehicle needs to haul several hundred kilograms(220lbs, Insight=50lbs, Prius=<100) of batteries. BEV's often measure PbA pack capacity as a percentage of the total mass, using that as an estimate for range. This large weight increase requires extra power from the engine due to increased friction, yet the batteries store juice for less than 100 kilometers (62 miles, Insight=0, Prius=2-4miles, PbA-BEV=30-90miles, NiMH-BEV=80-140miles, Li-BEV=300+miles) worth of full-electric cruise. The average internal combustion engine powered vehicle spends 2-4% of its onboard fuel reserve per 1000 kilometers to haul its own fuel stored in the tanks, though all the while wasting the vast majority of the fuels energy content, about 70% to 80% of the total energy goes unused. This ratio is markedly worse in case of electric vehicles. Of course this is all quite obvious as it's imposible to find an energy carrier as dense as liquid hydrocarbons, too bad they're destroying our environment and sparking wars.
The onboard use of a large mass of batteries poses environmental and safety dangers. The cost to produce rechargeable batteries is very high when measured in terms of the raw materials used up (which of course can't be recycled), the manufacturing effort and the resulting pollution[SIC]. Many battery ingredients, including lead, acids, cadmium and metal-hydrides are poisonous or harmful to humans and the environment (and are the most recycled materials on earth), which causes problems in case of an accident and responsible disposal at the vehicle' end-of-life (which is never since only the Batteries in a BEV tend wear out). While diesel and gassoline are perfectly benign as are oil spills and the massive conversion of such fuels into Carbon Dioxide.

[edit] Proposed new text

insert new text here

The sucess of the hybdrid car concept builds large on a green image which reduces the bad reputation of contributing to global warmin, asthma etc.. If you look at the MPG or l/100km figures you see that with mild hybrides there is no big improvements over cars sold in Europe for a long time. Only the SUV-boom and the increase of saftey for the occupants, gadgets and air conditions has been increasing vehicle weight and fuel consumption that much that changes are madatory. Taking into consideration the life cycle of a car i.e. the energy necessary to build the car you might be better of to use ECODRIVING (i.e. combine relaxed and low RPM US- drivig style with small to medium size European cars). 47 MPG 5l/100km should be no problem when driving with responsibility this way with a 10,000 EURO four seater.

I'm not sure that mpg figure is entirely realistic. I drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio (2001) and generally get around 45mpg(UK) out of it, and I'm no racer. That's about 37.5mpg(US) or 6.3l/100km.
I do agree with the principle though, driving a lighter, smaller capacity car sensibly can probably rival real life Hybrid performance. Of course, cost involved depends on your personal situation. My Clio is worth about £2000, so I would have to save an awful lot of fuel to justify buying an £18000 hybrid. However, if I drove a similarly priced car already, this would not be an issue. Unclejimbo83 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of hybrid vehicles

Especially in Europe, hybrid vehicles are seen with some suspicion. Many people assume hybrids solely address the pollution issue, while refusing to conserve energy, which is a half-hearted approach against global warming. Use of hybrid propulsion technology is often considered an exclusive solution for emission problems of SUV and full-sized car culture because of its higher price, but it still wastes energy due to unwarrantedly large vehicle sizes (e.g. even the Prius is considered a big car by european standards). California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's solicitation of hidrogen and hybrid powered Hummers has received negative publicity in the old continent because driving monster SUVs was considered meaningless, regarless of the propulsion used.

Instead, European car vendors follow a path of refining the traditional car to reduce fossil fuel consumption to 65MPG and beyond, using smaller internal combustion engines with a trend towards overall smaller vehicle sizes. Europe's choices are the modern small diesels, which have enough power, good torque/RPM and boast the highest efficiency of any internal combustion engine design. The inclusion of a particle filter drum and Euro-4 compliance reduces solid emissions dramatically. Such developments remove the need for auxillary electric propulsion in diesel-powered cars. Economic pure diesel vehicles continue to conquer the european market, having reached an 50% share of all new sales as of mid-2005 and hybrids are practically unheard of. The International Engine of the Year 2005 award given to the Fiat MultiJet 1.3D underscores the continued viability of traditional and significantly cheaper internal combustion solutions against hybrid technologies.

No major arguments so far, I may agree with the EU perspective on Hybrids/Diesels. Unfortunently this may still not be NPOV and lacks references. It also ignores FF consumption as the root problem facing personal vehicles of any shape or size globally.
It is an overstatement to say that hybrids are unheard of. If you mention the Year 2005 award, you should mention that Prius was selected as Best European Car of the Year 2005. See BBC.

The use of batteries for automotive power is controversial, because rechargeable batteries are an extremely inefficient form of power storage.

Refrences? As far as I can tell Batteries are in the 70%-90% cyclic effeciency range. Can you suggest a more effecient method of storing electricity?
Per weight efficiency: batteries can't hold a candle to a spoonful of coal or a vial of mineral oil, not to mention a tiny bit of uranium 235. It may soon be feasible to store lotsa electricity in ultra-capacitors, which are again fashionable technology to researchers because of renewed US DoD SDI / teller's starwars technology interest. Chemical batteries and electric propulsion is a bad idea for cars. If you hate internal combustion, you should look into external combustion, e.g. Stirling engines.
There is no doubt that FF are some of the most dense ways of storing energy, chemically. Nuclear is another story as it functions at the atomic level. Neither of these truths though takes into consideration the source of such materials, both of which are finite, and never destroyed but converted into other forms. They are not products of our creation for out use in performing the daily tasks which we desire to carry out. Imagine attempting to grow enough ethanol or diesel just to throw 70% of it away in an ICE?! As near as I can tell, electric propulsion is the only form of transportation which is so vastly more effecient at it's conversions to replace our wastefull FF based needs while lowering the total energy demand allowing us to collect systainable fuel. BEV's are 2 to 4 times as effecient as ICE's or HFCV's (As a vehicle), so upstream energy requirements for fuel are reduced by 200% to 400%. Which makes it far more managable to attempt to supply such energy in a clean and sustainable manner. I don't hate any technology (or IC specifically), but I'm of the school which believes that any tech can be abused and overused especially if there is no forthought regarding it's side effects. Stirling engines are one of my favorite technologies, perfect for providing long range multi-fuel average power levels of arround 15-20kW to BEV's eliminating the whole range/charge time issues which are for the most part industry mis-information, expecially considering new battery advancements. If I were to see supercap tech, Fuel Cell and H2 storage tech, or Mr. fusion tech advance to a point where it was an overall better choice than HighRate Lithium then I would change my tune, but that's hasn't happened and Li is there right now! Which is better, to convert diamonds into sand or sand into diamonds? Look at the direction of the conversions we are talking about here, I'm suggesting that we better use our knowledge of fundimental universal principals to build up and better order our universe so that we can stop mindlessly de-ordering long HC chains back into CO2.

A partially or fully electric-powered vehicle needs to haul heavy batteries, usually equal to the weight of an extra adult passenger. This significant weight increase requires extra power from the engine due to increased friction, yet the batteries store juice for relatively short trips on full-electric cruise.

This is unclear and inaccurate. Pure BEV Converters often estimate range with the ratio of Lead-Acid battery weight to total vehicle weight. Such PbA conversions are far from ideal with limited (20-50 miles) range. Even production PbA vehicles tended to be limited to <100 miles of range. NiMH increases this range out to 150 miles and Lithium can extend it further to 300 miles, each reducing weight over PbA. Current Hybrids have limited battery capacity of aproximately the weight of a passanger and few have any substaintial EV range, rather the battery and Hybrid components act as load-leveling devices which enable the ICE to run in a more effecient band for longer periods of time.

The average internal combustion engine powered vehicle spends 2-4% of its onboard fuel reserve per 1000 kilometers to haul its own fuel stored in the tanks. This ratio is markedly worse in case of electric vehicles.

The onboard use of a large mass of batteries is also an environmental and safety issue.

More so than carrying many gallons of explosive and easily evaporative gassoline or diesel?
Diesel hardly burns, you need not worry about fires. City bendy buses in London and Budapest burn the engine every week and noone cares a damn.
And here it seems that everyone sits in traffic jams ideling their Hummers and Excalades without giving a damn. The general population and even or especially city, state, country, and government practaces do not in and of themselves make such practices ideal or beneficial for the practicer and others arround them.
Even benzene fires are not that bad. Watch this guy engulfed in fireball while filling up his Ferrari. He was stupid enough to leave the engine on and he was thrown back. Yet, he's OK and goes the on TV the next day (25MB MPEG video)http://happyisgood.com/308_fire.mpg
ok, not that I'm going to watch the movie, I've already seen far to much junk on TV, and it doesn't prove anything. It's anicdotal to say we've survived just fine for more thanb 100 years burning FF, everything is fine, you can even bathe and smoke in a bath of benzene! Back to the point, can you point out specifically how properly designed, secured, and recycled batteries in a BEV or Hybrid are dangerous.

The cost to produce rechargeable batteries is very high when measured in terms of the raw materials used up, the energy used for the manufacturing process and the pollution caused by battery factories.

references? Is this a more or less manageable situation than oil spills, FF depleation, and FF to CO2 conversion?
Electronics industry is the worst polluter in the world, they poison the soil with rare metals and use ungodly amounts of sweet-water to de-dust the cleanrooms air via rapid-freezing method. There have been a lot of cancer related employee lawsuits against electronic manufacturers, including Intel.
True enought, but the same can be said for most industries, and the solution is to do what (A. ban all electronics and close down the industry? (B. enforce better regulations which should have been in place since day one?

Many battery ingredients, including lead, acids, cadmium and metal-hydrides are poisonous or harmful to humans and the environment, which causes problems in case of an accident. Responsible disposal at the vehicle' end-of-life is complicated and spent battery reprocessing plants are difficult to establish due to local green protests.

FF is a non-recyclable option, so the meer potential to recycle batteries is a major advantage. Lead-Acid automotive batteries are our most successfull recycling program, many US states require the recycling of all rechargable battery types, violations punishable with fines, auto-stores must accept old batteries for recycling and core charges are manditory.
There is no hybrid vehicle using Nickel-Cadmium battery, so the reference to cadmium is irrelevant to the discussion here.

A hybrid vehicle's propulsion is more complicated than a traditional car's drive-train and costs significantly more to manufacture because of the need for two high performance motors in a single vehicle.

This may or may not be true for current generation hybrids, unfortuntnly Toyota seems to be selling quite a few Prii at "reasonable" prices, I don't see an extreme price premium.
Saying hybrid "complicated than a traditional car" can be controvertial. The mechanism of planetary gear system is rather simple due to the lack of traditional transmissions. Also recent diesel engines are quite complex with a turbo charger, an intercooler, EGR, PM filter/burner, and SCR, none of which are needed for hybrid.

The large investment is not warranted unless hybrid cars have a life expectancy much longer than internal combustion vehicles.

Many people value aspects of hybrids other than raw Total Cost of Ownership and Hybrid technology premiums, POV.
This is yet another guess made by the author without proper references. It would be better to give some numbers. For example, if one switches from 25mpg conventional gas car to 45mpg hybrid, and if the car runs 150000miles before the car is scrapped, the hybrid uses 2667 less gas, and at $2.00/gallon it saves more than $5000. Certainly maintenance fee and insurance charge differ, but it can break even with an average life expectancy with today's relatively high gas price.

Most cars reach end-of-life after 10 to 12 years due to design and technology obsolescence, regardless of continued road-going ability. Considering the amount of advanced technology implemented in hybrid vehicles, their lifecycles may be shorter than traditional cars'.


Regards: Tamas Feher from Hungary ( etomcat at freemail dot hu )

--D0li0 7 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

[edit] Generator in reverse?

I don't know of any motor that is physically run in reverse to generate power. I guess it may mean reverse in the sense that it's pumping current the other way, but it's still spinning the same direction. Should probably be clarified.

I'm at a loss to come up with a better word or phrase to use and have italicized reverse to remind us all to try to come up with something better. The best I can think of is instead of applying voltage, a load is applied which has the effect of makes the motor act as a generator, which is way to long. I think that anyone who is even vagly familure with motor technology will understand what we mean, and perhaps come up with a better way of saying it. Those who don't understand will at least come away knowing that the same device (motor) is also acting as a generator, although they may mistakenly believe that it runs in the opposite direction while acting as a generator, which is incorrect. I'm not sure if it would be inappropriate to link the out of place word to this portion of the talk page, if it is someone will remove the link I'm about to create there. --D0li0 08:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
How about "in generator mode"? I think the best solution is to use a phrase like that and link to a separate page that does the usual four quadrant diagram. It doesn't look like we have a candidate as yet. An alternative would be a footnote with text like "When a motor is driven faster than than the speed resulting from the electrical input, electrical power starts flowing in the opposite direction, in effect causing the motor to act as a generator." --Mike Van Emmerik 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds great! Would you like to have the honor of making that change, I'de have to look up how to do a footnote :( --D0li0 11:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
They really aren't that uncommon. I've had small engines (on a grain auger) with electric starters--motors used to start the internal combustion engine, and then while it is running, to operate as a generator to charge the battery. Gene Nygaard 12:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have pre-empted the discussion by linking to motor-generator (the phrase used by Toyota) and adding an explanatory paragraph there. I won't take offense if people decide to solve the problem another way... zowie 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do a "see also" in the footnote. I welcome suggestions on the placement of the footnote, or its appropriateness. --Mike Van Emmerik 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Good use of a footnote. I took the liberty of correcting the physical explanation -- really, it's the sign of current flow that is important rather than the speed of the motor. That's important for motors like the ones in the Prius, which are commutated by direct computer control rather than by a physical commutator ring. The phasing and sign of voltage pulses is important. I believe the Prius also uses variable pulse-width switching and series inductors to adjust the applied voltage as the motor speed changes -- that sort of moots the question of applied voltage. Rather than open that whole can of worms (involving inductors, pulse width modulation, feedback, transistors, and control theory) it might be better just to gloss over the whole thing with the most general explanation possible! :-) zowie 04:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks great! I've moved the footnote to the bottom of the article, similar to Hydrogen_vehicle#References. --D0li0 09:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I think that the list of external links is much too lengthy, contains links that aren't quite pertinent to the topic of hybrid vehicles, many are redundant, and some offer too much advertising. Furthermore, while I don't know how/who added each particular link in this article, I get the sense on Wikipedia (here and in general) that people self-nominate or self-promote their own websites by adding them to an article's External links. In my opinion, that should definitely be avoided.

With that in mind, I suggest narrowing the list of external links to just those that are most pertinent. Below are the list of links that I think should be kept or removed, and I welcome others to add their opinion on whether the links should be deleted or kept. It is painful to sit and go through all the links in one sitting, so I will come back later and go through the rest. Though, if the list of links is so painfully long for me, it can't be much use to those that read this article. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

One way to cut down on the external links here would be to utilize the list of hybrid vehicles and extend that into chart form to include the type of hybrid drive system (Synergy I, II, and III, Ford "hybrid transaxle", Allison, BAS, GMC mild, Honda's assist system, the Hyundai/Kia system, etc.) That would remove the need for a good deal of cruft in all but the history section, as well as make it clearer which systems have wiki articles dedicated to them and hence do not need externals. (71.195.130.159 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] General

keep, but move to a News Articles subcategory. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
keep - provides a user forum and articles. Though, the advertising is annoying. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
keep - useful, in-depth information and provides a user forum.
keep - significant added information. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
keep - original in-depth content. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
keep - without advertising, this site provides substantial original content and useful information, such as how to change the oil. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
probably keep--Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
probably keep--Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
possibly keep - only a small portion of this site talks about hybrid vehicles, but it mainly discusses other related topics such as alternative fuels. As this is an academic site at West Virginia University, that leads me to say keep. --Aude 23:54,
possibly keep --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
maybe delete - while a reputable site, there are better forums for hybrid-related discussions. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
probably delete - this site is already linked to. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
probably delete --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hybrid Car News A site with a streaming source of hybrid car news and an archive of articles.
probably delete - the advertising is too much for me. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
probably delete - too many ads, too prominent for me. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hybrid-Vehicle.org Information on hybrid vehicle history, hybrid vehicle technology and practical application of hybrid technology in a broad spectrum of vehicles.
probably delete - has a small amount of content, but the amount of ads is a bit too much. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "That's the advice of a panel of technical experts representing the National Academy of Sciences. They say government and industry researchers should examine battery electric vehicles as an alternative to cars and trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells." - autoweek.com
delete - this article is off-topic, as it is about electric cars and not hybrid vehicles. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - this is appears to be a 404 not found page, in Japanese. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[1]

delete - off-topic, about battery technology. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Toshibas High-Rage (50C) Li, scheduled for 2006 production [2]
delete - off-topic, also about battery technology. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid vehicle resource with information on cars, SUV's, trucks, minivans, buses, trains and watercraft.
delete - While provide some info on various hybrid vehicle models, the site is poorly designed (links not working) and redundant. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

30 September 2005 (UTC)

delete - redundant, doesn't provide much added value than other sites. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hybrid Source News, Review, and Views about the Hybrid industry.
delete - yet another personal site - blog, only started in July, infrequently updated, with spelling errors. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - not much value-added, redundant information. general topics, not much specific about hybrid vehicles. advertising is distracting and annoying. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - redundant information, advertising. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - not much useful, extensive advertising. --Aude 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - blog that hasn't been updated in months. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hybrid-SUV-Store.com Directory of Hybrid Websites; Hybrid Car & Hybrid SUV Buying Guide with News Information & Reviews.
delete - little, if any, original content; only aggregates from other sources. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - subsection of site listed above. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - this is a dead link. --Aude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - this is a dead link. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - offers a user forum/message board, but not much else. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - this article is a bit dated (2003), with its discussion of tax incentives. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
possibly keep - a bit overkill on their advocacy, this organization advocates converting hybrids in to plug-in hybrids.
delete - while this comes from Toyota, this ia a very large pdf file that cause my otherwise fast computer to freeze. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Concept Hybrid Come join us on the newly set up forum. Wanted: Your views.
delete a user forum that has very few posts. --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
delete --Aude 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid powertrains

[edit] Hybrids in logistics

Light trucks

[edit] Hybrids in public transport

Busses
Trains

[edit] Criticism: safety after a wreck

I realize the "Criticism" section is pretty sparse right now because it's being hashed out on the Talk page. One thing I haven't seen mentioned specifically, though, is the safety-after-a-wreck issue. On the vehicle extrication page, it mentions dangers specific to hybrids: high voltages, acid and fire hazards when attempting to extricate people from a wrecked hybrid.

Both Honda All and Toyota Prius G1 Prius G2, and I suppose now Ford escape [3], have First responders training materials which I believe are now a part of personel training courses. They are rather unspectacular and I can sum them up pretty quickly. 1- They show the location of the main battery disconnects. 2- they say "Don't cut the Orange Wires". Though in all reality if I'm left in my crushed Hybrid because someone is afraid of my hybrid I'll be rather pissed. Even if they do cut the orange HV wires the batteries fues would instantly blow (if it hadn't already from the crash). The HV wires are located under the vehicle near the main frame members, which are rarely cut durring a rescue. The HV is a danger, but it's overhyped IMO. "Acid" dangers are nonesnese, there will be more "Acid" in the standard 12v battery which is normally undersized in an Hybrid. Hybrids use NiMH batteries which have very little (If any) liquid electrolite that could leak and it would be nearly impossible to rupture all of the individule cells. "Fire Hazards"? What exactly do you call the 10+ gallons of liquid gasoline? Hybrid batteries represent about 1/300th of the energy content of the gas tank. Again most of these "Hazards" are speculative nonsense [4] [5] [6] , rescuers are trained for Hybrids just as they are trained to deal with all the real hazards they encounter with normal vehicles. --D0li0 08:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits comparison with purely electric vehicles

I have removed the following point from the Hybrid_vehicle#Benefits section.

  • In comparison with purely electric vehicles of comparable size and power, hybrids are usually lighter and roomier because fewer batteries are needed. Batteries store less energy per unit mass and per unit volume than does gasoline.
  • PbA GM EV1, 3,086 lb. (1,400 kg), Bat 1310 lb., 50.4 cu.ft./ 9.7 cu.ft. (60.1)
  • NiMH GM EV1, 2,908 lb. (1,320 kg), Bat 1147 lb., 50.4 cu.ft./ 9.7 cu.ft. (60.1)
  • Honda Insight, 1,878 lb. ( 852 kg), Bat 48 lb., 47.4 cu.ft./16.3+2 cu.ft.(65.7)
    • Both are 2 seat subcompacts and while the EV1 is heavier it is was also quicker and had sufficient range of 80-120 miles (which might be a valid point, but still doesn't belong in this article. Had the EV1 progressed to use Lithium batteries it's battery weight would have been further reduced by about half, bringing it within about 500 lb. of the Ultra-light Insight, while further out-performing and increasing it's range to more than 200 miles.
    • The Insight isn't much roomier than the EV1, and interiour space is more a general design aspect and not specific to a vehicles powertrain or fuel source.
  • The energy storage characteristics of batteries vs liquid HC fuels is not a unique feature of BEV's nor Hybrids and has no place here. These two energy carriers difference in specific energy is obvious and not the point of choosing to use a BEV versus traditional gas fueled vehicles. If you think it is then you are missing the point entirely, you can't produce HC fuels in your backyard or on my rooftop.

--D0li0 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] motorized bicycle

Motorized bicycle is a hybrid vehicle. I haven't really checked... but where would be the best place to put it in this article? --CyclePat 07:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MErge or delete?

Hi, Just looking around. I noticed this article is fantastic. However another one was started elsewhere. I support the idea that there are many other vehicles out there. So which one should we keep...hybrid transport and/or hybrid vehicle is the issue... meuh? Anyways cheers. --Pat 05:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think hybrid vehicle is a better term. "Transport" brings to mind other forms of transportation such as air, rail, ...; this article mainly focuses on hybrid motor vehicles. Also, looking at What links here, there are far greater number of articles linking to hybrid vehicle (though a significant number link to "hybrid car", which redirects to "hybrid vehicle". --Aude 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kmf164. This article should contain information on personal vehicles and then hybrid transport should contain a brief summary and then cover topics line air, rail, etc. uriah923(talk) 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
hybrid vehicle is the clear best choice Anlace 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm going through the external links again and idenfitied these links for deletion:

  • ResearchHybrids.com - Comparison data and charts.
    • This site is just not notable enough, doesn't provide much value-added, content-rich information.
    • This link was previously deleted (nobody objected, when it was listed previously on this talk page - see above).
  • The History of the Hybrid Vehicle
    • This is an article written a couple years ago and seems outdated.

Please review the Wikipedia:External links guidelines for more info. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and Wikipedia:External links for ongoing efforts to manage/review links and combat spam. Under no circumstances, should one add links to their own websites, or links to sites for advertising purposes. In all, external links should be kept to a small number of highly informative sites that go into more depth than what can be covered in Wikipedia. --Aude 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You deleted some other external links. Will you include those on this list with details? uriah923(talk) 14:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If you disagree with deletion, (reasons explained in the edit summaries), feel free to discuss here. If a consensus of editors disagrees with the deletion, then I have no problem reinserting the links.
Though, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. The list of links needs to be kept fairly small and only include the most pertinent sites that go into far greater depths than what can be covered in Wikipedia. --Aude 15:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the merits (as I am the author), but I hate to see the "Is A Hybrid Worth It?" article (removed in this diff) go without hearing the thoughts of more than one editor. But, I'll have to leave pursuing such a discussion to you, as I can't participate NPOV. uriah923(talk) 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please review WP:EL#What_should_not_be_linked_to. It seems like this link (and many others added previously) were inserted to promote the site. It is against Wikipedia policy to insert links in articles, to your own website. It goes against NPOV.
Also, in considering whether or not to keep, I will look at how many backward-links the site has on Google, and site information on Alexa. When looking at the Alexa information on A9, I noticed the site has a glowing review by Brandon Hansen (is that you?) — who happens to be the author of Is a Hybrid Worth It?. IMHO, I think that's in bad taste, as well.
Hope this explanation is helpful. I don't mean to be negative, but the number of external links needs to be kept minimal. And if other editors really wish to keep the link then, that's fine with me. --Aude 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are Brandon Hansen, I see that you have made many more good contributions to Wikipedia. But, please just be familiar with the External links guidelines and other policies. --Aude 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am Brandon Hansen, the author of "Is A Hybrid Worth It?" (see my user page). However, the review I wrote on Alexa was not concerning the article I authored, but the site on which it was published. (The link you provided above, actually, doesn't reference the article I authored at all, but a random news post on the site. Oddly, though, Alexa treats all sites with the same base URL identically.)
I am aware of WP policies concerning external links, but I don't know why you are mentioning them. Am I in violation, somehow?
Also, out of curiosity, what are the specific criteria you have for Google backward-links and Alexa rank? How many Google links make an article "legitimate?" What kind of Alexa information is necessary and what do you do in cases (like this one) where there is no information on the specific article, just the general website on which it was published? uriah923(talk) 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The specific guideline that I'm concerned with is "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.", on Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to. You obviously have a conflict of interest, in adding links to your own site or articles, and doing so is discouraged.
As for google-backward links, there is no particular number of links. But, I think we weigh the external links relative to one another, and much more importantly consider them in accordance to the linking guidelines. I don't have anything against the website or your article, but rather disagree with how the link was added.
It should be up to the other editors, whether or not to keep the link. As I said, if other editors of this article weigh and disagree with my edit to remove the link, then we can reinsert it. --Aude 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it; as stated in your explanation, 204.126.127.253 added the link, not uriah923. But, I agree that other editors should make the judgement. I'll drop a note to some of them to see if they'll weigh in. uriah923(talk) 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The behavior of 204.126.127.253 just seem suspect to me. Back in May-June, this user added a whole bunch of other external links to ON. If it was just one isolated link to ON, then I might have overlooked it.
Also, just a little searching of 204.126.127.253 on arin.net/whois, finds this IP address belongs to "Cooper Oil Tool Division" — a search of "Cooper Oil Tool Division" then turns up Cooper Cameron, which was written by Uriah923. It's just too many coincidences to make me think that either you or 204.126.127.253 is independent of ONs and the article.
All that said, feel free to contribute to Wikipedia, but please just respect the policies and guidelines. We shouldn't be adding links to our own websites/articles. Let others find your articles, and judge it worthy or not of a link here. Thanks --Aude 00:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay. It's only now that I've looked at your talk page. It looks like there have been problems with ON links before. Please, just don't add them. As Redwolf24 says on your talk page, "Keep up the good work otherwise". --Aude 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't konw why this conversation has degraded into you repeatedly telling me not to add links (when my contributions are anything but linkspam), but I guess that makes it more convenient to exit the conversation. uriah923(talk) 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll chip in here. I would say that generally this article, even as it currently stands after Kmf164's changes, has a lot of external links. It's not really Wikipedia's place to be a link farm, and the number should be kept down to just high-quality, in-depth sites that give you more than Wikipedia can.

As for the "Are hybrids worth it article", I'd say that was a poor candidate for an external link. If this were a tiny stub topic (such as JCB (song), which I created recently, then news articles can be worthwhile to provide missing depth. But on a full-sized article like this, I'd say that individual news articles should be limited to References, where appropriate. So if you want to discuss the "is it worth it" question, mention it in the article (under "trade-offs" perhaps), and include a couple of references. --KJBracey 10:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed that single article ("Are Hybrids Worth It?") and found it to be a valuable and valid reference. I feel that it should be linked from this article. I am making no judgement on whether the author should have linked it himself, or whether there are too many links already in this article. Just that that link is a good one, in my opinion. --SFoskett 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there are two articles addressing this question: "Is A Hybrid Worth It?" and "Are Hybrid Cars Worth It?". To which are you two referring? uriah923(talk) 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Link as a reference, by all means. I just don't think they're general enough for the External links section. I don't really have much to say about the merit of the articles, except just to wonder why people keep trying to argue about hybrid vehicles purely on cost grounds. What about pollution, performance, features, ease of user, ride comfort...? --KJBracey 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I meant that "Is A Hybrid Worth It?" is a good reference link and would be of interest to someone investigating a hybrid purchase. --SFoskett 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Might I instead suggest an independent source for that type of information, such as Hybrid cars: are they for you?, from CNET. I have no affiliation whatsoever with CNET, but have found the site informative, with technology news and independent product reviews (and user reviews). This CNET link also has some videos that explain hybrid technology, in more depth than can be covered in Wikipedia (I've yet to see a video in Wikipedia). --Aude 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the CNET link (or if someone finds something even better?) makes a good replacement also for "ResearchHybrids.com - Comparison data and charts". --Aude 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(aside: I will begin observing some of the conversations and will read some of the discusion to add my comments to the subject however I'm a little busy right now with the deletion process of Gallery of motorized bicycle. It will take me some time. --CylePat 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two diverging lists

There is a list of hybrid vehicles inside the article and also a link to an external list of hybrid vehicles in the See Also section. The two lists are starting to diverge and it would a chore to keep both in sync. Since this article is growing too big, it would make sense to merge the "internal" list into the external list. Kowloonese 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel-Electric Submarines

A diesel-electric/'conventional' propulsion system has been used in submarines for decades. User:Htra0497 13:04 12 January 2006 (AEDT)

[edit] Copyedits

I just made significant copyedits to the intro, paring it down to just saying what a hybrid is. Cost & benefits are mentioned later in the article. I also reordered the sections, putting "Types" and "Engines and fuel sources" after history and before "costs & benefits", as this section talks about topics explained in "types" and "engines. Seems like a more logical order, flow to the article. I also got rid of the "Local regulatory concerns" heading, as that merely defined what a hybrid is - already covered in the intro. References are also organized better, thanks to Uriah923. There are also some facts mentioned in the article that lack citations. Per discussion above, I'll look into doing something with the "list of hybrid vehicles" - maybe making it into an infobox or something. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The footnote numbers (e.g. look at 9 and 10) are now one number off. I'm parking this comment here though I have no idea when/how this happened.

[edit] Mild hybrid

Mild hybrids are essentially conventional vehicles with oversized starter motors, allowing the engine to be turned off whenever the car is coasting, braking, or stopped, yet restart quickly and cleanly.

I thought these mild hybrids only use the big motor to start and stop the engine cleanly and efficiently. It would be impossible to coast when the engine is shut off unless the transmission is put in neutral. Compression braking and coasting are quite different. I'd suggest removing the word "coasting" from this paragraph. Kowloonese 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Shut off" does not mean "not spinning"; it means no gas is being consumed. Coasting is when you are neither burning gas nor actively braking but the car is moving; the fact that the engine is spinning and slowing down the car does not mean it's not coasting, anymore than aerodynamic drag slowing down the car prevents it from coasting. Coasting is a very good thing to do to improve fuel economy, but coasting in neutral is very bad for a few reasons and it's illegal in the U.S., or at least in a number of U.S. states. CGameProgrammer 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buses

Should we include details on non commercial hybrid buses? For example several (3 or 4 I think) are used in Auckland for the City Circuit bus [7] and have been since 2003 IIRC Nil Einne 08:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Insight

The new Insight picture sucks. You can't tell what the car actually looks like at all, and it has a watermark. Watermarked images have no place in an encyclopedia. CGameProgrammer 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced this image with one that provides a better view of the vehicle. Adolphe Youssef 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effective pollution of electric vehicles

I have removed this text:

From the purely environmental standpoint, hybrid cars are superior to elecric cars in cases where the electric car's fuel is provided by a coal power plant. More pollution is created by turning coal into kinetic energy, then into elecrical energy, convert the voltage to transport it a long distance on power lines, convert the voltage to get it into your house, convert the voltage to store it in the car's battery, and convert it into kinetic energy to move the car than simply turning gasoline into kinetic energy. If the electricity was made from hydroelectric, solar, wind, or other non-polluting energy source, the electric car is cleaner.

...primarily because it is pure conjecture with no proof whatsoever. It is difficult to imagine one large powerplant being less efficient than hundreds of thousands of tiny power plants. Plus the above paragraph is grammatically incorrect and it lists many steps that release no pollution at all. The only pollution is from burning the fuel and burning gasoline to transport it. But fuel is burnt in hybrids as well, and much less efficiently, and the gas has to be transported over much larger distances to cover all gas stations instead of just going to the power plant.

But hey, if you got real proof, by all means show it. Until then, try to remember this is an encyclopedia. Rules of journalism apply here. END RANT. CGameProgrammer 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that is about right. The hybrid car is not better from the number I've seen, but about equivalent in the coal case. I believe you could find the numbers in sources mentioned on the battery electric vehicle article's talk page. I pulled them up and there were sources with total emmisions equivalents for BEV's on coal electricity. It basically comes from totalling up all the electricity transmission and battery losses, not that the coal plant itself isn't more efficient. Better sources could be found to back that up too. Still, you did the right thing until someone wants to find some solid sources. - Taxman Talk 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this link 50% of all power generation in the U.S. is from coal. And coal is very inefficient, so obviously even better efficiency would be observed from gas and nuclear power plants that make up most of the other 50%. So why anyone is focusing on coal at all is beyond me. In general, if it's cheaper, it's more efficient, and power is cheaper then fuel. Plus, keep in mind the power plants generate alot of power at night that is never used and ends up being wasted, so electric cars charged at night effectively become 'free'. CGameProgrammer 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
But the statement didn't say anything about cheaper, it was referring to pollution, which is something Hybrid cars are promoted for. The point with coal pollution is that even with a 50% mix, there's still a lot of pollution. In any case there would need to be a lot more research to justify anything like that statement, and even then it would be POV by selective presentation of facts if not presented properly in the article. - Taxman Talk 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
...so electric cars charged at night effectively become 'free'. No, not really. The benefit of charging cars at night comes from the infrastructural savings -- the transmission lines and generators are much less used at night than during the day, leaving extra capacity in the system (so that the power company doesn't have to actually run more power lines and install more transformers and generators). But using power at night consumes more fuel at the power plant, just as it does during the day. There's no free midnight snack, just as there's no free lunch. zowie 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Power plants do not turn off at night; they constantly produce the same amount of power 24/7. But at night it goes relatively unused. For this reason, power plants typically charge less for power consumed at night than for power consumed during the day. CGameProgrammer 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, supply and demand of electric power have to be balanced, pretty much at all times (net of import/export and some regulation/storage). They charge less at night because there are some plants that have to run all the time, or when they can (nuclear, run-of-river hydro, wind), and some that have such low costs they will almost always run, and some that will shut down if they're not getting enough to pay for fuel costs (e.g. gas). This is economic dispatch. Getting power at night may not consume any additional fuel (if say hydro or wind), or may use much more efficient/cheaper sources than during the day. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, you might not see any savings.--Gregalton 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage from mining

I deleted this:

While most used batteries will be recycled, environmentally damaging mining to supply the metals for new vehicle batteries will increase dramatically as more gasoline-electric hybrids are sold. This hidden environmental damage (mostly in third-world countries) contradicts the "green" image of the gasoline-electric hybrid.

because it fails to show that mining materials for batteries is in any way different from mining materials for anything else, such as the entire rest of the vehicle. CGameProgrammer 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Hybrid Modes Diagram Question

What does "PE" stand for?

Good question. CGameProgrammer 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration, I think it must stand for "power electronics". Can anyone confirm? It's a good diagram. But whether this or something else were intended, it should be clarified in the text or a picture caption.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/y/b/Talk%7EHybrid_vehicle_1_0a48.html"