Talk:Low-energy vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tables 2 Intro 3 SUVs/Trucks 4 Attention 5 Twike 6 Article Structure 7 New hat 8 Old hat 9 Older low-energy cars 10 Soapbox 11 Fuel Economy infobox 12 Energy efficiency 13 "Rewrite" and "Unreferenced Section" templates

[edit] Tables

We now have three tables of rather various data. I'm sure each contributor thinks that each table has some unique value, but I am at a loss to deduce what is being proved by the three of them. Any comments? Greg Locock (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unbelievable how many places I find people trying to pretend that electric vehicles are something that they are not. It is a shame, because it detracts from the rightful perception of electric vehicles. It is like listening to a witness tell lies and then trying to believe him when he gets to a true statement.

I am talking about the claim that an electric vehicle has zero emissions. Somehow, qualifying these as "direct emissions" just continues the subterfuge. Once upon a time, when smog in Los Angeles or other such cities was the only concern, the idea of "zero emission vehicles" got set in our thinking, even to the point that a California state agency defined such a vehicle without regard to the emissions that are actually associated with such. Most of us haven't yet noticed that this term is being used as a trick to pretend that electric vehicles are "green." Clever statements can be made that are not actually dishonest, since they can use the term "no direct emissions," which is vague enough to make criminal prosecution difficult. But actually, there is a direct connection between an electric car and an energy source.

Then there is the other big game of pretending that electricity is a fuel. This artifice leads to table entries that show electric vehicles getting 2 to 3 times the mileage that they actually should be given credit for getting. Electricity is just a way of transferring kinetic energy from a spinning shaft in a power plant to a spinning shaft in an electric car. Electricity is no more a fuel than the spinning driveshaft in a car is fuel.

I often get protests from that want to ignore present day reality of electric power production, some like to think California is a meaningful example, some like to think the world is about to adopt solar electric systems, or other such future possibility. There is something kind of powerful about the fact that coal is amazingly abundant. Whether we in the US have a 150 year supply or 500 year supply does not matter. It is and will continue to be a very cheap way to make electricity. I looked at wind turbines recently, and though they are not an impossible option, it would take about a trillion dollar investment to replace the coal fired US capacity. But until that is done, for every new electric vehicle load, each mile travelled will result in a scoop of coal into a furnace. Economic reality has a way of taking over the decision making process.

Another common misconception is that electric power plants are highly efficient. At http://www.miastrada.com/analyses I show an analysis of US electricity generating efficiency that quite definitely puts the number at 34% for the US in 2005. I have seen a variety of reports putting the PRIUS engine efficiency quite close to this number. So the idea that by putting batteries in the car that something miraculous will happen is entirely incorrect.

I hope someone will fix this article so I don't have to do it.Jim Bullis (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The intro contains this pair of sentences, the second being added after I repeatedly asked for a reference for the first. "The biggest influence on the fuel consumption is not the engineering quality but the vehicle specification such as top speed, safety reserves and load capacity. This is explained by the physical relations later in this article. " Well, that is unsatisfactory. A poorly engineered car will not have good fuel consumption (or at the very least a better engineered one will have better fuel consumption), and a fast car such as the EV1 when unrestricted can have a decent energy consumption. High top speed is easily obtainable with efficient cars, since the drivetrain is sized to accelerate the car. For instance my old Mini automatic was capable of cruising at 85 mph all day (and it frequently did), despite having a 0-60 time of three weeks. The problem with the second sentence is that it is untrue as well as funny. The physical relations do not explain the previous sentence except in the most hand waving of fashions. You might as well start from Newton's laws of motion.

Secondly there is this little pearler "The energy efficiency of the power generation has to be considered however - geothermal, solar or hydraulic power have the best ratio- caloric the worst." Have the best ratio of what? I assume energy out/fossil fuel usage, but that would only apply if the energy from the preferred sources would not be used if the car were not going to be charged. Using the logic from that sentence anybody using electricity from a grid that has some solar input can claim to be solar powered. That is absurd.

So, provide a reference for the first sentence, provide a proper reference, and recast the third sentence so that it (a) makes sense and (b) represents a defendable position. Otherwise they get the bullet, in 7 days. Greg Locock (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SUVs/Trucks

That's a rather unusual conflation of categories. Should we perhaps use bicycles/Jumbo jets or jet skis/ocean liners as a class? Or perhaps we might agree that that is a POV driven category? I will revert the latest changes unless good evidence is provided to show that SUVs and trucks fulfill the same market requirements. 7 days to provide proof that that is a good assumption or it gets reverted. Incidentally I don't actually like SUVs, I just think you need a good argument, not a crap one.Greg Locock (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

stay calm - I will certainly remove your anger driven vandalism.... --carefree (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

? I've changed my mind since the data for that table is derived from references I'll just check the reference myself. Greg Locock (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<later edit.> Unh huh. as I thought the reference given refers to SUVs, not your mythical SUV/Truck. You don't really understand this references/truth thing at all do you? BTW blogs are not acceptable sources WP:RS. I might leave your comedy corner data in for the Prius, if you think it makes a valid point. Which is what, exactly? Also please stop removing the fuel consumption per seat column in that table, it is a valid comparison. Greg Locock (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

This article is sometimes containing contradictionary statements because Greg Locock is trying to revert every singe argument speaking for light or even battery electric vehicles. Unfortunately the quality of the wording sometimes is poor because of this edit war. --carefree (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no edit war. You don't even understand what is going on. First, every contentious statement needs a reference. Then you need to write in English. Finally you need to understand that wiki is not a soapbox. Greg Locock (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

just remember your self description I work for a large automotive company...

So I will officially go for a ban of your lobbying work at the specific pages.--carefree (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Bring it on. Or will this turn out to be more of the usual blather? Greg Locock (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twike

I gather that one of the editors of this article either has fallen in love with a Twike or is employed by them. The Twike is a rather odd beast and does not really represent the most likely way forward for LEnV. I suppose it does have the advantage of actually being available for purchase. However, I'd like to de-emphasise it and use a more mainstream example of an LEnV. What would be the best example? Greg Locock (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

mainstream? crazy - we are targeting the best engineered vehicle and not media hype!

--carefree (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I was kind of hoping for other editors comments, I think your response was predictable enough. So, what is your connection with Twike? Also you need to learn English "more mainstream" does not mean the same as "mainstream". Incidentally you seem to think I dislike LEnV. See http://members.optusnet.com.au/greglocock/christine/chriswsc2007.htm . I dislike liars, soapbox artistes, investment scammers. Greg Locock (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry I have plenty of budget and time to fight for low energy vehicles, and of course I'm not affiliated with FINE Mobile GmbH. --carefree (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Structure

The layout of this article is bizarre, and it is extremely poorly written, badly referenced, and is very POV. Can we perhaps alter the section titles and order so that at least there is a logical home for each fact, and no place for unreferenced opinion?

Here's my suggestion for the main headers

Introduction

Overview

Using energy consumption to compare different architectures (needs a better title!)

Possible future targets

Comparison of various vehicles

Advantages

Disadvantages

References

See Also

External links

Greg Locock (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New hat

The cite and fact tags are used as weapon against articles introducing new knowledge. If the reader follows the formula presented he/she may see that the introduction is logical. If he don't thinks and is an expert he/she might correct- thats it - a competition of experts not formalitst with dubious background. --carefree (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, still casting aspersions. Don't worry, my rep is almost as good as my abilities. I'll reedit the complete hash you have made with your latest edits, next time I'll just revert them. Don't whinge, you brought this on yourself. Greg Locock (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old hat

Since this article was aiming to be critical with existing transportation concepts, all modifications of people working for this business e.g. "I work for a large automotive company.." will be classified as lobbying and removed. It's well common sense that we are burning three times the energy (6kW) we are supposed to do. This is by no means sustainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerfriedc (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at least you are honest. If this article is truly written "aiming to be critical with existing transportation concepts" then it fails NPOV and will be deleted. I fail to see how asking for references is in any way incompatible with the 5 pillars. I also fail to see how someone who has designed and raced MANY solar powered cars can automatically be accused of a conflict of interest on this subject. You may apologise, but somehow I doubt you will. Greg Locock (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you only speak about mainstream knowledge in Wikipedia its democratic but not complete, so please allow some additional facts. Since we are all experts there is no need to cite everything. Fuel economy figures will never be acceptable if we keep "autopositas" transporting one ton of steel per person. This is a cynical western approach to think that 6l/100km is feasible if we have the same rights for the whole world. No you only manage this by securing cheap oil by colonalistic attitude. read the story about Saudi Arabia and Comoco not to be involved in current discussions about Irac. This bad attitude is not restricted to the US - China will be stepping in soon - read my lips.

--carefree (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no sign from any of your edits on cars that you are an expert on anything technical, and that is not how wiki works anyway. First and foremost you need a WP:RS reference for the definition of LEnV. Changing your sig mid conversation is duplicitous. I give you two weeks to find references as requested, otherwise I will substantially re-edit this appalling soap-box style article. As predicted you haven't apologised for your insult and threat. Expect a challenging environment from now on. Greg Locock (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it as vandalism to insert faked fuel consumption figures in the wrong section. I wrote most of the article as mechanical engineer and it lived well before you started to murder it. Go away! --carefree (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I did what? when? Are you lying now as well? see WP:OWN. You are on very thin ice laddie.Greg Locock (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older low-energy cars

Some older cars, notably the Citroën 2CV and Mini, had extremely low fuel consumption. Is someone able to find and add data on the fuel consumption of such cars? I'd like to see fuel consumption figures on all vehicle articles in Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble finding good sources.

These cars put into perspective the claims of current-day car makers, showing how little progress has actually been made. The best that can be said is that a big expensive car now gets similar fuel efficiency to a small, cheap car that was designed in the 1930s and produced from 1948. (Not that the Citroen was really small - it was excellent for tall people). The Smart (car), I think, gets worse fuel economy than the Citroen, in spite of being tiny, and having the benefit of 60 years of technological progress.

To be fair, modern cars have to meet much higher safety standards. I wonder, though, if a more important factor is that car makers don't think they can sell a car with such low power? The 2CV was and is extremely popular, and considered fun to drive, but was widely recognized as low-powered and barely reached 100km unless there was a tailwind.

That's all a bit POV, I admit, but it would be good to see the factual issues and comparisons addressed in the article, if possible? --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

no its not entirely all about prescribed safety - todays cars run 230 km/h - the fuel efficient cars you speak about 110 km/h, imagine their consumption with todays engines...

You might be interested in Microcars or cabin based three wheelers though.

A lot of people is ignoring the low daily commuting distances and velocities. In fact there is no safety risk with light vehicles if you fight drugs and distraction when driving.

--carefree (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AFAIK, the economy of a classic Mini wasn't so hot (the BMC engine wasn't particularly sophisticated, and the bodywork only had low frontal cross section in its favour), merely good in comparison to its larger rivals, and the 2CV wasn't a superstar either in its later "higher powered" (ie 110-120km/h top speed) incarnations. The original reputedly managed as little as 3L/100km, but it could only reach 60km/h or so. My mother's Skoda Fabia 1.6L (with over 100bhp to the 2CV's 29bhp or so, and the least efficient in its range) can come close to that at the same constant speed, going by its internal MPG meter, but has arguably an extra seat and better luggage capacity (ignoring the 2CV's full length roof), greatly improved acceleration and top speed, etc. Any car can be vastly more efficient when it runs slowly, after all, and the most efficient will often (but not necessarily always) one that can't run fast in the first place. Plus the 2CVs emissions were chronic (only acheiving the power, economy & low price it had by not being encumbered with a cat, or fancy computer controlled injection engine) and along with its poor crash safety were the reason for it being legistlated out of economic production. A better example may be something like the Citroen AX 1.4 diesel, which was at one point (and may still be) in the Guinness book of world records for the most efficient production car, making the >1000 mile trip from London to Seville on a single 10-gallon tank of fuel (or, better than 100mpg/2.8L per 100km), and could even be considered the 2CV's diminutive, angular, somewhat quicker successor. I have no good solid source for my figures I'm afraid, only stuff remembered from reading elsewhere, including road tests and buyer's guides (the poor economy being one thing that put me off buying a Mini as my first car, despite the fun handling... when a more spacious, safer, and very slightly quicker Polo can eke it out at 40mpg to 35, and be cheaper to insure into the bargain, there's no competition). 82.46.180.56 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soapbox

There's a couple of bits of this article which are just laughable rants.

"Advertising techniques not disclosing reality 4WD vehicles have a higher fuel consumption because of the friction in additional shafts and gears, and the extra weight of the transmission and differential. Industry is not happy with that because they promise higher profits compared to fuel efficient small cars. So fuel consumption is given for 2WD versions[citation needed]. For the published fuel consumption values liabilities are excluded as are not a not component of the offer, but serve alone comparison purposes between different motor vehicle types. Information allowing to compare vehicles are omitted referring to the information presented as brochures in showrooms, also avoiding links to internet sources[citation needed]."

Industry is very happy that heavy 4wd make bigger profits , THAT'S WHY WE SELL THEM. Duh. As for the second half of the para it needs to be written in fluent English, not garbled Madman. I think the author is trying to say that adverts should include details of competitors pricing? Not a very common feature of ads for any product in my part of the world. And any print ad usually links to a website these days. I'm tempted to zap the entire para as OR.

"A vehicle emitting less than 18.1-105 g CO2/km is classed as a Low-energy vehicle (LEnV)[citation needed] because it undershoots existing best figures. This is equivalent to a fuel consumption of approximately 0.8-4.6 l/100 km (62-357 mpg UK / 51-298 mpg US)[1]."

And where is this defined? I can only find articles on the web that quote this article. Again OR.

"Such vehicles offer less passive safety but higher safety for other road users and higher overall safety[citation needed] at lower speed levels. "

Wishful thinking. Still, if a WP:RS can be found supporting it then that's fine. Otherwise out she goes. Shall we say 7 days to find references? Greg Locock (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd think the good (?) people at GM and VW would be somewhat put out to have their low-consumption / low-emission products (in the guise of Polo BlueMotion, Lupo 3L, Astra Eco4 etc; not to mention Toyota/PSA group's B-Zero line and the MCC Smart) inferred as being "less safe", and mentally lumped in with the thinly disguised origami of things like the REVA. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel Economy infobox

In a related matter, does anyone think that fuel economy should be kept out of the automobile infoboxes? Please voice your opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#Vote_on_Fuel_Economy_in_the_Infobox 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy efficiency

This section notes the energy content of various fuels (diesel, gasoline, LPG, ethanol, etc). These numbers are correct, however, it needs to be said that they are the thermal energy content. There will be inevitable, and high, thermodynamic losses when the energy is extracted by burning it. The factor is about 3 or 4 or so: the 10kWh of thermal energy in gasoline (per liter) is really only about 2.5 - 3kWh of electrical energy. So the article is somewhat misleading when it says "To compare electricity and gasoline its easier to use kWh/100km since 1l fuel holds around 10kWh." mdf (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Rewrite" and "Unreferenced Section" templates

I added the first primarily because of the use of "you" and the second-person voice (as well as "we"), especially in the latter sections, which is not in encyclopedic style. Quite a bit of the page is also missing citations, which is the reason for the second. --V2Blast (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)