Post off topic threads here.
#30361 by Nick Pyner
Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:14 am
I throw this into the mix. I know nothing about it but I think it may live in Sweden. God only knows what the final drive is. If it was ever produced, it is probably the real contender for the smallest car as it seems even smaller than the Peel.


Image
#30363 by Martell
Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:37 am
Maybe Jacques could check for me.


A good girlfriend of me is working for Smart.
Which one do you want?
I asked her, and maybe she can do something for you.
If so, I can put a box (or two) of beer for David into the car. :D :D
Maximum is six.
True. Tested.
I transported one Laserjet 1100dn, one Laserjet 3380, one Laserjet 1200, one 17" TFT monitor and one USV.
All in the original cartons!!
Image
Image

Personal record was my complete B&W 600 5.1 soundsystem, with subwoofer.



Martell
#30364 by Nick Pyner
Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:50 am
I said that because the Peel has a bonnet/hood and this thing doesn't. The wheelbase looks about the same and I guess the immersed volume would be less as consequence. Who knows? they are both pretty dumb. I saw the Youtube. That Clarkson oaf unsurprisingly never mentioned it, but it adequately demostrates the fundamental flaw of being a wheel short and I doubt that white thing you alluded to has fixed anything.
The British indulged in these idiosyncracies only because of their tax structure. Three wheeled cars were, most reasonably, not defined as cars and taxed as motorcycles. Hence the proliferation of Bonds, Reliant Robins etc. I believe the British-built BMW Isetta lost a wheel for this reason. The 4 wheel Isetta's rear wheels were very close together and there was no diff.
#30425 by Nick Pyner
Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:39 pm
Hi Neil

The pic I posted turns out to be a Peel prototype, hence the close similarity in the body. I guess this says a lot for the concept. It is clear that they couldn't make up their mind whether to have two wheels at the back or at the front, while anybody with half a brain could tell them that having two wheels at both ends is not a bad idea.
#30427 by Neil Blanchard
Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:05 pm
Hi Nick,

I think that the picture you posted has one wheel in front? If so, that definitely is not as good as the design they ended up with (two in front and one in the back), which is not as good as four. In the video I linked to, there is one turn when the inside front wheel lifted off the ground. :o

I'm gonna' have to see more of the Aptera taking turns before I'm confident that it isn't too tippy. The front wheels are very widely spaced, but the CG looks to be fairly high, too... :?
#30429 by Nick Pyner
Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:28 am
Neil Blanchard wrote:Hi Nick,

I think that the picture you posted has one wheel in front?


Yes, that is right

Neil Blanchard wrote: If so, that definitely is not as good as the design they ended up with (two in front and one in the back)


I don't know why you say that. They have to be both as moronic as each other, being merely a toss-up between simple steering and complex final drive, or vice-versa. If you are short of a wheel, there are going to be stability problems, largely due to the absence of any resistance diagonally opposite, and not helped, I guess, by the necessarily short wheelbase. It's plain to see, and feel, irrespective of the configuration. Moving the wheels merely moves the problem, and fixes nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M5S6C-GLrM

Neil Blanchard wrote:which is not as good as four.


Indeed. But as I said before, how hard is it to work this out? God and Henry Ford got together on this one in about 1902 and it's been a no-brainer ever since. Except in the Dark Islands, there the Office of Inland Revenue indulges in automotive design, with predictable results - both in practicality and need for driver safety.

Neil Blanchard wrote: In the video I linked to, there is one turn when the inside front wheel lifted off the ground.


Sans comment from Clarkson, as I recall. No surprise there. The man is a total Pratt - drowning in a sea of same.

Neil Blanchard wrote:I'm gonna' have to see more of the Aptera taking turns before I'm confident that it isn't too tippy. The front wheels are very widely spaced, but the CG looks to be fairly high, too... :?


Indeed. IIRC the Aptera company makes no pretention about it being a car. It isn't one. And indeed may be nothing more than a capital-raising exercise for a gang of frauds who can draw better than they can design.
#30438 by Steve Baldwin
Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:31 pm
Three wheels are a bad idea ... whichever end they're on!

I've spent a lot of time riding both 3-wheel and 4-wheel ATVs. On the ATVs, even with the ability to lean to one side to compensate, there is a HUGE difference in the stability and ease of driving of the 4-wheelers over the 3-wheelers, even in just low-speed turns. I would think the cars would be worse.
#30509 by Nick Pyner
Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:44 pm
Steve Baldwin wrote:I've spent a lot of time riding both 3-wheel and 4-wheel ATVs, there is a HUGE difference in the stability and ease of driving of the 4-wheelers over the 3-wheelers,


Indeed. Down here in Godsown we call them quadbikes, with obvious implications as to the number of wheels they have. I don't think I have ever seen a three-wheeled one. I don't know if it is because they are illegal, which they should be, or simply because no Australian farmer is dumb enuff to buy one.
#30525 by David A. Giesselman
Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:00 am
Here is an interesting article on the handling characteristics of three-wheeled vehicles.

Dave
#31506 by Neil Blanchard
Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:22 pm
Hello Mark,

We all knew that this sort of thing is possible -- there is a solar heat electricity plant in California (or Nevada?) that heats an oil up to 750F (400C), so if you can store the heat, then you can continue to use the steam generators overnight.

Thanks for the link!
#31804 by Neil Blanchard
Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:21 pm
Hello,

I heard about a Wired article on the Automotive X-Prize on the radio (Here and Now on NPR), and here is the Wired article:

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-01/ff_100mpg#

There is a new video of the Aptera, showing some of the innards, and talking about the production methods. The article mentions that it weighs 1,500 pounds (a lot more than 850), and in an actual test, the all-electric model got the equivalent of 340mpg, and it only emitted 78mg of greenhouse gases -- both are 2X better than the AXP requirements. :shock: :o :twisted:
#32306 by Neil Blanchard
Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:36 pm
Greetings,

I want to bring a very important book (IMO) to your attention:
Image
(click on image for link)

You can buy a paperback ($17) or hardcover ($30), or you can get for free, as a 2.9MB PDF:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/pb3book.pdf

Here's their press release:

PRESS RELEASE

“In late summer 2007, reports of ice melting were coming at a frenetic pace. Experts were ‘stunned’ when an area of Arctic sea ice almost twice the size of Britain disappeared in a single week,” writes Lester R. Brown in his new book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (W.W. Norton & Company).

“Nearby, the Greenland ice sheet was melting so fast that huge chunks of ice weighing several billion tons were breaking off and sliding into the sea, triggering minor earthquakes,” notes Brown, President and Founder of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based independent environmental research organization.

These recent developments are alarming scientists. If we cannot stop this melting of the Greenland ice sheet, sea level will eventually rise 23 feet, inundating many of the world’s coastal cities and the rice-growing river deltas of Asia. It will force several hundred million people from their homes, generating an unimaginable flood of rising-sea refugees.

“We need not go beyond ice melting to see that civilization is in trouble. Business-as-usual is no longer a viable option. It is time for Plan B,” Brown says in Plan B 3.0, which was produced with major funding from the Farview, Lannan, Summit, and Wallace Genetic foundations, the U.N. Population Fund, Fred and Alice Stanback, and Andrew Stevenson.

“Plan B 3.0 is a comprehensive plan for reversing the trends that are fast undermining our future. Its four overriding goals are to stabilize climate, stabilize population, eradicate poverty, and restore the earth’s damaged ecosystems,” says Brown. “Failure to reach any one of these goals will likely mean failure to reach the others as well.”

Continuing rapid population growth is weakening governments in scores of countries. The annual addition of 70 million people to world population is concentrated in countries where water tables are falling and wells are going dry, forests are shrinking, soils are eroding, and grasslands are turning into desert. As this backlog of unresolved problems grows, stresses mount and weaker governments begin to break down.

The defining characteristic of a failing state is the inability of a government to provide security for its people. Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Pakistan are among the better known examples. Each year the number of failing states increases. “Failing states,” notes Brown, “are an early sign of a failing civilization.”

“Even as the accumulating backlog of unresolved problems is leading to a breakdown of governments in weaker states, new stresses are emerging. Among these are rising oil prices as the world approaches peak oil, rising food prices as an ever larger share of the U.S. grain harvest is converted into fuel for cars, and the spreading fallout from climate change.”

“At the heart of the climate-stabilizing initiative cited above is a detailed plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020 in order to hold the future temperature rise to a minimum. This initiative has three major components—raising energy efficiency, developing renewable sources of energy, and expanding the earth’s tree cover. Reaching these goals,” says Brown, “will mean the world can phase out all coal-fired power plants.”

In setting the carbon reduction goals for Plan B, we did not ask “What do politicians think is politically feasible?” but rather “What do we think is needed to prevent irreversible climate change?” This is not Plan A: business-as-usual. This is Plan B: an all-out response at wartime speed proportionate to the magnitude of the threats facing civilization.

“We are in a race between tipping points in natural and political systems,” says Brown. “Which will come first? Can we mobilize the political will to phase out coal-fired power plants before the melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irreversible? Can we halt deforestation in the Amazon basin before it so weakens the forest that it becomes vulnerable to fire and is destroyed? Can we cut carbon emissions fast enough to save the Himalayan glaciers that feed the major rivers of Asia?”

Although efforts have been made in recent decades to raise the efficiency of energy use, the potential is still largely untapped. For example, one easy and profitable way to cut carbon emissions worldwide is simply to replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs that use only a fourth as much electricity. Turning to more efficient lighting can reduce world electricity use by 12 percent—enough to close 705 of the world’s 2,370 coal-fired power plants.

In the United States, buildings—commercial and residential—account for close to 40 percent of carbon emissions. Retrofitting an existing building typically can cut energy use by 20–50 percent. The next step, shifting to carbon-free electricity to heat, cool, and light the building completes the transformation to a zero-carbon emissions building.

We can also reduce carbon emissions by moving down the food chain. The energy used to provide the typical American diet and that used for personal transportation are roughly equal. A plant-based diet requires about one fourth as much energy as a diet rich in red meat. The reduction in carbon emissions in shifting from a red meat–rich diet to a plant-based diet is about the same as that in shifting from a Chevrolet Suburban SUV to a Toyota Prius hybrid car.

In the Plan B energy economy, wind is the centerpiece. It is abundant, low cost, and widely distributed; it scales easily and can be developed quickly. The goal is to develop at wartime speed 3 million megawatts of wind-generating capacity by 2020, enough to meet 40 percent of the world’s electricity needs. This would require 1.5 million wind turbines of 2 megawatts each. These turbines could be produced on assembly lines by reopening closed automobile plants, much as bombers were assembled in auto plants during World War II.

In the development of renewable energy resources, Brown notes, we are seeing the emergence of some big-time thinking—thinking that recognizes the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels. Nowhere is this more evident than in Texas, where the state government is coordinating an effort to build 23,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity (the equivalent of 23 coal-fired power plants). This will supply enough electricity to satisfy the residential needs of over 11 million Texans—half the state’s population. Oil wells go dry and coal seams run out, but the earth’s wind resources cannot be depleted.

Solar technologies also provide exciting opportunities for getting us off the carbon treadmill. Sales of solar-electric panels are doubling every two years. Rooftop solar water heaters are spreading fast in Europe and China. In China, some 40 million homes now get their hot water from rooftop solar heaters. The plan is to nearly triple this to 110 million homes by 2020, supplying hot water to 380 million Chinese.

Large-scale solar thermal power plants are under construction or planned in California, Florida, Spain, and Algeria. Algeria, a leading world oil exporter, is planning to develop 6,000 megawatts of solar-thermal electric-generating capacity, which it will feed into the European grid via an undersea cable. The electricity generated from this single project is enough to supply the residential needs of a country the size of Switzerland.

Investment in geothermal energy for both heating and power generation is also growing fast, notes Brown. Iceland now heats nearly 90 percent of its homes with geothermal energy, virtually eliminating the use of coal for home heating. The Philippines gets 25 percent of its electricity from geothermal power plants. The United States has 61 geothermal projects under way in the geothermally rich western states.

The combination of gas-electric hybrid cars and advanced-design wind turbines has set the stage for the evolution of an entirely new automotive fuel economy. If the battery storage of the typical hybrid car is doubled and a plug-in capacity is added so that batteries can be recharged at night, then we could do our short-distance driving—commuting to work, grocery shopping, and so on—almost entirely with cheap, wind-generated electricity.

This would permit us to run our cars largely on renewable electricity—and at the gasoline-equivalent cost of less than $1 per gallon. Several major automakers are coming to market with plug-in hybrids or electric cars.

With business as usual (Plan A), the environmental trends that are undermining our future will continue. More and more states will fail until civilization itself begins to unravel. “Time is our scarcest resource. We are crossing natural thresholds that we cannot see and violating deadlines that we do not recognize,” says Brown. “These deadlines are set by nature. Nature is the timekeeper, but we cannot see the clock.”

The key to restructuring the world energy economy is to get the market to tell the environmental truth by incorporating into prices the indirect costs of burning fossil fuels, such as climate disruption and air pollution. To do this, we propose adopting a carbon tax that will reflect these indirect costs and offsetting it by lowering income taxes. We propose a worldwide carbon tax to be phased in at $20 per ton each year between 2008 and 2020, stabilizing at $240 per ton. This initiative, which would be offset at every step with a reduction in income taxes, would simultaneously discourage fossil fuel use and encourage investment in renewable sources of energy.

“Saving civilization is not a spectator sport,” says Brown. “We have reached a point in the deteriorating relationship between us and the earth’s natural systems where we all have to become political activists. Every day counts. We all have a stake in civilization’s survival.”

“We can all make lifestyle changes, but unless we restructure the economy and do it quickly we will almost certainly fail. We need to persuade our elected representatives and national leaders to support the environmental tax restructuring and other changes outlined in Plan B. Beyond this, each of us can pick an issue that is important to us at the local level, such as phasing out coal-fired power plants, shifting to more-efficient light bulbs, or developing a comprehensive local recycling program, and get to work on it.”

We all need to educate ourselves on environmental issues. For its part, the Earth Policy Institute is making Plan B 3.0 available for downloading free of charge from its Web site.

“It is decision time,” says Brown. “Like earlier civilizations that got into environmental trouble, we have to make a choice. We can stay with business as usual and watch our economy decline and our civilization unravel, or we can adopt Plan B and be the generation that mobilizes to save civilization. Our generation will make the decision, but it will affect life on earth for all generations to come.”


I urge all of you to read this book, then to do what you can to help change our civilization. :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 68 guests

About DataCAD Forum

The DataCAD Forum is a FREE online community we provide to enhance your experience with DataCAD.

We hope you'll visit often to get answers, share ideas, and interact with other DataCAD users around the world.

DataCAD

Software for Architects Since 1984