| |
Main
Date: 02 Jan 2007 20:43:49
From: G.fried
Subject: new electric assist cycling technology
|
Hello,
we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology and are currently collecting the requirements. The project hyperbike.cc is a feasibility study contracted by the Austrian ministry for transport, technology and innovation. We invite you to help us to help you.
We would appreciate very much if you could fill in our on-line questionnaire at
http://www.hyperbike.cc/Vorlage.phtml?id=716
After answering tips about cycling are displayed.
many thanks for your time
best regards
Gerfried
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:51:21
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
nash wrote:
> What about recreation? Hauling the boat or moving lumber for a renovation
> and changing addresses
> You will never get people to agree on that.
I didn't propose that such vehicles would be illegal or anything...
only that they not be exempt from fuel mileage standards. The way this
works is that if manufacturer wishes to sell a lot of "large" vehicles,
they also have to sell a lot of "small" ones to offset. When they
exclude SUVs and trucks they aren't even included in the calculation.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:42:55
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
>
> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
> ceiling liner.
Yeah, right.
> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>DougC wrote:
>>
>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>> ceiling liner.
>
>Yeah, right.
>
>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>
>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
>
>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
Why do you hate America so much?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 16:05:01
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>DougC wrote:
>>>
>>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>>> ceiling liner.
>>
>>Yeah, right.
>>
>>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>>
>>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
>>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
>>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
>>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
>>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
>>
>>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
>>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
>>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
>>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
>>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
>>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
>>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
>
>Why do you hate America so much?
Dear John,
Chalo is just commenting that the size of a car may have little to do
with how much room it offers the driver:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm
I doubt that Chalo bothered to pick his examples with any subtle
anti-American agenda in mind. He's such an exceptionally clear writer
that we're rarely left in doubt how he feels about things:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a7ae4f12ea9d9013
:)
My 6'5" brother-in-law from New Zealand was amused to find plenty of
headroom in the tiny Mini-Cooper that my equally tiny sister covets, a
discovery that deprived him of one argument against her girlish fancy.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 00:10:00
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <l6u2q29ks2cnf3s6mig6ho3ttebgkeakam@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>DougC wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
> >>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
> >>> ceiling liner.
> >>
> >>Yeah, right.
> >>
> >>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
> >>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
> >>
> >>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
> >>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
> >>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
> >>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
> >>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
> >>
> >>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
> >>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
> >>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
> >>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
> >>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
> >>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
> >>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
> >
> >Why do you hate America so much?
>
> Dear John,
>
> Chalo is just commenting that the size of a car may have little to do
> with how much room it offers the driver:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm
Oh Carl, you know as well as anyone that JT hates America at least as
much as Chalo.
> I doubt that Chalo bothered to pick his examples with any subtle
> anti-American agenda in mind. He's such an exceptionally clear writer
> that we're rarely left in doubt how he feels about things:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a7ae4f12ea9d9013
>
> :)
>
> My 6'5" brother-in-law from New Zealand was amused to find plenty of
> headroom in the tiny Mini-Cooper that my equally tiny sister covets, a
> discovery that deprived him of one argument against her girlish fancy.
I nominate the Volkswagen New Beetle as the vehicle with the greatest
front-rear discrepancy: the front seat headroom, aided by the arched
roof, is wasted on 5'6" me. In the rear seat, however, I hit my head on
the rear hatch frame. For anyone taller than me, the rear seat is pure
torture.
Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
let me in without a passport,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 18:30:45
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:10:00 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <l6u2q29ks2cnf3s6mig6ho3ttebgkeakam@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>DougC wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>> >>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>> >>> ceiling liner.
>> >>
>> >>Yeah, right.
>> >>
>> >>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>> >>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>> >>
>> >>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
>> >>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
>> >>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
>> >>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
>> >>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
>> >>
>> >>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
>> >>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
>> >>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
>> >>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
>> >>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
>> >>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
>> >>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
>> >
>> >Why do you hate America so much?
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> Chalo is just commenting that the size of a car may have little to do
>> with how much room it offers the driver:
>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm
>
>Oh Carl, you know as well as anyone that JT hates America at least as
>much as Chalo.
>
>> I doubt that Chalo bothered to pick his examples with any subtle
>> anti-American agenda in mind. He's such an exceptionally clear writer
>> that we're rarely left in doubt how he feels about things:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a7ae4f12ea9d9013
>>
>> :)
>>
>> My 6'5" brother-in-law from New Zealand was amused to find plenty of
>> headroom in the tiny Mini-Cooper that my equally tiny sister covets, a
>> discovery that deprived him of one argument against her girlish fancy.
>
>I nominate the Volkswagen New Beetle as the vehicle with the greatest
>front-rear discrepancy: the front seat headroom, aided by the arched
>roof, is wasted on 5'6" me. In the rear seat, however, I hit my head on
>the rear hatch frame. For anyone taller than me, the rear seat is pure
>torture.
>
>Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
>let me in without a passport,
Dear Ryan,
Possibly the webs between your toes, your prominent incisors, or the
unusual flattening of your tail inflame the xenophobic suspicions of
our stalwart border guards?
Only ceaseless vigilance has kept the lower 48 free of this ancient
northern menace:
http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina6.html
Here we see Ryan being driven off by suitably costumed members of the
Border Patrol:
http://my.execpc.com/~coken2/exhibita.jpg
I don't care what Jobst says, President Polk was right to stand up to
the colossus of the north in 1844, even though we settled for 49
degrees.
Cheers,
Carl "54-40 or Fight!" Fogel
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:04:03
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Insanity. And then they relaxed the requirements for cars as well. The
> only vehicles that should be exempted are those that are proven
> necessary for hauling loads for a business.
I should add that *none* of these would be SUVs... only cargo vans and
trucks.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 11:48:48
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
> SUV's didn't become really popular in the US until car makers were
> forced to make cars smaller to meet CAFE rules. The simple reason that
> many people prefer SUV's is because SUV's have more interior space.
Why not a mini-van then? They have more space than a typical SUV. Do we
need big tires, 4WD, 400hp, and 5,000+lbs just to get some interior
space? Most of these spend nearly all their time hauling a payload of
less than 200 lb!
> Being classed as light trucks, they weren't required to meet the CAFE
> MPG ratings that "cars" had to.
Insanity. And then they relaxed the requirements for cars as well. The
only vehicles that should be exempted are those that are proven
necessary for hauling loads for a business.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 15:19:08
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <1168199328.408262.182370@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
"Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > SUV's didn't become really popular in the US until car makers were
> > forced to make cars smaller to meet CAFE rules. The simple reason
> > that many people prefer SUV's is because SUV's have more interior
> > space.
>
> Why not a mini-van then? They have more space than a typical SUV. Do
> we need big tires, 4WD, 400hp, and 5,000+lbs just to get some
> interior space? Most of these spend nearly all their time hauling a
> payload of less than 200 lb!
Sure. Minivans are an offense to manliness. Big knobby tires, large
intimidating size, 4WD, 400HP, yadda yadda yadda are necessary to
maintain the biological imperative of being the alpha male.
The research I have read regarding women buying SUVs, on the other hand
is based on the belief that these vehicles are safer. If you go to auto
shows, you will see that the reps will use one pitch for men (focusing
on the machismo qualities) and a different pitch for women (focusing on
safety and how buying one of these behemoths makes you a better parent).
> > Being classed as light trucks, they weren't required to meet the
> > CAFE MPG ratings that "cars" had to.
>
> Insanity. And then they relaxed the requirements for cars as well.
> The only vehicles that should be exempted are those that are proven
> necessary for hauling loads for a business.
And for the sake of businesses, those shouldn't be exempt either.
Better mileage = lower operating costs = improved profitability. Energy
efficiency is good business. It's been done in other aspects of
business equipment with good outcomes, but somehow the automotive
industry just doesn't get it. And yet the most profitable and
successful auto makers are those that attend to the mileage issue- while
those that fight the CAFE standards the hardest are the ones most likely
to be circling the drain.
Funny true story. At one of the places I consult, one of the managerial
staff is a modern-day conservative. She insists on the supremacy of
free kets, governmental non-intrusion into business, making
Christianity tantamount to the state religion, etc. She then bitched
long and loud about the price of gas for her SUV (which she has to drive
because she lives like 10 miles from work and doesn't want to get stuck
in the snow) and demanded several times that the government do something
to lower the price of gas...
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 00:10:34
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-0B147D.15190807012007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <1168199328.408262.182370@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> DougC wrote:
>> > SUV's didn't become really popular in the US until car makers were
>> > forced to make cars smaller to meet CAFE rules. The simple reason
>> > that many people prefer SUV's is because SUV's have more interior
>> > space.
>>
>> Why not a mini-van then? They have more space than a typical SUV. Do
>> we need big tires, 4WD, 400hp, and 5,000+lbs just to get some
>> interior space? Most of these spend nearly all their time hauling a
>> payload of less than 200 lb!
>
> Sure. Minivans are an offense to manliness. Big knobby tires, large
> intimidating size, 4WD, 400HP, yadda yadda yadda are necessary to
> maintain the biological imperative of being the alpha male.
>
> The research I have read regarding women buying SUVs, on the other hand
> is based on the belief that these vehicles are safer. If you go to auto
> shows, you will see that the reps will use one pitch for men (focusing
> on the machismo qualities) and a different pitch for women (focusing on
> safety and how buying one of these behemoths makes you a better parent).
>
>> > Being classed as light trucks, they weren't required to meet the
>> > CAFE MPG ratings that "cars" had to.
>>
>> Insanity. And then they relaxed the requirements for cars as well.
>> The only vehicles that should be exempted are those that are proven
>> necessary for hauling loads for a business.
>
> And for the sake of businesses, those shouldn't be exempt either.
> Better mileage = lower operating costs = improved profitability. Energy
> efficiency is good business. It's been done in other aspects of
> business equipment with good outcomes, but somehow the automotive
> industry just doesn't get it. And yet the most profitable and
> successful auto makers are those that attend to the mileage issue- while
> those that fight the CAFE standards the hardest are the ones most likely
> to be circling the drain.
>
> Funny true story. At one of the places I consult, one of the managerial
> staff is a modern-day conservative. She insists on the supremacy of
> free kets, governmental non-intrusion into business, making
> Christianity tantamount to the state religion, etc. She then bitched
> long and loud about the price of gas for her SUV (which she has to drive
> because she lives like 10 miles from work and doesn't want to get stuck
> in the snow) and demanded several times that the government do something
> to lower the price of gas...
How can you make sense of an industry that works with gasoline companies to
keep the fuel price higher.
They could have used hemp oil in the 30's or something similar but it cost
too little. People have been using discarded vegetable oil from restaurants
for a decade for nothing. Same as the bio diesel idea they are trying to
commercialize now. That on the other hand car companies are having their
arms twisted to succumb to.
Crisco Jetta would be perfect.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 00:46:50
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
nash wrote:
<some snipping >
> How can you make sense of an industry that works with gasoline companies to
> keep the fuel price higher.
> They could have used hemp oil in the 30's or something similar but it cost
> too little.
That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre as
corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell nicer, but
people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on their faces.
People have been using discarded vegetable oil from restaurants
> for a decade for nothing.
I've seen some of those and it is a great idea as long as too many
people don't do it. There just aren't enough restaurants to support a
big bio diesel movement.
Same as the bio diesel idea they are trying to
> commercialize now. That on the other hand car companies are having their
> arms twisted to succumb to.
> Crisco Jetta would be perfect.
Someone mentioned being passed while walking, by a bio diesel that
apparently filled up at a McDonalds and it smelled like french fries so
much they went to a Mcdonalds and had some.
Minor drawback.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 03:17:29
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre as
corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell nicer, but
people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on their faces.
<<<<<<
The trouble with corn, Bush wisely proclaims, is that it is a food source
and costs too much. Hemp and other crops can use the whole plant.
Making it maybe 100% more efficient.
I am sure the smell would not be a problem but funny all the same.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 21:15:19
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
nash wrote:
> That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
> picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
> in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
> attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre as
> corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell nicer, but
> people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on their faces.
> <<<<<<
> The trouble with corn, Bush wisely proclaims, is that it is a food source
> and costs too much.
Bush and wisely in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Hemp and other crops can use the whole plant.
> Making it maybe 100% more efficient.
The oil can be extracted easily enough and the waste can be burned in a
bio waste fired generating electric plant.
>
> I am sure the smell would not be a problem but funny all the same.
>
>
I don't know if a large quantity of even non-stoner weed smoke would
have an effect. It might make drivers a bit more mellow, which would not
be a bad side effect.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 05:17:38
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:15:19 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>nash wrote:
>> That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
>> picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
>> in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
>> attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre as
>> corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell nicer, but
>> people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on their faces.
>> <<<<<<
>> The trouble with corn, Bush wisely proclaims, is that it is a food source
>> and costs too much.
>
>Bush and wisely in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
>
> Hemp and other crops can use the whole plant.
>> Making it maybe 100% more efficient.
>
>The oil can be extracted easily enough and the waste can be burned in a
>bio waste fired generating electric plant.
>>
>> I am sure the smell would not be a problem but funny all the same.
>>
>>
>I don't know if a large quantity of even non-stoner weed smoke would
>have an effect. It might make drivers a bit more mellow, which would not
>be a bad side effect.
>Bill Baka
Baka = MORON
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 06:37:43
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
R Brickston wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:15:19 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> nash wrote:
>>> That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
>>> picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
>>> in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
>>> attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre as
>>> corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell nicer, but
>>> people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on their faces.
>>> <<<<<<
>>> The trouble with corn, Bush wisely proclaims, is that it is a food source
>>> and costs too much.
>> Bush and wisely in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
>>
>> Hemp and other crops can use the whole plant.
>>> Making it maybe 100% more efficient.
>> The oil can be extracted easily enough and the waste can be burned in a
>> bio waste fired generating electric plant.
>>> I am sure the smell would not be a problem but funny all the same.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know if a large quantity of even non-stoner weed smoke would
>> have an effect. It might make drivers a bit more mellow, which would not
>> be a bad side effect.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Baka = MORON
Oh,
Dipstick is back.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 22:08:10
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:37:43 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>R Brickston wrote:
>>> I don't know if a large quantity of even non-stoner weed smoke would
>>> have an effect. It might make drivers a bit more mellow, which would not
>>> be a bad side effect.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Baka = MORON
>
>Oh,
>Dipstick is back.
Is it true you co-invented the internet with your pal Gore?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 21:44:30
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
The trouble with corn, Bush wisely!!! proclaims, is that it is a food source
This is what I meant. Like it is a rarity.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 09:51:50
From: Theo Bekkers
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Bill Baka wrote:
> That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
> picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
> in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
> attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre
> as corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell
> nicer, but people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on
> their faces.
The Yanks pressured the rest of the world to make hemp "evil" so they could
sell their inferior cotton for ropes, etc.
Theo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 20:18:56
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Insanity. And then they relaxed the requirements for cars as well. The
only vehicles that should be exempted are those that are proven
necessary for hauling loads for a business.<<<<<
What about recreation? Hauling the boat or moving lumber for a renovation
and changing addresses
You will never get people to agree on that.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 02:31:14
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: counter propiganda nonsense numbs our willingness to get to the truth
|
In article <1167928004.767303.231540@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"meeklyornot" <houseman@rocketmail.com > writes:
> The cost of providing a road for cars, even when done so criminally
> poorly as is the case with the only exception being the private
> driveway perhaps, is what milllions, billions of times the cost
> difference between a town where people use less massive and
> insufficiently afforded vehicles.
See Jobst's "Bike paths" post.
Then freak out.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 22:37:10
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <timmcn-E596A5.10091905012007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:
> In article <ugjsp29r938vcvr5mno1a77vovrvmdrp8i@4ax.com>,
> k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>> Still, I think it's valid to question a "green" approach to
>> transportation that pollutes more than the one it replaces.
>
> Of course it is. And the discussion has to include the entire product
> cycle from manufacture to operation to disposal at the end of service
> life. That makes me question the "greenness" of hybrid or completely
> electric vehicles which have a whole lot of toxic batteries to dispose
> of at the end of service life. And, in the case of the latter, tailpipe
> emission production is merely shifted from the tailpipe of the car to
> the smokestack of a coal or natural gas fired powerplant.
>
> There is no free lunch in personal mechanized transportation. Since
> you're moving thousands of pounds of vehicle to transport hundreds of
> pounds of people, you have got to expend massive amounts of energy.
> Mass transit both benefits and suffers from economy of scale- a bus with
> 60 passengers provides a relatively decent energy efficiency compared to
> those same people driving 60 cars, but a bus with three passengers is
> horribly inefficient.
>
> Walking or riding a bike requires a tiny fraction of the energy and it
> much healthier for you to do. The benefits of a small amount of
> physical activity per day are startling compared to the legless couch
> potato life. 30 minutes of aerobic activity per day dramatically cuts
> your risk of heart disease, obesity and associated health problems. It
> reduces your risk of Alzheimer's. It is as effective as Prozac in
> treating mild depression. Ride bike!
Hear, hear!
The basic, pedal-powered bicycle is the most efficient
means of personal transportation ever devised (except
perhaps for canoes.)
People keep trying to improve on bicycles by making them
more complicated, what with power assistance, auto-shifting,
CVTs and oddball drive mechanisms.
But it always comes back to Square One. Seems to me the only
way to really improve bicycles is to further simplify them (if
that's even possible,) rather than to make them more complicated
and less "bicycle." I guess that's part of the allure of
fixed-gear bikes.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 14:08:58
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> But it always comes back to Square One. Seems to me the only
> way to really improve bicycles is to further simplify them (if
> that's even possible,) rather than to make them more complicated
> and less "bicycle."
Well, in most cases the "engine" could use a lot of work. :-)
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 16:52:28
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Fear is not the biggest selling point of SUVs. It is simply one selling
> point.
For a lot of men it isn't fear but rather the macho aspect of driving a
large, powerful vehicle. For women though, fear, or the feeling of
safety associated with riding in a tall heavy vehicle is the dominant
factor... and so they have become very popular among both men and women
who can afford them.
It is insane though really... since small cars would be safer if only
that was what most people were driving. Small, light, vehicles
traveling at relatively low speeds would be very safe. The large
vehicle craze just results in more congestion, wasted resources, and
less safety.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:37:49
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Fear is not the biggest selling point of SUVs. It is simply one selling
>> point.
>
> For a lot of men it isn't fear but rather the macho aspect of driving a
> large, powerful vehicle. For women though, fear, or the feeling of
> safety associated with riding in a tall heavy vehicle is the dominant
> factor... and so they have become very popular among both men and women
> who can afford them.
>
> It is insane though really... since small cars would be safer if only
> that was what most people were driving. Small, light, vehicles
> traveling at relatively low speeds would be very safe. The large
> vehicle craze just results in more congestion, wasted resources, and
> less safety.
>
No, not really. Not in the USA, at least.
SUV's didn't become really popular in the US until car makers were
forced to make cars smaller to meet CAFE rules. The simple reason that
many people prefer SUV's is because SUV's have more interior space.
Being classed as light trucks, they weren't required to meet the CAFE
MPG ratings that "cars" had to.
~
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 14:19:13
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
>
> SUV's didn't become really popular in the US until car makers were
> forced to make cars smaller to meet CAFE rules. The simple reason that
> many people prefer SUV's is because SUV's have more interior space.
> Being classed as light trucks, they weren't required to meet the CAFE
> MPG ratings that "cars" had to.
> ~
This is very true.
I don't have a problem with space/size per se. Space doesn't weigh
anything, but more size generally means heavier (which has benefits and
disbenefits) and more likely to obscure smaller road users, like
bicyclists, a disbenefit. Larger size also tends to impart aggression
and invincibility in drivers.
Being exempt from CAFE is nearly criminal. Most SUVs (and cars) are way
overpowered and could easily get better fuel economy simply by engine
downsizing.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 16:35:05
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Bill Baka wrote:
> Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
> trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
> little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
> neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
> of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
> a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up Oxygen.
> I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
They are a small minority, but as far as I can tell they are
everywhere. They aren't about to slow down for some lycra-clad fag
pedaling a bike down the highway. If they hit you, well... "I just
didn't see'im officer"... is enough to get off scott free. After all
most people *do* consider it suicide to ride a bike on the road... just
a matter of time.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 00:54:55
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1168130105.777380.106530@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
>> trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
>> little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
>> neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
>> of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
>> a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up
>> Oxygen.
>> I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
>
> They are a small minority, but as far as I can tell they are
> everywhere. They aren't about to slow down for some lycra-clad fag
> pedaling a bike down the highway. If they hit you, well... "I just
> didn't see'im officer"... is enough to get off scott free. After all
> most people *do* consider it suicide to ride a bike on the road... just
> a matter of time.
A minute of silence for every one who has already died because of this jerk
and his ungrateful species.
SN
|
| |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 00:42:00
From: Mike A Schwab
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Bill Baka wrote:
<deleted >
> Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
> trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
> little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
> neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
> of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
> a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up Oxygen.
> I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
> Bill Baka
http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/spike.html
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 18:03:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
> Bill Baka wrote:
> <deleted>
>> Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
>> trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
>> little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
>> neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
>> of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
>> a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up Oxygen.
>> I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
Mike A Schwab wrote:
> http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/spike.html
Gives you a good idea of the local 'culture' here in the Alternate
Reality that is Madison
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 23:55:25
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Mike A Schwab wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
> <deleted>
>> Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
>> trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
>> little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
>> neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
>> of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
>> a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up Oxygen.
>> I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
>> Bill Baka
>
> http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/spike.html
>
For some strange reason I can relate to this guy's stories.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 13:55:43
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> How can the biggest obstacle to using lightweigh electric cars be fear
> when the vehicles don't really exist?
Fear is the biggest selling point for SUVs... they are "safer" because
you will kill the other guy rather than being killed yourself. Of
course since there are now so many of them that is no longer true...
but it is still a reason *not* to have a small car. In a collision the
smaller vehicle is definately at a disadvantage.
> Comparing lightweight non-existent
> cars that can do the speed limit with bicycles which generally cannot
> (and thus users have the fear of being passed in the same lane by motor
> vehicles) is not a good comparison. Further, your assertion that sharing
> the road with cars is the biggest obstacle to riding a bike is not true.
> There are a myriad of reasons for not riding a bike for a given trip.
True, there are a lot of reasons to not ride a *bike* for
transportation... not wanting to get sweaty, or be exposed to the
elements being very important... but all but the "fear of getting hit/
run over by large vehicles" can be addressed by enclosed small
efficient vehicles.
I think you underestimate the amount of control fear has... both real
and perceived. We cyclists tend to be more daring than the general
population. The vast majority of motorists consider it absolutely
insane to ride a bike along a busy road... even with an adequate
shoulder. My wife won't ride a bike on the road because she is afraid
of cars... so it just takes all the fun out of it for her... but she
likes riding on the trainer. Where I used to live (Kauai) there was
rarely a day went by when a car or truck didn't come very close to
hitting me, either through carelessness or intention. I live in a less
trafficed area now, but occasionally I'll encounter a cowboy pulling a
trailer at 80mph who refuses to slow down even though there is a truck
coming from opposite direction and no shoulder. Even here, I avoid
riding through town at all because there isn't a single road with a
shoulder, and all of them are busy. Even if I could believe it is safe,
I just don't want to annoy and inconvenience that many motorists.
> Having three separate
> infrastructures for motor vehicles, bicycles and "small efficient
> vehicles," and "baby strollers and dogs" is not workable.
Why not? If decent infrastructure for light vehicles and bikes existed,
the number of vehicles on the road could be much higher than it is now,
with no increase in congestion. Or in other words, we wouldn't really
need *more* roads... just a rethinking of the ones we have. In urban
areas with multiple lane roads, designate the right lane for two lanes
of light vehicles and bikes. In rural areas provide enough space for a
shoulder. Paths along canals and through parks could also be used by
light vehicles (preferably quiet electric ones). All such paths would
be less expensive than current roads because the weight would be much
less.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 20:44:42
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Manifest Destiny!
The annexing of Baja is long overdue...
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 05:18:48
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <1168231482.045202.318540@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Manifest Destiny!
>
> The annexing of Baja is long overdue...
Yes, well, I have plans to annex Baja British Columbia, er, Point
Roberts, but it turns out it's more useful in American hands, since that
way I can use it as a drop point for UPS packages from the US without
them incurring border brokerage costs.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 22:48:15
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:18:48 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <1168231482.045202.318540@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> > Manifest Destiny!
>>
>> The annexing of Baja is long overdue...
>
>Yes, well, I have plans to annex Baja British Columbia, er, Point
>Roberts, but it turns out it's more useful in American hands, since that
>way I can use it as a drop point for UPS packages from the US without
>them incurring border brokerage costs.
Dear Ryan,
See? See!
You and the Hudson Bay Company may have your expansionist eyes on the
longest undefended border on earth, but remember the Pig War of 1859!
Vote for Polk, Prosperity, and Potatoes in 1844!
Carl ""Keep your pigs out of my potatoes!" Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 09:18:42
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <i8m3q21f7cab1jkmilunsrtffuo4egp6rg@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:18:48 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1168231482.045202.318540@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> > Manifest Destiny!
> >>
> >> The annexing of Baja is long overdue...
> >
> >Yes, well, I have plans to annex Baja British Columbia, er, Point
> >Roberts, but it turns out it's more useful in American hands, since that
> >way I can use it as a drop point for UPS packages from the US without
> >them incurring border brokerage costs.
>
> Dear Ryan,
>
> See? See!
>
> You and the Hudson Bay Company may have your expansionist eyes on the
> longest undefended border on earth, but remember the Pig War of 1859!
Okay, you can only have known about the Pig War by Googling Point
Roberts. You didn't really know about it before, did you?
> Vote for Polk, Prosperity, and Potatoes in 1844!
>
> Carl ""Keep your pigs out of my potatoes!" Fogel
I feel the need to write something bicyclic before this thread goes
utterly stir-crazy [too late -ed].
Oh yeah, I organized a drunken cyclocross ride on New Year's Day. Here's
my report:
http://wiredcola.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bear-cyclocross-ride.html
Which is worth reading if only for the low-quality photos of what I do
to brand-new top of the line bike parts (Boxing Day rocks).
And then there's another participant's perspective:
http://ignoreitanditwillgoaway.blogspot.com/2007/01/news-year-ride.html
It was wonderful,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 12:47:59
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:18:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <i8m3q21f7cab1jkmilunsrtffuo4egp6rg@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:18:48 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1168231482.045202.318540@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> > Manifest Destiny!
>> >>
>> >> The annexing of Baja is long overdue...
>> >
>> >Yes, well, I have plans to annex Baja British Columbia, er, Point
>> >Roberts, but it turns out it's more useful in American hands, since that
>> >way I can use it as a drop point for UPS packages from the US without
>> >them incurring border brokerage costs.
>>
>> Dear Ryan,
>>
>> See? See!
>>
>> You and the Hudson Bay Company may have your expansionist eyes on the
>> longest undefended border on earth, but remember the Pig War of 1859!
>
>Okay, you can only have known about the Pig War by Googling Point
>Roberts. You didn't really know about it before, did you?
>
>> Vote for Polk, Prosperity, and Potatoes in 1844!
>>
>> Carl ""Keep your pigs out of my potatoes!" Fogel
>
>I feel the need to write something bicyclic before this thread goes
>utterly stir-crazy [too late -ed].
>
>Oh yeah, I organized a drunken cyclocross ride on New Year's Day. Here's
>my report:
>
>http://wiredcola.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bear-cyclocross-ride.html
>
>Which is worth reading if only for the low-quality photos of what I do
>to brand-new top of the line bike parts (Boxing Day rocks).
>
>And then there's another participant's perspective:
>
>http://ignoreitanditwillgoaway.blogspot.com/2007/01/news-year-ride.html
>
>It was wonderful,
Dear Ryan,
You think that we've forgotten the Pig War?
Never!
What do you think we did in American Lit classes? We didn't just sit
around and argue about chasing imaginary white whales, why Emerson
supported that crazy lady's who-wrote-Shakespeare essay, and whether
Dickens was right about the Civil War being about economics, not
slavery.
No, we got our hands dirty in the nation's glorious past! Factual
details! History is the meat and potatoes background for fiction!
(Particularly when a war looms over a Canadian pig in a US potato
patch.)
If you want to know whether someone has actually studied American Lit,
ask him what animals were involved in the famous Puritan execution for
buggery.
A good student should be able to name most of the livestock, but
anyone who can't remember the turkey wasn't paying attention in class
the week before Thanksgiving:
http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/Lauria1.html#IV
So let's not hear any whimpering about poor Hester Prynne having to
wear her scarlet varsity letter sweater.
True, the Pig War is no match for Bradford's history of animal
husbandry at Plymouth Plantation (a favorite classroom joke), but the
Great Canadian Bacon Invasion is usually mentioned in the run-up to
the Civil War because literature students love this kind of stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
(Curiously, no mention of Point Roberts.)
I say vote for Polk in 1844 and stop the southward spread of
fur-trapping maniacs in their birch-bark canoes! This is the kind of
politics that we need to thrash out here on RBT!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 06:22:22
From: Plodder
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
--
Frank
pangloss@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
SNIPPAGE
>
> (Curiously, no mention of Point Roberts.)
Also, curiously, no mention of bicycles....
Frank :-P
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:05:39
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article
<45a2b604$0$22059$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
"Plodder" <pangloss@DAKSiinet.net.au (remove DAKS to reply) > wrote:
> --
> Frank
> pangloss@DACKSiinet.net.au
> Drop DACKS to reply
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
>
> SNIPPAGE
>
> >
> > (Curiously, no mention of Point Roberts.)
>
> Also, curiously, no mention of bicycles....
>
> Frank :-P
That should not surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts
At the six days swap meet this weekend, I found a nice Tacx bike repair
stand for $25.
Relevance? As the joke goes, I'm telling everyone.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 17:42:56
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <1168034143.534549.17700@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > How can the biggest obstacle to using lightweigh electric cars be
> > fear when the vehicles don't really exist?
>
> Fear is the biggest selling point for SUVs... they are "safer"
> because you will kill the other guy rather than being killed
> yourself. Of course since there are now so many of them that is no
> longer true... but it is still a reason *not* to have a small car. In
> a collision the smaller vehicle is definately at a disadvantage.
From the NIH:
Mayrose J, Jehle DV.
Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 14215, USA. mayrose@buffalo.edu
BACKGROUND: This study examines whether mortality is greater in sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) or passenger cars when these vehicles collide in
a head-on crash. METHODS: This study analyzed the effect of vehicle
weight in head-on crashes between passenger cars and SUVs between 1994
and 1999. Variables such as location of impact, safety belt use, vehicle
weight, vehicle type, number of occupants, and number of fatalities were
extracted from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. RESULTS: Belted
occupants of passenger cars involved in a fatal head-on collision with
an SUV had a higher fatality rate (total deaths per vehicle type/total
occupants per vehicle type) than belted occupants of the SUV (56.3% of
passenger car occupants vs. 17.6% of SUV occupants). The difference in
fatality rates is reduced when the weight of the passenger car is
equivalent to the weight of the SUV but is still significant (45.6% of
passenger car occupants vs. 26.5% of SUV occupants). In the 57 crashes
where the passenger cars outweighed the SUVs by an average of 234 lb,
the occupants of the cars still had a higher fatality rate than
occupants of the SUVs (40.1% of passenger car occupants vs. 24.4% of SUV
occupants). CONCLUSION: Occupants of passenger cars have a higher risk
of fatality than occupants of SUVs in car-versus-SUV head-on crashes.
Vehicle differential weight plays an important role in determining the
safety of occupants involved in these crashes, but safety cannot be
evaluated on the basis of vehicle weight alone. Other factors such as
mismatches in vehicle design and structural load path must also be
considered.
> I think you underestimate the amount of control fear has... both real
> and perceived.
All fear is a response to perception. You are talking about risk as
real vs. perceived. Humans are terribly inaccurate at perceiving risk
and thus frequently have misguided fears (which brings us back to your
point).
People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
unguided terrestrial cruise missiles, but fear dying in a terrorist
attack. This is despite the fact that they are thousands of times more
likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than in a terrorist attack. Or
for that matter, of the consequences of obesity and a sedentary life.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 09:28:54
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Tim McNaa wrote:
> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I
can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
Wayne
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 11:36:04
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Tim McNaa wrote:
>
>
>> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
>> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
>> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
>
> I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I
> can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
>
> Wayne
>
I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
ceiling liner.
The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
~
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 18:17:18
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <46Rnh.18$%v4.1@newsfe02.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Tim McNaa wrote:
> >
> >
> >> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
> >> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
> >> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
> >
> > I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next
> > time I can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
> >
>
> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
> ceiling liner.
>
> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
Being 6'4" I am sympathetic. Back when I owned a Ford Bronco II that
was one of the reasons I bought it. It was, however, absolutely the
worst motor vehicle I have ever owned. What a piece of shite.
However, there are lots of cars with lots of headroom. Old Volkswagons,
for example. My wife's old 1973 Super Beetle and her current 1972 bus
have more headroom than any cars I have ever seen. Don't know about
current Volkswagons. My Volvo 240 has great headroom and is far more
reliable than any other car I have ever owned.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 00:50:50
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
My Volvo 240 has great headroom and is far more
reliable than any other car I have ever owned.<<<<<
How many miles you figure you will get on one engine of your Volvo.
I thought they were extremely heavy so gas and engines would be more
expensive..?? Just curious not forming and argument here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 21:54:45
From: Steve B.
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC said:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Tim McNaa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
>>> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
>>> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
>>
>> I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I
>> can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>
> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
> ceiling liner.
>
> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
Who tall are you?
Steve = : ^ )
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 21:55:37
From: Steve B.
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Steve B. said:
> DougC said:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> Tim McNaa wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
>>>> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
>>>> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
>>>
>>> I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I
>>> can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>
>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>> ceiling liner.
>>
>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>
> Who tall are you?
Take 2: How tall are you?
Steve = : ^ \
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 19:59:32
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:46Rnh.18$%v4.1@newsfe02.lga...
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Tim McNaa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
>>> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
>>> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
>>
>> I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I
>> can somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>
> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in the
> fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the ceiling
> liner.
>
> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>
oh sure
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jan 2007 17:12:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:459fb225$0$7725$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tim McNaa wrote:
>
>
>> People think nothing of getting into what amounts to an unguided
>> terrestrial cruise missile and getting out on the roads with other
>> unguided terrestrial cruise missiles,
>
> I hope when I get in my unguided terrestrial cruise missle next time I can
> somehow miraculously make it to my random target!
>
> Wayne
lol
Maybe we should all learn how to dive and roll.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 15:16:38
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> How can the biggest obstacle to using lightweigh electric cars be fear
>> when the vehicles don't really exist?
>
> Fear is the biggest selling point for SUVs... they are "safer" because
> you will kill the other guy rather than being killed yourself. Of
> course since there are now so many of them that is no longer true...
> but it is still a reason *not* to have a small car. In a collision the
> smaller vehicle is definately at a disadvantage.
>
>> Comparing lightweight non-existent
>> cars that can do the speed limit with bicycles which generally cannot
>> (and thus users have the fear of being passed in the same lane by motor
>> vehicles) is not a good comparison. Further, your assertion that sharing
>> the road with cars is the biggest obstacle to riding a bike is not true.
>> There are a myriad of reasons for not riding a bike for a given trip.
>
> True, there are a lot of reasons to not ride a *bike* for
> transportation... not wanting to get sweaty, or be exposed to the
> elements being very important... but all but the "fear of getting hit/
> run over by large vehicles" can be addressed by enclosed small
> efficient vehicles.
>
> I think you underestimate the amount of control fear has... both real
> and perceived. We cyclists tend to be more daring than the general
> population. The vast majority of motorists consider it absolutely
> insane to ride a bike along a busy road... even with an adequate
> shoulder. My wife won't ride a bike on the road because she is afraid
> of cars... so it just takes all the fun out of it for her... but she
> likes riding on the trainer. Where I used to live (Kauai) there was
> rarely a day went by when a car or truck didn't come very close to
> hitting me, either through carelessness or intention. I live in a less
> trafficed area now, but occasionally I'll encounter a cowboy pulling a
> trailer at 80mph who refuses to slow down even though there is a truck
> coming from opposite direction and no shoulder.
Give me an RPG and a way to hide it and scratch one cowboy, truck, and
trailer. Drivers like that we don't need anywhere. I wouldn't feel one
little bit bad about leaving a crater in the road where the yahoo red
neck used to be. The rest of us would all be better off. If the driver
of that pickup is so damned self important that he can't let off the gas
a little and accelerate again, then we don't need his kind taking up Oxygen.
I would rather "Darwin" him than me or another innocent rider.
Bill Baka
Even here, I avoid
> riding through town at all because there isn't a single road with a
> shoulder, and all of them are busy. Even if I could believe it is safe,
> I just don't want to annoy and inconvenience that many motorists.
>
>> Having three separate
>> infrastructures for motor vehicles, bicycles and "small efficient
>> vehicles," and "baby strollers and dogs" is not workable.
>
> Why not? If decent infrastructure for light vehicles and bikes existed,
> the number of vehicles on the road could be much higher than it is now,
> with no increase in congestion. Or in other words, we wouldn't really
> need *more* roads... just a rethinking of the ones we have. In urban
> areas with multiple lane roads, designate the right lane for two lanes
> of light vehicles and bikes. In rural areas provide enough space for a
> shoulder. Paths along canals and through parks could also be used by
> light vehicles (preferably quiet electric ones). All such paths would
> be less expensive than current roads because the weight would be much
> less.
>
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 17:26:42
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>How can the biggest obstacle to using lightweigh electric cars be fear
>>when the vehicles don't really exist?
>
>
> Fear is the biggest selling point for SUVs... they are "safer" because
> you will kill the other guy rather than being killed yourself. Of
> course since there are now so many of them that is no longer true...
> but it is still a reason *not* to have a small car. In a collision the
> smaller vehicle is definately at a disadvantage.
Fear is not the biggest selling point of SUVs. It is simply one selling
point.
>
>
>>Comparing lightweight non-existent
>>cars that can do the speed limit with bicycles which generally cannot
>>(and thus users have the fear of being passed in the same lane by motor
>>vehicles) is not a good comparison. Further, your assertion that sharing
>>the road with cars is the biggest obstacle to riding a bike is not true.
>>There are a myriad of reasons for not riding a bike for a given trip.
>
>
> True, there are a lot of reasons to not ride a *bike* for
> transportation... not wanting to get sweaty, or be exposed to the
> elements being very important... but all but the "fear of getting hit/
> run over by large vehicles" can be addressed by enclosed small
> efficient vehicles.
>
> I think you underestimate the amount of control fear has... both real
> and perceived. We cyclists tend to be more daring than the general
> population. The vast majority of motorists consider it absolutely
> insane to ride a bike along a busy road... even with an adequate
> shoulder
Who cares what most motorists allegedly think? If they wanted to ride a
bike they would, even on low traffic roads. But they don't. They are
motorists. Most people have a great many misperceptions. Some people are
afraid of flying. The Culture of Fear is all around us. Don't be a part
of it and don't feed it.
My wife won't ride a bike on the road because she is afraid
> of cars... so it just takes all the fun out of it for her... but she
> likes riding on the trainer. Where I used to live (Kauai) there was
> rarely a day went by when a car or truck didn't come very close to
> hitting me, either through carelessness or intention. I live in a less
> trafficed area now, but occasionally I'll encounter a cowboy pulling a
> trailer at 80mph who refuses to slow down even though there is a truck
> coming from opposite direction and no shoulder. Even here, I avoid
> riding through town at all because there isn't a single road with a
> shoulder, and all of them are busy. Even if I could believe it is safe,
> I just don't want to annoy and inconvenience that many motorists.
Your paradigm that you don't want to annoy and inconvenience motorists
is very telling, and guides your thinking. I would change this
distructive paradigm to one in which you are an integral part of traffic
that happens to be slower (as are stopped cars, busses, delivery
vehicles, farm tractors, etc.). Motorist inconvenience from single
bicyclists is practically non-existent, particularly when compared with
motorist inconvenience from other motorists. Free yourself from the
culture of fear.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:52:11
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
> What kind of power are you talking about here? Nuclear?
Solar, wind, hydro. Hydro has been used extensively, but solar and wind
have not. Solar thermal and wind power can be produced for less than 5c
per kw-hr in favorable climates.
> > Even if not,
> > powerplants are much cleaner than car engines. Plus, batteries are
> > recycled.
> it--lead-acid battery recycling (vehicle batteries, that is) in the USA
> was not based on financial ket principles, but it was made a
> /legislative/ principle just to prevent lead from entering the
> environment. If this is true, then there is money being lost on every
> battery that is "recycled", because it would be more energy-efficient to
> just toss the old battery in a trash dump and make a new battery than it
> is to bother with expending the energy to recycle the old battery.
So it costs something... if so, then the cost id embedded in the price
of new batteries. Note, that recycling would need to be *significantly*
profitable for companies to do it without legislation. I doubt it costs
much if anything.
> > Electrics are inherently much simpler and less
> > expensive... even if the present prices of the low-volume offerings
> > does not support that.
> >
> How would you know this to be true, if no current or past evidence
> supports it?
Plenty of evidence supports it. The power plant for a DC electric
vehicle is incredibly simple. Of course they are expensive to produce
in small quantities... as is everything else. They are an overgrown
alternator with some batteries and a simple controller... maybe 2 or 3
gears if you want to be very efficient. By contrast, an IC engine needs
a fuel system and tank and an air intake system (fuel injection, or
carburator, etc), a starting system, an ignition system, a charging
system, exhaust system, an anti-pollution system, etc. A modern auto
engine is incredibly complex.
IC engined vehicles and the huge amount of support industry surrounding
them have taken 100+ years of dedicated effort get to the present
state. The electric vehicle ket is very immature.
I don't expect pure electric vehicles to replace IC vehicles for long
trips, but they would be very viable as small vehicles for in-town
use... say an enclosed 1 or 2 passenger car weighing ~400lb, with a top
speed of 40mph and a range of 30 miles. In quantity I can't see these
costing more than $3k... maybe much less. The biggest obstacle is the
same one that inhibits the use of bicycles on roads by the general
population... nobody wants to be sharing the road with cars that weigh
5-50 times as much.
I'm not "all about" electrics being the way to go... mostly I'd like to
see some viable support for routes where bicycles and small efficient
vehicles can safely travel without needing to play chicken with
relatively huge vehicles (and also not having to share the "road" with
baby strollers and dogs!)... and let the ket do the rest. The real
insanity is all these 5,000lb vehicles hauling a payload of less than
200lb...
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 21:54:50
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:30:45 -0700, carlfogel wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:10:00 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <l6u2q29ks2cnf3s6mig6ho3ttebgkeakam@4ax.com>,
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>DougC wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>>> >>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>>> >>> ceiling liner.
>>> >>
>>> >>Yeah, right.
>>> >>
>>> >>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>>> >>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>>> >>
>>> >>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
>>> >>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
>>> >>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
>>> >>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
>>> >>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
>>> >>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
>>> >>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
>>> >>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
>>> >>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
>>> >>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
>>> >>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
>>> >
>>> >Why do you hate America so much?
>>>
>>> Dear John,
>>>
>>> Chalo is just commenting that the size of a car may have little to do
>>> with how much room it offers the driver:
>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm
>>
>>Oh Carl, you know as well as anyone that JT hates America at least as
>>much as Chalo.
>>
>>> I doubt that Chalo bothered to pick his examples with any subtle
>>> anti-American agenda in mind. He's such an exceptionally clear writer
>>> that we're rarely left in doubt how he feels about things:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a7ae4f12ea9d9013
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> My 6'5" brother-in-law from New Zealand was amused to find plenty of
>>> headroom in the tiny Mini-Cooper that my equally tiny sister covets, a
>>> discovery that deprived him of one argument against her girlish fancy.
>>
>>I nominate the Volkswagen New Beetle as the vehicle with the greatest
>>front-rear discrepancy: the front seat headroom, aided by the arched
>>roof, is wasted on 5'6" me. In the rear seat, however, I hit my head on
>>the rear hatch frame. For anyone taller than me, the rear seat is pure
>>torture.
>>
>>Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
>>let me in without a passport,
>
> Dear Ryan,
>
> Possibly the webs between your toes, your prominent incisors, or the
> unusual flattening of your tail inflame the xenophobic suspicions of
> our stalwart border guards?
>
> Only ceaseless vigilance has kept the lower 48 free of this ancient
> northern menace:
>
> http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina6.html
>
> Here we see Ryan being driven off by suitably costumed members of the
> Border Patrol:
>
> http://my.execpc.com/~coken2/exhibita.jpg
>
> I don't care what Jobst says, President Polk was right to stand up to
> the colossus of the north in 1844, even though we settled for 49
> degrees.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl "54-40 or Fight!" Fogel
Oh great! Now Carl's creating an international incident!
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 21:29:01
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:54:50 -0600, Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:30:45 -0700, carlfogel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:10:00 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <l6u2q29ks2cnf3s6mig6ho3ttebgkeakam@4ax.com>,
>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:09:38 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 7 Jan 2007 12:42:55 -0800, "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>DougC wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I bought an SUV because I want a vehicle I can drive with teh seat in
>>>> >>> the fully-upright position, and NOT have my head pressed against the
>>>> >>> ceiling liner.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Yeah, right.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> The only vehicles that are that large are SUV's, trucks and large
>>>> >>> cars--and eco-maniacs don't like any of them. Oh well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>SUVs and trucks don't typically offer any advantage over a sedan in
>>>> >>headroom above the seat cushion, because the automakers place the seats
>>>> >>higher above the floor, which is in turn higher above the ground to
>>>> >>clear the vehicle's ladder frame. Mammoth SUVs have to accomodate the
>>>> >>five-foot soccer moms who favor them, after all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I'm 6'8", I've tried all kinds of cars and trucks in the search for one
>>>> >>that fits better than the rest, and I've discovered that the size of a
>>>> >>car bears almost no relation to the size of its driver's seat. I've
>>>> >>rented a Mercury Grand quis whose seat would not slide back enough
>>>> >>for me to get behind the wheel, and I've rented a 4-door Chevrolet SUV
>>>> >>that didn't have nearly enough legroom *or* headroom for me to drive
>>>> >>it. I think that time I found what I needed in a Camry.
>>>> >
>>>> >Why do you hate America so much?
>>>>
>>>> Dear John,
>>>>
>>>> Chalo is just commenting that the size of a car may have little to do
>>>> with how much room it offers the driver:
>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm
>>>
>>>Oh Carl, you know as well as anyone that JT hates America at least as
>>>much as Chalo.
>>>
>>>> I doubt that Chalo bothered to pick his examples with any subtle
>>>> anti-American agenda in mind. He's such an exceptionally clear writer
>>>> that we're rarely left in doubt how he feels about things:
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a7ae4f12ea9d9013
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> My 6'5" brother-in-law from New Zealand was amused to find plenty of
>>>> headroom in the tiny Mini-Cooper that my equally tiny sister covets, a
>>>> discovery that deprived him of one argument against her girlish fancy.
>>>
>>>I nominate the Volkswagen New Beetle as the vehicle with the greatest
>>>front-rear discrepancy: the front seat headroom, aided by the arched
>>>roof, is wasted on 5'6" me. In the rear seat, however, I hit my head on
>>>the rear hatch frame. For anyone taller than me, the rear seat is pure
>>>torture.
>>>
>>>Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
>>>let me in without a passport,
>>
>> Dear Ryan,
>>
>> Possibly the webs between your toes, your prominent incisors, or the
>> unusual flattening of your tail inflame the xenophobic suspicions of
>> our stalwart border guards?
>>
>> Only ceaseless vigilance has kept the lower 48 free of this ancient
>> northern menace:
>>
>> http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina6.html
>>
>> Here we see Ryan being driven off by suitably costumed members of the
>> Border Patrol:
>>
>> http://my.execpc.com/~coken2/exhibita.jpg
>>
>> I don't care what Jobst says, President Polk was right to stand up to
>> the colossus of the north in 1844, even though we settled for 49
>> degrees.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl "54-40 or Fight!" Fogel
>
>Oh great! Now Carl's creating an international incident!
Dear Gary,
Bah!
King George III started it, not me:
"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these
Colonies."
Jefferson was too tactful to mention "a neighboring Province" by name,
but George III tried to give everything west of the original thirteen
colonies to Ryan.
Imagine Abraham Lincoln and k Twain being born in "a neighboring
province"!
(On the other hand, Andrew Muzi's prices at yellowjersey.org would be
15% less if Wisconsin had ended up under Ottawa's thumb.)
Vote for Polk and the Democrats in 1844! No matter what the Whigs and
Henry Clay say, it's time to annex Texas and re-occupy Oregon!
And let's buy California and New Mexico, too. They're worth twenty
million. If we lean on Mexico, they'll probably settle for fifteen.
Manifest Destiny!
Cheers,
A. Jackson
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 15:23:42
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> I don't expect pure electric vehicles to replace IC vehicles for long
> trips, but they would be very viable as small vehicles for in-town
> use... say an enclosed 1 or 2 passenger car weighing ~400lb, with a top
> speed of 40mph and a range of 30 miles. In quantity I can't see these
> costing more than $3k... maybe much less. The biggest obstacle is the
> same one that inhibits the use of bicycles on roads by the general
> population... nobody wants to be sharing the road with cars that weigh
> 5-50 times as much.
I agree with much of your post about electric vehicle including what I
didn't quote above. However, I take issue with your vehicle use point.
How can the biggest obstacle to using lightweigh electric cars be fear
when the vehicles don't really exist? Comparing lightweight non-existent
cars that can do the speed limit with bicycles which generally cannot
(and thus users have the fear of being passed in the same lane by motor
vehicles) is not a good comparison. Further, your assertion that sharing
the road with cars is the biggest obstacle to riding a bike is not true.
There are a myriad of reasons for not riding a bike for a given trip.
>
> I'm not "all about" electrics being the way to go... mostly I'd like to
> see some viable support for routes where bicycles and small efficient
> vehicles can safely travel without needing to play chicken with
> relatively huge vehicles (and also not having to share the "road" with
> baby strollers and dogs!)... and let the ket do the rest.
I don't characterize my riding as playing chicken. Bicyclists already do
have viable routes. They are called roads. Having three separate
infrastructures for motor vehicles, bicycles and "small efficient
vehicles," and "baby strollers and dogs" is not workable.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 11:27:26
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
>
> .....But certainly, the whole bicycle is
> limited to what type of /battery/ it runs--so I compared it to a known
> system (Bionx) with a known output, using a known battery of the same type.
>
> Do you have any reason to believe that the LaFree system is
> significantly more efficient than the Bionx system?
Yes. The Bionx has a single gear ratio determined by wheel size, but
the LA Free Lite has four or five speeds and drives through its cranks.
The closer an electric motor is kept to its optimum RPM, the more
efficient it is. And the Lite is much better at doing that than any
hub motor bike.
> > To my knowledge, there is no gas motor equivalent to the
> > high-quality Canadian Bionx and German Heinzmann kits (unless the
> > Revopower motorized wheel is of substantially better quality than the
> > other internal combustion offerings).
>
> ...And take heed before worshipping the Revopower--it is a 2-cycle total
> loss engine, that more than likely makes the lovely-blue 2-cycle
> exhaust.
I'm aware of that. But I've never seen one firsthand and I don't even
know whether the thing uses premix or direct injection. All I know is
that it's substantially different from anything else available at this
time and thus could possibly be of better mechanical quality.
> > Zero RPM = zero power output.
>
> Ummm,,,, pretty much ALL electric motors develop max torque at zero
> RPM's, and drop off as the RPMs rises.
You said it probably made max _power_ at zero RPM, and I was just
pointing out that it doesn't. Brushless hub motors usually make their
maximum power at 50% of free speed and their best efficiency at 80% of
free speed (give or take).
> You need to look around on gas-motorized bicycle forums to get an idea
> of how long they can last. There are numerous people who claim to see
> 10K+ miles on cheap Chinese engines--and the Japanese engines are built
> quite a bit better than the Chinese examples.
There are lots of folks who get 1000 cycles or more from their
batteries, too. NiMH batteries, which you have cited in the 400-500
cycle range, are often guaranteed for that number and can often give
more. For how many miles or hours is Robin Subaru willing to warranty
their engine? NiCd batteries can give thousands of full discharges, as
can lead-acid batteries if they are discharged shallowly.
> As for the rest of your "issues", to pretend that batteries are filled
> with milk and honey is silly. They contain pollutants as well. Crack
> open any battery you choose and dump it on your vegetable garden, and
> see how your salad tastes next week.
Batteries are routinely recycled, even where remanufacturing technology
is feeble. In Mexico I have seen guys prying dead car batteries apart,
cleaning the plates, replenishing the electrolyte, and returning them
to regular use. In the same places, when they get a dead car engine,
they tear it apart and weld the pieces into trinkets and yard art.
Nickel metal hydride batteries, whose cycle performance you criticize,
are low in toxicity and economically sound to recycle for their
recoverable nickel. Nickel-cadmium batteries are toxic, but they last
several times longer and are cheaper to begin with. Lithiums are
environmentally innocuous and last for lots of cycles; they are not
rugged enough for bike use yet, but soon they will be.
Battery technologies are advancing, but small gas engines are not. An
electric bike is free to use whatever is the best battery available for
the application, while gas bikes can only burn gasoline.
> As I said--the main cost of operating an electric vehicle is NOT the
> cost of the electricity, it is the cost of replacing batteries.
Whereas with a small gasoline engine, the cost of replacement engines
is in excess of the lifetime cost of fuel (unless the engine is
particularly inefficient). 10,000 miles at 200mpg is about $150 worth
of gas. At that point the engine is probably a write-off, and if it
was good enough to last that long then its replacement would surely
cost more than $150.
Most bicycle gas motors use friction drive rollers, and those go
through a lot of tires. Tires could easily cost more than gas as well.
Systems like yours, that drive through the middles of the spokes, tend
to waste wheels, and that adds up too. These are design issues rather
than intrinsic problems, but they are typical of the thinking that goes
into most gas motors for bicycles.
The gas bike is only a big winner in terms of cost per mile if you
don't ride it enough miles to wear the engine out, but you must assume
that the electric bike user will ride enough miles to wear his
batteries out. If you account for engine maintenance, rebuilds, and
replacements, there may still be a cost advantage to the gas bike, but
it will be small.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:26:44
From: meeklyornot
Subject: counter propiganda nonsense numbs our willingness to get to the truth
|
Know the traitor by his use of misleading verbage instead of meaningful
comparisons.
The goal matters. We have tremendous roads- the problem is totally
irrational, dangerous, frankly absurd not merely obscene 'vehicles'
''congest'' them into nuisances of the kind that cause not merely mass
carnage but if we have another world war will be because of the profits
of reselling used cars over and over corrupting our governments
performance in being for us.
This is not about nuclear versus coal power. Or about joining some
sort of no more mines treaty, nor about stolen elections or even
getting a commercial account at lowes or a consumer one at sony so you
can get those 'expensive' batteries for free as your first purchase, as
a freak to visit and not be addicted to trophy bad art sold with
diamond like profit without the problem of your customers passing them
down through generations.
The cost of providing a road for cars, even when done so criminally
poorly as is the case with the only exception being the private
driveway perhaps, is what milllions, billions of times the cost
difference between a town where people use less massive and
insufficiently afforded vehicles.
Cars are built out of cheap shit that's for sure. We spend tens of
thousands to get any quality in labor at all, for a tiny fraction of
the recyclable value.
The question that automating the pedaling process raises is- how much
longer can those who give not a dam about the people continue to get
them to purchase inappropriate contraptions like even the prius. About
how Schwin has a old looking bike discoverable on there site still only
by a search engine, the only defect of which is it's frame size not
being good for most adults.
As we build new towns and onto towns criminalising some multiple of
the passengers wait as being too much beyond reason could be the
answer. Making people pedal something more efficient is the problem.
If we can't agree on that, then this might as well be the 1800's.
Walking is NOT a good form of exercise for most people. Merging
transit with the need for physical activity is utter folly, in most
places. These are ideas advanced mainly to keep cheap cars that people
spend forturnes buying and selling over and over around. IN many
cities it costs far more to park ones vehicle thenone spends
accomidating ones own body in the home. People after all are light,
can use mass produced elevators etc. Cars demand if not the grfound
floor then expensive ramps or lifts etc.
We can petition our governmentn in most places to say enough. We've
done it for cigarettes to some extent- butg cars- are htey protected in
amercia by federal premention or what? Where can I go where they are
not legal where people live, play, work? If such a place existed,
there would be plenty of money to get to work far faster, on vehicles
that could be affordable despite MUCH HIGHER INITIAL COSTS!
Over a lifetime car use costs most people far more then the best
undergraduate and beyond education for there kids would if that money
where invested for that purpose- without subsidy.
I understand that specs are what EDUCATED consumers need. But we are
not at that point yet. What we have is plenty of customers willing to
pay military rates to someone who will spend a modicum of skill and
time assembling off the shelf components. What we need are communities
who will perceive the reality of what history will say, and act
accordingly.
Like a diamond copper is NOT consumed in batteries used for
electricity. IN fact it is proving to be a fantastic investment-
better then real estate! We need to be buying much more copper.
Copper is key. And even more expensive conductors are no brainers if
you are acting rational. The calculations are simple- 99 cent watches
practically are setup to do them now. BUilding a building for a
computer lab -at least in part- would you then buy boxes with insanely
in efficient power supplies in, or would you power them on tracks of
two by four inche sized cooper beams carrying less then a lanterns
spike of shock.
IN boston we see much greater actual absurdity in elephantine steel
beems distributing heat in a home, surplus from a car pyramid almost
recoginised as fiasco not merely criminal -homicidally so- enterprise.
Beems that continue outside, waisting far more energy there then is
used by the occupants.
Should we spend seconds, if that, or hours or mere minutes versus days
per week paying to move ourselves to work? Argue with that, and you
are not sane, or are corrupt, or are just irresponsibly wasting time-
idiotic if you are not being paid to do so by those who need us to
continue to be distracted to continue to get our money so they can
continue to pay if not you then those who would have us act as you
imply you would be comfortable with.
Life is good? TURN THE TV ON. PLUG IT INTO AN ANTENNA THAT IS.
SOMEPLACE WHERE ANYONE TELLING THE TRUTH DOESN"T HAVE A SWAT TEAM SHOW
UP WITH HOURS THAT IS.
DougC wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Not a fair comparison. More accurate would be the cost of electricity
> > vs. the cost of gas, and the cost of a replacement battery vs. a gas
> > engine rebuild or replacement. Small gas engines don't last very many
> > miles between rebuilds (piston rings, cylinder sleeves, crankcase
> > bearings), but a brushless electric hub motor lasts much longer before
> > needing a "rebuild" that consists of just two axle bearings.
>
> I got into this issue on the comparison page; it was not possible for me
> to detirmine either setups' useful lifetimes. Scroll down to the second
> spreadsheet image, where it shows "cost savings per year" of gas over
> electric.
>
> >
> > I think you may be underestimating the LA Free's range because it
> > delivers motor power only in conjunction with, and in proportion to,
> > the rider's pedal power. It has a reputation for offering one of the
> > longest ranges per charge of all electric bikes. I have no direct
> > experience with the Lite, so I can't personally verify this.
> >
>
> I cannot accurately estimate the LaFree's output at all, because I could
> not find the actual specs for its output given anywhere. Instead of
> percentages of rider effort (what the Bionx system uses) the LaFree just
> uses vague numbers 1 through 7. .....But certainly, the whole bicycle is
> limited to what type of /battery/ it runs--so I compared it to a known
> system (Bionx) with a known output, using a known battery of the same type.
>
> Do you have any reason to believe that the LaFree system is
> significantly more efficient than the Bionx system?
>
> >
> > The junky gas motor kits available for bicycles bear a closer
> > comparison to the junky electric hub motor kits from Golden Motor and
> > others. To my knowledge, there is no gas motor equivalent to the
> > high-quality Canadian Bionx and German Heinzmann kits (unless the
> > Revopower motorized wheel is of substantially better quality than the
> > other internal combustion offerings).
> >
> The Robin and Honda engines do cost roughly four times what the Chinese
> engines do.
>
> ...And take heed before worshipping the Revopower--it is a 2-cycle total
> loss engine, that more than likely makes the lovely-blue 2-cycle
> exhaust. It's only legal because it does not /idle/, and since emissions
> of small engines (in the US) are tested at IDLE, it passes on a
> technicality.
>
> >
> > Zero RPM = zero power output.
>
> Ummm,,,, pretty much ALL electric motors develop max torque at zero
> RPM's, and drop off as the RPMs rises.
>
> > They all can, unless you disregard the replacement costs of
> > quick-wearing small ICEs.
>
> You need to look around on gas-motorized bicycle forums to get an idea
> of how long they can last. There are numerous people who claim to see
> 10K+ miles on cheap Chinese engines--and the Japanese engines are built
> quite a bit better than the Chinese examples.
>
> > You also have to disregard the
> > difficult-to-price externalities of the noise, stink, heat,
> > maintenance, flammability, pollution, and carcinogenicity of the ICE
> > versus the electric alternatives.
> >
>
> The noise problem can be solved with a good muffler; the pollution issue
> can be cut 95% with a catalytic converter.
>
> As for the rest of your "issues", to pretend that batteries are filled
> with milk and honey is silly. They contain pollutants as well. Crack
> open any battery you choose and dump it on your vegetable garden, and
> see how your salad tastes next week.
>
> The advantage of gasoline-powered vehicles is that the range of the
> vehicle is not dependent upon the size of the engine. With
> battery-powered vehicles, that is not true.
>
> > Small gasoline engines are an order of magnitude worse in exhaust
> > emissions than automotive engines, on a horsepower-to-horsepower basis.
> -Mainly do to the catalytic-converter difference, as noted.
>
> > Compared to electrical generation facilities, they are /two/ orders of
> > magnitude worse. I guess as long as you are sharing those costs with
> > others, you don't mind them as much.
> >
> > Chalo
> >
> As I said--the main cost of operating an electric vehicle is NOT the
> cost of the electricity, it is the cost of replacing batteries.
> ~
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 02:52:42
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:32:34 -0800, Chalo wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>>
>> If we assume that the LaFree motor and battery are no more efficient
>> than what the Bionx uses, then (6.5Ah/8Ah) x (4495 miles x (500/450
>> discharge cycles)) miles = 4058 miles total, you should expect to get
>> from an LaFree battery pack over 500 discharge cycles.
>>
>> 4058 miles / $350 battery replacement cost = $.0862 per mile, or 8.62
>> cents per mile.... Now look at the fuel costs for the 4-cycle engine on
>> my page; with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
>> cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.
>
> Not a fair comparison. More accurate would be the cost of electricity
> vs. the cost of gas, and the cost of a replacement battery vs. a gas
> engine rebuild or replacement. Small gas engines don't last very many
> miles between rebuilds (piston rings, cylinder sleeves, crankcase
> bearings), but a brushless electric hub motor lasts much longer before
> needing a "rebuild" that consists of just two axle bearings.
>
> I think you may be underestimating the LA Free's range because it
> delivers motor power only in conjunction with, and in proportion to,
> the rider's pedal power. It has a reputation for offering one of the
> longest ranges per charge of all electric bikes. I have no direct
> experience with the Lite, so I can't personally verify this.
>
>> Oh, and purchase price?... That's cheaper too. The LaFree bike cost
>> around $1300, many places report. A gasoline engine kit costs from $150
>> up to $600 (for the Golden Eagle kit I chose), plus a suitable bike
>> (which may be as cheap as $100).
>
> The junky gas motor kits available for bicycles bear a closer
> comparison to the junky electric hub motor kits from Golden Motor and
> others. To my knowledge, there is no gas motor equivalent to the
> high-quality Canadian Bionx and German Heinzmann kits (unless the
> Revopower motorized wheel is of substantially better quality than the
> other internal combustion offerings).
>
>> If you figure matters on a cost-per-power comparison, the gasoline
>> engine would come out way on top again. The Bionx setup has a high
>> "peak" output, but that [most likely] is at zero RPMs.
>
> Zero RPM = zero power output. The Bionx might offer maximum /torque/
> at zero RPM (and it might not), but its maximum power occurs at about
> 1/2 of its motor's free speed, if it is similar to other brushless hub
> motors on the ket.
>
>> I'd LOVE to see a electric setup (that is available to consumers) and
>> that can compete on a cost-per-mile with gasoline...
>
> They all can, unless you disregard the replacement costs of
> quick-wearing small ICEs. You also have to disregard the
> difficult-to-price externalities of the noise, stink, heat,
> maintenance, flammability, pollution, and carcinogenicity of the ICE
> versus the electric alternatives.
>
> Small gasoline engines are an order of magnitude worse in exhaust
> emissions than automotive engines, on a horsepower-to-horsepower basis.
> Compared to electrical generation facilities, they are /two/ orders of
> magnitude worse. I guess as long as you are sharing those costs with
> others, you don't mind them as much.
>
> Chalo
How do small gasoline engines compare to automotive engines on a
mile-by-mile basis? In other words, if both a car and a power-assist
bicycle were run over a course of a given length, which would produce the
greater quantity of pollutants? Does it really matter if small engines are
dirtier per horsepower if the net effect is a positive one?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 16:28:53
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Gary Young wrote:
> How do small gasoline engines compare to automotive engines on a
> mile-by-mile basis? In other words, if both a car and a power-assist
> bicycle were run over a course of a given length, which would produce the
> greater quantity of pollutants? Does it really matter if small engines are
> dirtier per horsepower if the net effect is a positive one?
I think you are correct on this.
On a per horsepower basis, the car is significantly less
polluting than the small ICE.
However we're only talking about perhaps 1 hp versus 150+
hp, so the net winner would be the small ICE.
That seems to be a step in the overall correct direction
so I don't see why someone would complain about it.
SMH
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 06:12:33
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com > wrote:
>Gary Young wrote:
>
>> How do small gasoline engines compare to automotive engines on a
>> mile-by-mile basis? In other words, if both a car and a power-assist
>> bicycle were run over a course of a given length, which would produce the
>> greater quantity of pollutants? Does it really matter if small engines are
>> dirtier per horsepower if the net effect is a positive one?
>
>I think you are correct on this.
>
>On a per horsepower basis, the car is significantly less
>polluting than the small ICE.
>
>However we're only talking about perhaps 1 hp versus 150+
>hp, so the net winner would be the small ICE.
However, that small engine has to put out its rated horsepower
virtually the entire time it's being used to drive the vehicle. The
150hp car only uses its full power at the drag strip or when being
driven by your teenage son. ;-) In reality, a modern mid-size sedan
only needs a very small fraction of that horsepower to maintain
cruising speed on the highway (IIRC, around 7-10).
>That seems to be a step in the overall correct direction
>so I don't see why someone would complain about it.
C'mon - people can complain about anything. Still, I think it's valid
to question a "green" approach to transportation that pollutes more
than the one it replaces.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:09:19
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <ugjsp29r938vcvr5mno1a77vovrvmdrp8i@4ax.com >,
k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > wrote:
> Still, I think it's valid to question a "green" approach to
> transportation that pollutes more than the one it replaces.
Of course it is. And the discussion has to include the entire product
cycle from manufacture to operation to disposal at the end of service
life. That makes me question the "greenness" of hybrid or completely
electric vehicles which have a whole lot of toxic batteries to dispose
of at the end of service life. And, in the case of the latter, tailpipe
emission production is merely shifted from the tailpipe of the car to
the smokestack of a coal or natural gas fired powerplant.
There is no free lunch in personal mechanized transportation. Since
you're moving thousands of pounds of vehicle to transport hundreds of
pounds of people, you have got to expend massive amounts of energy.
Mass transit both benefits and suffers from economy of scale- a bus with
60 passengers provides a relatively decent energy efficiency compared to
those same people driving 60 cars, but a bus with three passengers is
horribly inefficient.
Walking or riding a bike requires a tiny fraction of the energy and it
much healthier for you to do. The benefits of a small amount of
physical activity per day are startling compared to the legless couch
potato life. 30 minutes of aerobic activity per day dramatically cuts
your risk of heart disease, obesity and associated health problems. It
reduces your risk of Alzheimer's. It is as effective as Prozac in
treating mild depression. Ride bike!
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 06:39:32
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com > wrote:
>How do small gasoline engines compare to automotive engines on a
>mile-by-mile basis? In other words, if both a car and a power-assist
>bicycle were run over a course of a given length, which would produce the
>greater quantity of pollutants? Does it really matter if small engines are
>dirtier per horsepower if the net effect is a positive one?
From what I've read, it's likely that the power-assist gas motor puts
out more pollutants than a typical automobile engine. Depends greatly
on the motors involved of course, but if the bike motor is a 2 cycle,
it's almost a certainty.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:22:33
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
>
> I get into this issue on that page. The price of something is
> essentially a measure of the resources used in making it--so if an
> electric setup costs more to operate than a gasoline engine, then the
> electric probably uses more resources, and also more than likely creates
> more pollution.
The electric bicycle hub motors I know of are assembled and wound by
hand, which I imagine accounts for a large percentage of their purchase
costs.
http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=97
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 23:01:29
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
>
> I doubt very much
> that they would be less polluting than an electric... especially if the
> electricity is produced in a non-polluting way. Even if not,
> powerplants are much cleaner than car engines.
Car engines are in turn /much/ cleaner than small gas engines, such as
the ones being discussed here.
> Electrics are inherently much simpler and less
> expensive... even if the present prices of the low-volume offerings
> does not support that.
Simpler in this case does not mean less expensive. Gas engines can be
made out of mostly cast iron and a little bit of good steel-- cheap
materials on the whole. Electric motors use a lot of copper (a much
more expensive material) and there's not really any getting around
that.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 22:32:34
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
>
> If we assume that the LaFree motor and battery are no more efficient
> than what the Bionx uses, then (6.5Ah/8Ah) x (4495 miles x (500/450
> discharge cycles)) miles = 4058 miles total, you should expect to get
> from an LaFree battery pack over 500 discharge cycles.
>
> 4058 miles / $350 battery replacement cost = $.0862 per mile, or 8.62
> cents per mile.... Now look at the fuel costs for the 4-cycle engine on
> my page; with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
> cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.
Not a fair comparison. More accurate would be the cost of electricity
vs. the cost of gas, and the cost of a replacement battery vs. a gas
engine rebuild or replacement. Small gas engines don't last very many
miles between rebuilds (piston rings, cylinder sleeves, crankcase
bearings), but a brushless electric hub motor lasts much longer before
needing a "rebuild" that consists of just two axle bearings.
I think you may be underestimating the LA Free's range because it
delivers motor power only in conjunction with, and in proportion to,
the rider's pedal power. It has a reputation for offering one of the
longest ranges per charge of all electric bikes. I have no direct
experience with the Lite, so I can't personally verify this.
> Oh, and purchase price?... That's cheaper too. The LaFree bike cost
> around $1300, many places report. A gasoline engine kit costs from $150
> up to $600 (for the Golden Eagle kit I chose), plus a suitable bike
> (which may be as cheap as $100).
The junky gas motor kits available for bicycles bear a closer
comparison to the junky electric hub motor kits from Golden Motor and
others. To my knowledge, there is no gas motor equivalent to the
high-quality Canadian Bionx and German Heinzmann kits (unless the
Revopower motorized wheel is of substantially better quality than the
other internal combustion offerings).
> If you figure matters on a cost-per-power comparison, the gasoline
> engine would come out way on top again. The Bionx setup has a high
> "peak" output, but that [most likely] is at zero RPMs.
Zero RPM = zero power output. The Bionx might offer maximum /torque/
at zero RPM (and it might not), but its maximum power occurs at about
1/2 of its motor's free speed, if it is similar to other brushless hub
motors on the ket.
> I'd LOVE to see a electric setup (that is available to consumers) and
> that can compete on a cost-per-mile with gasoline...
They all can, unless you disregard the replacement costs of
quick-wearing small ICEs. You also have to disregard the
difficult-to-price externalities of the noise, stink, heat,
maintenance, flammability, pollution, and carcinogenicity of the ICE
versus the electric alternatives.
Small gasoline engines are an order of magnitude worse in exhaust
emissions than automotive engines, on a horsepower-to-horsepower basis.
Compared to electrical generation facilities, they are /two/ orders of
magnitude worse. I guess as long as you are sharing those costs with
others, you don't mind them as much.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 08:45:16
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Chalo wrote:
>
> Not a fair comparison. More accurate would be the cost of electricity
> vs. the cost of gas, and the cost of a replacement battery vs. a gas
> engine rebuild or replacement. Small gas engines don't last very many
> miles between rebuilds (piston rings, cylinder sleeves, crankcase
> bearings), but a brushless electric hub motor lasts much longer before
> needing a "rebuild" that consists of just two axle bearings.
I got into this issue on the comparison page; it was not possible for me
to detirmine either setups' useful lifetimes. Scroll down to the second
spreadsheet image, where it shows "cost savings per year" of gas over
electric.
>
> I think you may be underestimating the LA Free's range because it
> delivers motor power only in conjunction with, and in proportion to,
> the rider's pedal power. It has a reputation for offering one of the
> longest ranges per charge of all electric bikes. I have no direct
> experience with the Lite, so I can't personally verify this.
>
I cannot accurately estimate the LaFree's output at all, because I could
not find the actual specs for its output given anywhere. Instead of
percentages of rider effort (what the Bionx system uses) the LaFree just
uses vague numbers 1 through 7. .....But certainly, the whole bicycle is
limited to what type of /battery/ it runs--so I compared it to a known
system (Bionx) with a known output, using a known battery of the same type.
Do you have any reason to believe that the LaFree system is
significantly more efficient than the Bionx system?
>
> The junky gas motor kits available for bicycles bear a closer
> comparison to the junky electric hub motor kits from Golden Motor and
> others. To my knowledge, there is no gas motor equivalent to the
> high-quality Canadian Bionx and German Heinzmann kits (unless the
> Revopower motorized wheel is of substantially better quality than the
> other internal combustion offerings).
>
The Robin and Honda engines do cost roughly four times what the Chinese
engines do.
...And take heed before worshipping the Revopower--it is a 2-cycle total
loss engine, that more than likely makes the lovely-blue 2-cycle
exhaust. It's only legal because it does not /idle/, and since emissions
of small engines (in the US) are tested at IDLE, it passes on a
technicality.
>
> Zero RPM = zero power output.
Ummm,,,, pretty much ALL electric motors develop max torque at zero
RPM's, and drop off as the RPMs rises.
> They all can, unless you disregard the replacement costs of
> quick-wearing small ICEs.
You need to look around on gas-motorized bicycle forums to get an idea
of how long they can last. There are numerous people who claim to see
10K+ miles on cheap Chinese engines--and the Japanese engines are built
quite a bit better than the Chinese examples.
> You also have to disregard the
> difficult-to-price externalities of the noise, stink, heat,
> maintenance, flammability, pollution, and carcinogenicity of the ICE
> versus the electric alternatives.
>
The noise problem can be solved with a good muffler; the pollution issue
can be cut 95% with a catalytic converter.
As for the rest of your "issues", to pretend that batteries are filled
with milk and honey is silly. They contain pollutants as well. Crack
open any battery you choose and dump it on your vegetable garden, and
see how your salad tastes next week.
The advantage of gasoline-powered vehicles is that the range of the
vehicle is not dependent upon the size of the engine. With
battery-powered vehicles, that is not true.
> Small gasoline engines are an order of magnitude worse in exhaust
> emissions than automotive engines, on a horsepower-to-horsepower basis.
-Mainly do to the catalytic-converter difference, as noted.
> Compared to electrical generation facilities, they are /two/ orders of
> magnitude worse. I guess as long as you are sharing those costs with
> others, you don't mind them as much.
>
> Chalo
>
As I said--the main cost of operating an electric vehicle is NOT the
cost of the electricity, it is the cost of replacing batteries.
~
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:46:56
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
> Why would you think this?
> If IC engines cost less to operate, and (I heavily suspect) generated
> less pollution overall, what objection would any reasonable person have?
Provided that they are quiet and produce less polution, I'd say fine.
They can be reasonably quiet if well muffled, but I doubt very much
that they would be less polluting than an electric... especially if the
electricity is produced in a non-polluting way. Even if not,
powerplants are much cleaner than car engines. Plus, batteries are
recycled.
The huge industry that has developed around the IC engine for 100 years
is what keeps their cost low, plus the low cost of the highly
subsidized fuel. Electrics are inherently much simpler and less
expensive... even if the present prices of the low-volume offerings
does not support that.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 20:00:07
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > writes:
> In article <la1vne.gqt.ln@bud.garden.local>,
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> Those ones we get to keep, and persuade 'em (perhaps with
>> the aid of a shotgun or two,) to ry our much-beloved, but
>> misunderstood and not-so-lucky-in-love sisters.
>
> Er...my sister is happily ried.
Well, I wasn't referring specifically to your sister.
Heck I don't even know her, even though we live in
the same north country fair, where rivers freeze in
summer air.
>> Then they'll have to put up with TV shows with more erotic
>> than violent content (except maybe for hockey,) beer that
>> actually has alcohol in it, universal health care, Montreal
>> corned beef, and esoteric bicycle brands like Cervelo, Norco,
>> Da Vinci and Windsor.
>
> _De_ Vinci.
Yeah, I always get that mixed up.
Bikes On The Drive has a nice red one hanging from the ceiling.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:05:24
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
De_ Vinci.
<<<<<<<<
Me being a Tube wiener I though you meant Da Vinci's Inquest.
World reknown TV series. Take a look at Intelligence, essentially the same
people behind the scenes, one in front.
SN
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:17:28
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <7co1oe.rl.ln@bud.garden.local >,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:
> > In article <la1vne.gqt.ln@bud.garden.local>,
> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> >> Those ones we get to keep, and persuade 'em (perhaps with
> >> the aid of a shotgun or two,) to ry our much-beloved, but
> >> misunderstood and not-so-lucky-in-love sisters.
> >
> > Er...my sister is happily ried.
>
> Well, I wasn't referring specifically to your sister.
> Heck I don't even know her, even though we live in
> the same north country fair, where rivers freeze in
> summer air.
>
> >> Then they'll have to put up with TV shows with more erotic
> >> than violent content (except maybe for hockey,) beer that
> >> actually has alcohol in it, universal health care, Montreal
> >> corned beef, and esoteric bicycle brands like Cervelo, Norco,
> >> Da Vinci and Windsor.
> >
> > _De_ Vinci.
>
> Yeah, I always get that mixed up.
>
> Bikes On The Drive has a nice red one hanging from the ceiling.
Mm. Have you been into Dream Cycle down the street? It's like Needful
Things for eccentric cyclists: chain watchers, Nexus-8 wheelsets,
fixies, 1-speeds, they even buy those nice fork-mounted umbrella holders
from The Daiso and k them up to $5.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:14:29
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <rcousine-7F36A2.16100007012007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > writes:
> Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
> let me in without a passport,
They won't let Americans returning from visiting Canada
back in without a passport, either.
Those ones we get to keep, and persuade 'em (perhaps with
the aid of a shotgun or two,) to ry our much-beloved, but
misunderstood and not-so-lucky-in-love sisters.
Then they'll have to put up with TV shows with more erotic
than violent content (except maybe for hockey,) beer that
actually has alcohol in it, universal health care, Montreal
corned beef, and esoteric bicycle brands like Cervelo, Norco,
Da Vinci and Windsor.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 03:42:20
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <la1vne.gqt.ln@bud.garden.local >,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <rcousine-7F36A2.16100007012007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:
>
> > Loving America even more than JT and Chalo combined, and yet they won't
> > let me in without a passport,
>
> They won't let Americans returning from visiting Canada
> back in without a passport, either.
Being absolutely serious for a moment, no duh. The problem being that
there's no telling an American entering from outside the USA from a
Canadian entering from outside the USA.
The whole passport issue has been overblown, in my opinion, and I say
this as someone who is going to have to keep his passport properly
updated from now on just so I can go over the border to pick up UPS
packages. But Point Roberts is safe.
Ahem. Border control is a perfectly reasonable aim for any country.
Given that, passports are almost certainly the best identity documents
available.
I've stopped being serious now. What are they going to do, ask
pop-culture questions to screen out the foreigners? We all watch their
TV shows! Unless they're on Saturday night.
> Those ones we get to keep, and persuade 'em (perhaps with
> the aid of a shotgun or two,) to ry our much-beloved, but
> misunderstood and not-so-lucky-in-love sisters.
Er...my sister is happily ried.
> Then they'll have to put up with TV shows with more erotic
> than violent content (except maybe for hockey,) beer that
> actually has alcohol in it, universal health care, Montreal
> corned beef, and esoteric bicycle brands like Cervelo, Norco,
> Da Vinci and Windsor.
_De_ Vinci. And don't forget Louis Garneau (clothiers, bike builders,
and proud sponsors of Team Escape Velocity), the Varna Diablo II
(fastest HPV on the planet), and an absurd number of other bike makers.
Karma, Brodie, De Kerf, Cove, Everti, Kona Naked...that's a sampling of
bike makers within 50 miles of my house.
Of Procycle, they of the absurd tariff petition, we shall not speak.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 06:37:27
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net >,
rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> What are they going to do, ask
> pop-culture questions to screen out the foreigners?
>
A friend, a Canadian citizen but out of the country for more than a
decade, forgot his passport when returning to Canada a few years ago.
Immigration officials grilled him about why he was travelling without a
passport, and did he have any proof he was a Canadian. He thought for a
moment and then asked the official if he knew who scored the winning
goals in the final three games of the 1972 Canada-USSR hockey series.
My friend claims the official said "Of course, and only a Canadian would
know something like that", and let him enter Canada.
Java
--
"Henderson!"
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 15:44:08
From: Friday
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net>,
> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
>> What are they going to do, ask
>> pop-culture questions to screen out the foreigners?
>>
> A friend, a Canadian citizen but out of the country for more than a
> decade, forgot his passport when returning to Canada a few years ago.
> Immigration officials grilled him about why he was travelling without a
> passport, and did he have any proof he was a Canadian. He thought for a
> moment and then asked the official if he knew who scored the winning
> goals in the final three games of the 1972 Canada-USSR hockey series.
> My friend claims the official said "Of course, and only a Canadian would
> know something like that", and let him enter Canada.
>
> Java
> --
> "Henderson!"
In Australia anyone that claimed to know the words to our national
anthem would immediately be regarded with suspicion.
Friday
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 21:33:45
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Friday suggested -
> In Australia anyone that claimed to know the words to our national anthem
> would immediately be regarded with suspicion.
The phonetic version, learnt by copying the speach patterns of numerous Oz
sports people, runs -
"Australians, all let us ring Joice,
'cos she gives head for free ..."
As the official version is so much duller, please feel free to liven up the
worlds most turgid lyrics.
best, Andrew
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 10:26:48
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:44:08 +0800, Friday <nowhere@sometime.net.au >
wrote:
>Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>> In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net>,
>> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
>>> What are they going to do, ask
>>> pop-culture questions to screen out the foreigners?
>>>
>> A friend, a Canadian citizen but out of the country for more than a
>> decade, forgot his passport when returning to Canada a few years ago.
>> Immigration officials grilled him about why he was travelling without a
>> passport, and did he have any proof he was a Canadian. He thought for a
>> moment and then asked the official if he knew who scored the winning
>> goals in the final three games of the 1972 Canada-USSR hockey series.
>> My friend claims the official said "Of course, and only a Canadian would
>> know something like that", and let him enter Canada.
>>
>> Java
>> --
>> "Henderson!"
>
>In Australia anyone that claimed to know the words to our national
>anthem would immediately be regarded with suspicion.
>
>Friday
Dear Friday,
Fair enough, but let's move on.
Amicably,
P.D. McCormick
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 19:02:39
From: TimC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
On 2007-01-10, Friday (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>> In article <rcousine-E9CF30.19421909012007@news.telus.net>,
>> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
>>> What are they going to do, ask
>>> pop-culture questions to screen out the foreigners?
>>>
>> A friend, a Canadian citizen but out of the country for more than a
>> decade, forgot his passport when returning to Canada a few years ago.
>> Immigration officials grilled him about why he was travelling without a
>> passport, and did he have any proof he was a Canadian. He thought for a
>> moment and then asked the official if he knew who scored the winning
>> goals in the final three games of the 1972 Canada-USSR hockey series.
>> My friend claims the official said "Of course, and only a Canadian would
>> know something like that", and let him enter Canada.
>
> In Australia anyone that claimed to know the words to our national
> anthem would immediately be regarded with suspicion.
Rar rar rar rar rar ragh ra ragh
mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble
Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi!
I don't believe I just typed that particular bogan call.
--
TimC
The prolonged application of polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly
exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression,
rendering the ultimate tendancy apocryphal. --unknown
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 22:37:23
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Provided that they are quiet and produce less polution, I'd say fine.
> They can be reasonably quiet if well muffled, but I doubt very much
> that they would be less polluting than an electric... especially if the
> electricity is produced in a non-polluting way.
What kind of power are you talking about here? Nuclear?
> Even if not,
> powerplants are much cleaner than car engines. Plus, batteries are
> recycled.
Well firstly--I explained that when you operate an electric vehicle over
the long-term, the MAIN cost is not the electricity itself, but in
disposing and buying new batteries as they expire.
Secondly--I am not too informed on the battery issue, so I don't have
much of an argument on that. It's even more complex because various
countries have different laws about the matter--but as I understood
it--lead-acid battery recycling (vehicle batteries, that is) in the USA
was not based on financial ket principles, but it was made a
/legislative/ principle just to prevent lead from entering the
environment. If this is true, then there is money being lost on every
battery that is "recycled", because it would be more energy-efficient to
just toss the old battery in a trash dump and make a new battery than it
is to bother with expending the energy to recycle the old battery.
One perspective we could look at is what are long-term lead prices
doing? Over the last thirty years and adjusted for inflation--have lead
prices gone up, stayed steady or gone down? Because if they have gone
down, then most-certainly we are losing money by recycling lead at all.
> The huge industry that has developed around the IC engine for 100 years
> is what keeps their cost low, plus the low cost of the highly
> subsidized fuel.
And you think electricity production and distribution isn't subsidized?
> Electrics are inherently much simpler and less
> expensive... even if the present prices of the low-volume offerings
> does not support that.
>
How would you know this to be true, if no current or past evidence
supports it?
~
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 11:51:27
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
DougC wrote:
> I'd LOVE to see a electric setup (that is available to consumers) and
> that can compete on a cost-per-mile with gasoline... but I've done
> figures for a few setups that were supposed to be technically
> outstanding, and they all still fell /way/ short of what a 4-cycle
> engine burning gasoline could do.
Good comparison... but what about a scooter with cheap lead-acid
batteries? That would be much more economical, since as you pointed
out, the battery cost is the biggest expense.
$155 for batteries for the Ego2... which costs $1200 new.
http://www.egovehicles.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=EGO&Product_Code=423-3201&Category_Code=ELEC
They say it will last ~10k miles, but even if it is replaced at 5k
miles, it is only 3.1 cents/mile. Since these are standard batteries,
they could probably be purchased more cheaply elsewhere.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 15:33:19
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Good comparison... but what about a scooter with cheap lead-acid
> batteries? That would be much more economical, since as you pointed
> out, the battery cost is the biggest expense.
>
> $155 for batteries for the Ego2... which costs $1200 new.
>
> http://www.egovehicles.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=EGO&Product_Code=423-3201&Category_Code=ELEC
>
> They say it will last ~10k miles, but even if it is replaced at 5k
> miles, it is only 3.1 cents/mile. Since these are standard batteries,
> they could probably be purchased more cheaply elsewhere.
>
Looking around--the figures I get for the eGo scooter are 23 mile range,
300 discharge cycles on a battery that costs about $150, so that's a bit
over two cents per mile. Not as low as the 4-stroke, but pretty close.
The eGo website claims that if you use it for trips of 10 miles or less,
you can get as much as 600-800 discharge cycles on a battery, a figure
which seems comically high in actual use. The mos5t common question you
tend to see posted about ev-bikes is how to get more power & range out
of them, so it would appear that most people are running off the end of
their batteries in actual use.
The eGo has at least two /drastic/ disadvantages however (compared to
both ev-bicycles and gas-engine bicycles) that are somewhat
inter-related: one is that it is HEAVY, 130 lbs. The other is that it
has no means of pedal-propulsion, so you are dependent upon electric
power for it to move at all--and that drastically cuts down on how
useful it is. It's practical range is quite a bit less than 23 miles,
because most people wouldn't want to risk running the thing until its dead.
~
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 11:22:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <IARmh.258$fL3.100@newsfe04.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > writes:
> If you figure matters on a cost-per-power comparison, the gasoline
> engine would come out way on top again. The Bionx setup has a high
> "peak" output, but that [most likely] is at zero RPMs. Most of the time,
> it doesn't put out more than 300 or so watts, where the Robin 35cc
> 4-cycle engine (on the setup I chose) will put out ~800+ watts cruising
> power (1.1 hp), and can peak at up to 1200+ watts (1.6 hp).
In some jurisdictions that wattage would put such a vehicle
over the threshold of qualifying as a Power Assisted Bicycle,
and into the realm of motor(ized) vehicles requiring licensing,
insurance and registration, as well as other complications such
as street-legal lights.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 14:25:15
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> In some jurisdictions that wattage would put such a vehicle
> over the threshold of qualifying as a Power Assisted Bicycle,
> and into the realm of motor(ized) vehicles requiring licensing,
> insurance and registration, as well as other complications such
> as street-legal lights.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
This is true--certainly in the US, which I have (am) experiencing
first-hand. However-that is a regulatory inefficiency, rather than a
technical one.
~
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 20:32:51
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:viUmh.3$FD5.2@newsfe05.lga...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> In some jurisdictions that wattage would put such a vehicle
>> over the threshold of qualifying as a Power Assisted Bicycle,
>> and into the realm of motor(ized) vehicles requiring licensing,
>> insurance and registration, as well as other complications such
>> as street-legal lights.
>
> This is true--certainly in the US, which I have (am) experiencing
> first-hand. However-that is a regulatory inefficiency, rather than a
> technical one.
True in the UK too. Electric bikes are allowed to assist up to 15mph IIRC,
and there's probably a power limit too. IC engines are out, and a good thing
too IMO.
cheers,
clive
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 16:19:52
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Clive George wrote:
>
> True in the UK too. Electric bikes are allowed to assist up to 15mph
> IIRC, and there's probably a power limit too. IC engines are out, and a
> good thing too IMO.
>
> cheers,
> clive
Why would you think this?
If IC engines cost less to operate, and (I heavily suspect) generated
less pollution overall, what objection would any reasonable person have?
Granted--in Europe it seems more common to see small scooters with
total-loss 2-cycle engines which do run quite dirty, but my discussion
was specifically on 4-cycle engines.
In the USA, total-loss two-cycle engines are already begun to being
legislated out of existence. New ine engines are (for practical
purposes) required to use fuel-injection on their 2-cycles, and some
2-cycle oil-burners imported are required as of 2006 to have catalytic
converters.
I searched for a small suitable catalytic converter for the 4-cycle
bicycle engine I bought, but could not find sources of any. Plus, there
are engineering concerns, best left to the manufacturers to settle
anyway (cat.s make the whole engine run hotter somewhat, so the factory
really needs to be the ones to set the things up).
--------
I fully support spreading less pollution and conserving energy, but it's
very shortsighted to assume that anything electric is better for the
environment than anything that has an exhaust pipe.
~
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 02:43:01
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:YZVmh.14$FD5.10@newsfe05.lga...
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> True in the UK too. Electric bikes are allowed to assist up to 15mph
>> IIRC, and there's probably a power limit too. IC engines are out, and a
>> good thing too IMO.
>
> Why would you think this?
> If IC engines cost less to operate, and (I heavily suspect) generated less
> pollution overall, what objection would any reasonable person have?
That's a very big if. Small IC engines are currently mucky beasts, and the
leglislation reflects that - I'm not talking about future leglislation
covering engines which don't actually exist.
More importantly, pollution is about more than exhaust emissions. Think of
the other significant disadvantage small IC engines have...
clive
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 22:19:49
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Clive George wrote:
>
> That's a very big if. Small IC engines are currently mucky beasts, and
> the leglislation reflects that - I'm not talking about future
> leglislation covering engines which don't actually exist.
>
I get into this issue on that page. The price of something is
essentially a measure of the resources used in making it--so if an
electric setup costs more to operate than a gasoline engine, then the
electric probably uses more resources, and also more than likely creates
more pollution.
> More importantly, pollution is about more than exhaust emissions. Think
> of the other significant disadvantage small IC engines have...
>
> clive
Like what?
~
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Jan 2007 14:12:53
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:of%mh.413$8d2.219@newsfe02.lga...
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> That's a very big if. Small IC engines are currently mucky beasts, and
>> the leglislation reflects that - I'm not talking about future
>> leglislation covering engines which don't actually exist.
>>
>
> I get into this issue on that page. The price of something is essentially
> a measure of the resources used in making it--so if an electric setup
> costs more to operate than a gasoline engine, then the electric probably
> uses more resources, and also more than likely creates more pollution.
>
>> More importantly, pollution is about more than exhaust emissions. Think
>> of the other significant disadvantage small IC engines have...
>>
>> clive
>
> Like what?
SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? CAN'T HEAR YOU, SOMEBODY'S RUNNING A CHAINSAW NEXT
TO ME.
There's a reason ear defenders are recommended for those things. And nearly
all small IC engines suffer from this.
clive
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 18:15:32
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
I'm all for making travel safe for bicycles and light electric
vehicles, which I believe can happily coexist on dedicated paths and
large shoulders on regular roads. It is a mistake though, to combine
electric and pedal power in the same vehicle. A decent cyclist doesn't
need the assist or added weight, and someone who wants electric power
doesn't need the extra complexity of hardware for pedaling.
A good electric scooter will weigh ~200lb and have a range of 30 miles
@ 30mph. No reason to put cranks and derailures an something like that.
And if you reduce the weight by making the batteries and motor smaller,
you might as well do away with power assist altogether.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 07:20:14
From: Theo Bekkers
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
G.fried wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology
> and are currently collecting the requirements. The project
> hyperbike.cc is a feasibility study contracted by the Austrian
> ministry for transport, technology and innovation. We invite you to
> help us to help you. We would appreciate very much if you could fill
> in our on-line questionnaire at
>
> http://www.hyperbike.cc/Vorlage.phtml?id=716
>
> After answering tips about cycling are displayed.
Love this question
When riding an electric bicycle, what problem have you experienced most
often?
Unmantling of parts when driving
Theo
begin 666 leer.gif
M1TE&.#EA#P`/`( !`````/___R'Y! $```$`+ `````/``\```(=A(^IB^$/
90XMQTF >O/!KSOAE@"(S9=5)IQ;0N4@``.P``
`
end
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 15:27:32
From: DougC
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
G.fried wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology
> and are currently collecting the requirements. ....
>
I got into bicycle motors a bit recently.
At one point I ran some figures comparing gasoline and electric setups;
of the two (popular products) I compared, the electric cost over twice
as much and had a cost-per-mile that was five to ten times as high as
the gasoline engine setup. This was using U.S. fuel prices, Europe is
2-3X as high but still you can see the problem.
Advocates of electrics play yup the low-pollution aspects but that is
very debatable over the long term, considering the battery production
and disposal requirements.
There are a few situations where gasoline engines aren't practical--such
as when you desire silent operation, or for a physically-disabled rider
who wants "pushbutton power",,, but judged on a cost basis alone,
electrics still lose badly.
~
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 22:15:26
From: nash
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:W6Amh.82$g_7.3@newsfe02.lga...
> G.fried wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology and
>> are currently collecting the requirements. ....
>>
>
> I got into bicycle motors a bit recently.
>
> At one point I ran some figures comparing gasoline and electric setups; of
> the two (popular products) I compared, the electric cost over twice as
> much and had a cost-per-mile that was five to ten times as high as the
> gasoline engine setup. This was using U.S. fuel prices, Europe is 2-3X as
> high but still you can see the problem.
>
> Advocates of electrics play yup the low-pollution aspects but that is very
> debatable over the long term, considering the battery production and
> disposal requirements.
>
> There are a few situations where gasoline engines aren't practical--such
> as when you desire silent operation, or for a physically-disabled rider
> who wants "pushbutton power",,, but judged on a cost basis alone,
> electrics still lose badly.
If parking lots gave you free power up all day it would be cost efficient.
That is what they are doing now in the States. Not sure where but for a
parking lot company it would be a good idea.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 23:39:15
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
nash wrote:
> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
> news:W6Amh.82$g_7.3@newsfe02.lga...
>> G.fried wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology and
>>> are currently collecting the requirements. ....
>>>
>> I got into bicycle motors a bit recently.
>>
>> At one point I ran some figures comparing gasoline and electric setups; of
>> the two (popular products) I compared, the electric cost over twice as
>> much and had a cost-per-mile that was five to ten times as high as the
>> gasoline engine setup. This was using U.S. fuel prices, Europe is 2-3X as
>> high but still you can see the problem.
>>
>> Advocates of electrics play yup the low-pollution aspects but that is very
>> debatable over the long term, considering the battery production and
>> disposal requirements.
>>
>> There are a few situations where gasoline engines aren't practical--such
>> as when you desire silent operation, or for a physically-disabled rider
>> who wants "pushbutton power",,, but judged on a cost basis alone,
>> electrics still lose badly.
>
>
> If parking lots gave you free power up all day it would be cost efficient.
> That is what they are doing now in the States. Not sure where but for a
> parking lot company it would be a good idea.
>
>
One word here.
Solar!
Take a panel, even a fold up, and have a way to mount it when you are in
the building. Not for everywhere, since some thieve might actually
realize the panel costs more than most bikes, Treks excluded.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 21:47:53
From: Steve Watkin
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
Find it hard to beleive that my Lafree costs more to run than even the
smallest I.C. bike
SW
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:W6Amh.82$g_7.3@newsfe02.lga...
> G.fried wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle technology and
>> are currently collecting the requirements. ....
>>
>
> I got into bicycle motors a bit recently.
>
> At one point I ran some figures comparing gasoline and electric setups; of
> the two (popular products) I compared, the electric cost over twice as
> much and had a cost-per-mile that was five to ten times as high as the
> gasoline engine setup. This was using U.S. fuel prices, Europe is 2-3X as
> high but still you can see the problem.
>
> Advocates of electrics play yup the low-pollution aspects but that is very
> debatable over the long term, considering the battery production and
> disposal requirements.
>
> There are a few situations where gasoline engines aren't practical--such
> as when you desire silent operation, or for a physically-disabled rider
> who wants "pushbutton power",,, but judged on a cost basis alone,
> electrics still lose badly.
> ~
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 05:11:35
From: DougC
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
Steve Watkin wrote:
> Find it hard to beleive that my Lafree costs more to run than even the
> smallest I.C. bike
>
> SW
Tell us, how many miles does it go on one charge, how many discharge
cycles does the battery withstand before needing replacement, and how
much do replacement batteries cost (in US$)?....
~
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 19:47:56
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <1168220342.881014.78150@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net writes:
> Dear Theo,
>
> Hang on a moment . . .
>
> "HEMP, n. A plant from whose fibrous bark is made an article of
> neckwear which is frequently put on after public speaking in the open
> air and prevents the wearer from taking cold."
>
> LINEN, n. "A kind of cloth the making of which, when made of hemp,
> entails a great waste of hemp." -- Calcraft the Hangman
/Real/ linen is made from flax. The Egyptians are
reputedly good at making it, because good quality
flax grows in the Egyptian Nile floodplains. As I
recall from grade 6, the Ancient Egyptians used it
to make papyrus, too. Heh -- I remembered something :-)
I dunno what the heck Egyptian sailcloth is.
The stuff I've seen lately that's purported to
be Egyptian sailcloth seems pretty canvas-y.
In fact, downright denim-y.
The beauty of hemp as used in sailing ships is
that it doesn't stretch or deteriorate too quickly,
even when soaked. Makes pretty good oakum, too.
the next best thing is actually jute, not cotton.
I wouldn't wanna wear a jute jersey, though.
While hemp is related to the cannabises (sativa &
indica), it doesn't contain a bunch of THC. In
fact, growing hemp and cannabis together results
in cross-pollination that ruins the good stuff.
But cannabis /can/ be grafted onto hops, which is
also a related plant. I dunno if hops is sexed
like cannabis, or what would happen if a female
cannabis were grafted onto a male hops plant (if
there is such a thing.)
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 04:15:38
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
> While hemp is related to the cannabises (sativa &
> indica), it doesn't contain a bunch of THC. In
> fact, growing hemp and cannabis together results
> in cross-pollination that ruins the good stuff.
> But cannabis /can/ be grafted onto hops, which is
> also a related plant. I dunno if hops is sexed
> like cannabis, or what would happen if a female
> cannabis were grafted onto a male hops plant (if
> there is such a thing.)
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
What are you smokin' Tom. Sounds like pornography when you talk about it.
haha
I am curious. Does swinging your arms help the cold problem you get. I do
it at stops to relieve tensed arms but the website said he did not know if
it helped or not. ; =?
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 17:39:02
From:
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
> > That was also when the government was busy trying to make hemp the
> > picture of evil, so it would not have been 'politically correct', even
> > in the 30's. Hemp does grow faster than corn, takes very little
> > attention, and would probably put out about twice the energy per acre
> > as corn fermented and distilled down to alcohol. It would smell
> > nicer, but people near highways might have a permanent stupid grin on
> > their faces.
>
> The Yanks pressured the rest of the world to make hemp "evil" so they could
> sell their inferior cotton for ropes, etc.
>
> Theo
Dear Theo,
Hang on a moment . . .
"HEMP, n. A plant from whose fibrous bark is made an article of
neckwear which is frequently put on after public speaking in the open
air and prevents the wearer from taking cold."
LINEN, n. "A kind of cloth the making of which, when made of hemp,
entails a great waste of hemp." -- Calcraft the Hangman
Cheers,
A. Bierce
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 11:18:44
From: Theo Bekkers
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> The Yanks pressured the rest of the world to make hemp "evil" so
>> they could sell their inferior cotton for ropes, etc.
> Dear Theo,
>
> Hang on a moment . . .
>
> "HEMP, n. A plant from whose fibrous bark is made an article of
> neckwear which is frequently put on after public speaking in the open
> air and prevents the wearer from taking cold."
>
> LINEN, n. "A kind of cloth the making of which, when made of hemp,
> entails a great waste of hemp." -- Calcraft the Hangman
Ropes made from hemp were used on ships and were far superior and
longer-lasting than cotton.
hemp
/hemp/
noun
1. a tall, annual herb, Cannabis sativa, native to Asia, but cultivated in
many parts of the world, and yielding hashish, bhang, cannabin, etc.
2. the tough fibre of this plant used for making coarse fabrics, ropes, etc.
Theo
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 05:26:09
From: DougC
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
DougC wrote:
> Steve Watkin wrote:
>> Find it hard to beleive that my Lafree costs more to run than even the
>> smallest I.C. bike
>>
>> SW
>
> Tell us, how many miles does it go on one charge, how many discharge
> cycles does the battery withstand before needing replacement, and how
> much do replacement batteries cost (in US$)?....
> ~
>
>
Well okay,,,--some searching has found me pages stating that for the LA
Free bikes: the "range" is 28 miles, the discharge life is 500 cycles
and the battery replacement cost I didn't run across (but it can
certainly be found) --but this bike is an /assist-only/. So to find out
how much power it is really putting out, we need to know the level of
assist it is providing. Anybody know?
The electric setup I compared was the Bionx system, which although it is
also an assist-only setup (it will not move the bicycle without the
rider pedaling), the Bionx lets you explicitly set the assist level. So
for example if the Bionx has a range of 30 miles when set to 100%
assist, then we can fairly estimate that the Bionx alone could have
pushed the bike about half those miles....
~
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 11:19:51
From: DougC
Subject: About six times as expensive....
|
Okay how's this:
I couldn't find any reviews that stated the actual assist levels. But
what we /can/ do is compare the batteries to a known example.
--------
On this page--
http://www.norcom2000.com/users/dcimper/assorted/inanities/recumbent/moto_bike_page/episode005/episode005.html
is my comparison of the four Bionx setups (different batteries). You see
the first battery noted is the NiMH 24V 8Ah that costs $395 and can
propel the bike about 4495 miles over its (the battery's) total expected
lifetime. (-?-Bionx only suggests 450 discharge cycles for NiMH's but
anyway-)
Now, this page:
http://www.myebike.com/bikes/lite2.html
says that the Giant Lite battery is a 24V 6.5Ah NiMH, and that the
replacement cost is $350. This price agrees with a second place selling
LaFree batteries for $360:
http://www.bernsonev.com/giant-parts-accessories-c-34.html
If we assume that the LaFree motor and battery are no more efficient
than what the Bionx uses, then (6.5Ah/8Ah) x (4495 miles x (500/450
discharge cycles)) miles = 4058 miles total, you should expect to get
from an LaFree battery pack over 500 discharge cycles.
4058 miles / $350 battery replacement cost = $.0862 per mile, or 8.62
cents per mile.... Now look at the fuel costs for the 4-cycle engine on
my page; with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.
Oh, and purchase price?... That's cheaper too. The LaFree bike cost
around $1300, many places report. A gasoline engine kit costs from $150
up to $600 (for the Golden Eagle kit I chose), plus a suitable bike
(which may be as cheap as $100).
If you figure matters on a cost-per-power comparison, the gasoline
engine would come out way on top again. The Bionx setup has a high
"peak" output, but that [most likely] is at zero RPMs. Most of the time,
it doesn't put out more than 300 or so watts, where the Robin 35cc
4-cycle engine (on the setup I chose) will put out ~800+ watts cruising
power (1.1 hp), and can peak at up to 1200+ watts (1.6 hp).
--------
I'd LOVE to see a electric setup (that is available to consumers) and
that can compete on a cost-per-mile with gasoline... but I've done
figures for a few setups that were supposed to be technically
outstanding, and they all still fell /way/ short of what a 4-cycle
engine burning gasoline could do.
~
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 17:43:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.<<<<<
nobody gets 200 mpg in a car
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 12:15:07
From: DougC
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
nash wrote:
> with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
> cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.<<<<<
>
> nobody gets 200 mpg in a car
>
>
>
-The 200 mpg rating is for a gasoline-engined /bicycle/.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 18:46:00
From: nash
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:voSmh.262$fL3.187@newsfe04.lga...
> nash wrote:
>> with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
>> cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.<<<<<
>>
>> nobody gets 200 mpg in a car
>>
>>
>>
>
> -The 200 mpg rating is for a gasoline-engined /bicycle/.
Then why is he comparing an electric bike to owning a four cyclinder car?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 14:05:40
From: David Kerber
Subject: Re: About six times as expensive....
|
In article <IRSmh.550967$5R2.498717@pd7urf3no >, zwepytzkehillc9
@jetable.net says...
>
> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
> news:voSmh.262$fL3.187@newsfe04.lga...
> > nash wrote:
> >> with fuel at $2.50/gal and assuming 200 mpg, the gas engine's
> >> cost is ~1.25 cents per mile.<<<<<
> >>
> >> nobody gets 200 mpg in a car
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -The 200 mpg rating is for a gasoline-engined /bicycle/.
>
> Then why is he comparing an electric bike to owning a four cyclinder car?
He's not; he's comparing an electric bike to a 4-*stroke* gasoline-
powered bike/scooter.
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 11:54:28
From: Terryc
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
Steve Watkin wrote:
> Find it hard to beleive that my Lafree costs more to run than even the
> smallest I.C. bike
IC is subsidised widely by society, plus there are tons of small IC
motors around (economy of scale)
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Jan 2007 19:48:32
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
Terryc wrote:
> Steve Watkin wrote:
>
>> Find it hard to beleive that my Lafree costs more to run than even the
>> smallest I.C. bike
>
> IC is subsidised widely by society, plus there are tons of small IC
> motors around (economy of scale)
In what way is the I.C. engine "widely subsidized by society"?
If you mean its negative effects aren't fully reflected in
its pricing, than that's fine, but neither is a host of other
things as well, including electric power and its storage
(batteries).
There are also tons of electric motors and batteries around
too.
SMH
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2007 21:42:12
From: Bill Z.
Subject: Re: new electric assist cycling technology
|
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > writes:
> G.fried wrote:
> > Hello,
> > we are investigating a new type of electric assist bicycle
> > technology and are currently collecting the requirements. ....
> >
>
> I got into bicycle motors a bit recently.
>
> At one point I ran some figures comparing gasoline and electric
> setups; of the two (popular products) I compared, the electric cost
> over twice as much and had a cost-per-mile that was five to ten times
> as high as the gasoline engine setup. This was using U.S. fuel prices,
> Europe is 2-3X as high but still you can see the problem.
>
> Advocates of electrics play yup the low-pollution aspects but that is
> very debatable over the long term, considering the battery production
> and disposal requirements.
For longer trips around here, you can carry an electric bicycle on a
train but not a gasoline-powered one. It is priily a safety issue:
you don't want passengers in a compartment with highly flamable
materials such as gasoline in case of a train accident.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
|
|
