Hybrid cars should be banned

[Frank]

Ok, to be fair, you get a lot of batteries, some serious high-power electronics and computer programs in return. But those are much more redundant in general (if a battery (cluster) breaks down, disable it), and should last as long as designed.

If you try and use the cheapest components possible then some will break down, but the same goes for an internal combustion engine and gearbox.

Btw, I compared against an automatic transmission, because that's what you get with an electromotor.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yeah, but outlawing all "SUV"s or Chelsea tractors as we call them in the UK is the better option.

Do you think that is a viable option that has a change of happening anytime soon... I don't and if they manage to make those big cars as fuel efficient in a city as 4 cylinder Camry then it's a big step in the right direction and at that point imo it's basically the same which one out of those two you drive.

 

[Frank]

Yes, but then again: that Camry with the same technology would still do four times the miles per gallon. So, you would pay ~ $1000 instead of ~ $4000 a year on gasoline. Or double that, if you live in Europe.

And you would pay ~ $22 or ~ $88 if you used electricity to power that car.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Ok, to be fair, you get a lot of batteries, some serious high-power electronics and computer programs in return. But those are much more redundant in general (if a battery (cluster) breaks down, disable it), and should last as long as designed.

Yes electric motors would probably be more reliabe in the end. But my point was that combustions engines lalready are very reliable.

Disabling batteries isnt a very good option I think though, it will limit how far you can drive and I doubt anyone wants that. Or did you mean disable it so you can get to a garage and get it repaired? That is possible with engines to. Though I dont think any car makers besides the likes of Lamborghine uses the option of disabling cylinders and other parts if they dont work right .

Do you think that is a viable option that has a change of happening anytime soon... I don't and if they manage to make those big cars as fuel efficient in a city as 4 cylinder Camry then it's a big step in the right direction and at that point imo it's basically the same which one out of those two you drive.

I dont see the point of driving a big car in town to begin with, they should ban those things.

 

[Frank]

Yes electric motors would probably be more reliabe in the end. But my point was that combustions engines lalready are very reliable.

Electric motors already are far more reliable in any way, only the batteries and electronics could still use some improvement. There is generally only one thing that can break down with an electric motor, and that is the brushes. AC and brushless motors don't even have those. They last essentially forever, and they normally require no more maintenance than blowing out the accumulated dust every year or so.

Edit: the bearings aren't solid-state, so they do detoriate, but modern self-lubricating, sealed roll bearings last a very long time.

Disabling batteries isnt a very good option I think though, it will limit how far you can drive and I doubt anyone wants that. Or did you mean disable it so you can get to a garage and get it repaired? That is possible with engines to. Though I dont think any car makers besides the likes of Lamborghine uses the option of disabling cylinders and other parts if they dont work right .

Well, if you have 40 clusters of 40 Li-Ion batteries each (144 volts DC), disabling a single cluster would reduce your power, top speed and endurance by 1/40th. That sounds a lot better than 1/4th, if you have a four cylinder engine and one breaks down.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I dont see the point of driving a big car in town to begin with, they should ban those things.

Vespa's all around, anything larger should require an expensive permit. That'll solve the problem.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I dont see the point of driving a big car in town to begin with, they should ban those things.

You seem to like banning stuff... and over simplify things...

 

[Sxotty]

Disabling batteries isnt a very good option I think though, it will limit how far you can drive and I doubt anyone wants that. Or did you mean disable it so you can get to a garage and get it repaired? That is possible with engines to. Though I dont think any car makers besides the likes of Lamborghine uses the option of disabling cylinders and other parts if they dont work right .

Li-Ion packs already do this. Even the cells in your laptop have a built in fail safe to disable them if one is failing. And it disables the whole string so yes that is bad, but it is better than the whole pack lighting on fire or exploding

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You seem to like banning stuff... and over simplify things...

No not really, But I really dont see the point why somebody needs a SUV to drive to work in the city.

Li-Ion packs already do this. Even the cells in your laptop have a built in fail safe to disable them if one is failing. And it disables the whole string so yes that is bad, but it is better than the whole pack lighting on fire or exploding

Free fireworks!

 

[Frank]

Anyway, it doesn't matter what we consumers want, as long as the big companies think they can make far more money by selling us what we don't need, but what they tell us we want, if we have no choice.

Then again, given time it is unavoidable that we will get that choice after all. But it won't be easy: we're up against Big Money. So don't hold your breath.

The Good and Bad of a democratic, capitalistic society in a nutshell.

 

[nelg]

Vespa's all around, anything larger should require an expensive permit. That'll solve the problem.

I would bet you that the Hybrid Yukon pollutes less than the Vespa, with the exclusion of Co2.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay01/article1_e.html

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

No not really, But I really dont see the point why somebody needs a SUV to drive to work in the city.

True, and much of the time, people buy big SUVs out of ego (and this is true of pretty much all Hummer owners), but then there are those people who buy them simply because they are indeed "soccer moms" so to speak. Sure they could buy minivans, but those are also big, heavy, and inefficient -- in many cases, more so than an SUV of similar passenger capacity. The only difference is that minivans have no pretense about being anything other than a road vehicle meant to carry a sizeable family, so it looks like someone necessarily bought it for a more down-to-earth purpose.

Sure that doesn't mean a soccer mom needs an SUV to get to and from work (assuming they don't carpool, that is), but if you need one anyway for other reasons, there's no sense in additionally spending additional money on something smaller and more efficient specifically for day-to-day tasks when there are already enough money drains to worry about.

 

[Skrying]

Besides ego, SUVs are popular because people have this idea that larger = safer.

 

[Frank]

"Bigger is better and safer. And this way, everyone can see I have the money."

 

[AlphaWolf]

I would bet you that the Hybrid Yukon pollutes less than the Vespa, with the exclusion of Co2.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay01/article1_e.html

Calling a vespa a motorcycle is a pretty damn big stretch. (We're talking a 4stroke 200cc motor).

 

[nelg]

Calling a vespa a motorcycle is a pretty damn big stretch. (We're talking a 4stroke 200cc motor).

Even adjusting for size they compare poorly.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Even adjusting for size they compare poorly.

With what? You have link that says they tested a range of large motorcycles. Show me a link showing a test of a 4stroke 200CC engine.

 

[Sxotty]

"Bigger is better and safer. And this way, everyone can see I have the money."

Well they are safer in general if the driver doesn't roll over. And no if you drive a Mercedes people see you have more money than if you drive an explorer.

 

[MulciberXP]

...

 

[Mintmaster]

Well they are safer in general if the driver doesn't roll over.

Compared to a car in an identical accident, yes, it's safer. However, that's a useless assumption, and rollovers aren't the only reason. There's also poorer steering and handling, longer braking distances, false confidence of being in a 'safe' vehicle, etc.

And no if you drive a Mercedes people see you have more money than if you drive an explorer.

I think for the most part, at equal price points SUVs look more expensive to your average Joe. IMO, most of this perception of wealth stems from the ability of the owner to pay for more gas and the lack of cheaper SUVs during the early days of its boom in popularity.