EV and more environmentally health future?

[terrytek]

Really I think our resources should be directed at researching cheap carbon-neutral fuel. That way gearheads can stil enjoy their fun cars, people wouldn't need to convert to electric, and you know that you can have a clean source of energy. Because a clean, worldwide energy grid powered by renewable sources isn't gonna happen overnight.

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, vinyldash303 said:

Engine braking exists on automatics too. They'll downshift and lock the converter. 

Semis don't even use a converter iirc, they still use clutches in the automatics.

2 minutes ago, terrytek said:

That way gearheads can stil enjoy their fun cars

You wanting to drive a vehicle to have fun does not benefit humanity's expansion of technology.

[GDRRiley]

On 1/10/2018 at 12:51 AM, GoldenLag said:

why have a transmission at all when you can have a generator and an electric engine powering the wheels

a generator and set of electric motors is heavier than a cars transmission and drive axle(s) combined. also both eat power and while in the end generators win at a few thousand HP no cars have that under the hood  

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

a generator and set of electric motors is heavier than a cars transmission and drive axle(s) combined. also both eat power and while in the end generators win at a few thousand HP no cars have that under the hood  

The actual drive components are a lot lighter than the drivetrain in an ICE vehicle. Since the only added weight is the battery that's not bad, because it's more efficient moving said weight.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

The actual drive components are a lot lighter than the drivetrain in an ICE vehicle. Since the only added weight is the battery that's not bad, because it's more efficient moving said weight.

I was talking and I believe @GoldenLag was talking about engine->generator->electric motors at the wheels. same way trains are powered. 

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

I was talking and I believe @GoldenLag was talking about engine->generator->electric motors at the wheels. same way trains are powered. 

Ahh, I wasn't following it very closely.

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, ShoByte said:

 

Rigs need to gear down for hills. If you use your brakes too much they'll over heat and you'll end up in the ditch.

 some of this maybe able to be fixed with better composite brakes like those found on race cars. 

[terrytek]

14 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Semis don't even use a converter iirc, they still use clutches in the automatics.

You wanting to drive a vehicle to have fun does not benefit humanity's expansion of technology.

well there are more people than just me that want to drive for fun. and besides i feel like electricification boring for things such as car races and whatnot tbh.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, terrytek said:

well there are more people than just me that want to drive for fun. and besides i feel like electricification boring for things such as car races and whatnot tbh.

Yeah and the greater part of the world doesn't care.

 

So a motor vehicle contest. How much is that fine going to cost you?

[straight_stewie]

15 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Semis don't even use a converter iirc, they still use clutches in the automatics.

That's correct. In fact, for a long time the Volvo automatics were just volvo manuals with a a special valve block to handle the shift mechanism. In the prototypes the drivers still had to manually clutch to start and completely stop.
 

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

 some of this maybe able to be fixed with better composite brakes like those found on race cars. 

That's unlikely. The sheer weight that they are dealing with renders this very unlikely. There will always be some form of drivetrain assisted braking, as that is safer and more efficient in all types of drivetrains.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, straight_stewie said:

 That's unlikely. The sheer weight that they are dealing with renders this very unlikely. There will always be some form of drivetrain assisted braking, as that is safer and more efficient in all types of drivetrains.

its more about the brakes being able to handle high heat based on how their made. not that we can take race car brakes and put them on trucks

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

That's correct. In fact, for a long time the Volvo automatics were just volvo manuals with a a special valve block to handle the shift mechanism. In the prototypes the drivers still had to manually clutch to start and completely stop.

Like the manual out of one if their consumer vehicles?

[straight_stewie]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

its more about the brakes being able to handle high heat based on how their made.

Why would we want to do that though? Once we move to electrics we want to dynamically brake (train speak for regenerative braking) as much as possible anyway.

The other consideration is air. Airbrakes have a finite supply of air, and once it's gone you have no brakes. Allegedly your brakes are supposed to be spring engaged at that point, but the vast majority of the time that fails to happen, partly because the system is improperly designed and partly due to maintenance issues. 

 

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Like the manual out of one if their consumer vehicles?

The manual that was also in their big trucks at the time. 

[GDRRiley]

9 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The other consideration is air. Airbrakes have a finite supply of air, and once it's gone you have no brakes.

your brakes will lock if you have no air. they require air to unlock. 

edit. the goal of brakes that can handle more heat is that they are less likely to lock up. 

[straight_stewie]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

your brakes will lock if you have no air. they require air to unlock. 

Allegedly. They rarely do. And if they do when you're already going 70+ down a mountain side, you're going to burn all the tires on your drive and trailer axles within seconds, and that's if the brakes themselves actually lock up, instead of burning themselves. 

[AlwaysFSX]

30 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The manual that was also in their big trucks at the time. 

That thing was surprisingly durable then.

[John Holliman]

I love my Tesla P100D. I have the whole Tesla ecosystem at my home (solar panels, 2 powerwalls, charging station, and my car). I have just gotten used to the instant power and with my grid impact staying very low I don't feel terrible about charging all the time and just draining the grid. It definitely has it's downsides (supercharging is nowhere near as fast as just filling an ICE car) but if you can overcome the range anxiety and trust in the charging network then it becomes a fairly easy transition. 

[Eduard the weeb]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

Firstly, the opinion that not affecting the environment in any way is somehow better than what we are currently doing is completely false.

Secondly:

What on earth does this mean?

okay I don't understand your first question sorry

 

next things like Pork and beef are hard to produce due the large amount of water needed and the amount of CO2 cows and pigs make is ridiculous 

[straight_stewie]

9 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

okay I don't understand your first question sorry

It wasn't a question, it was the following statement: Your opinion is that humans need to stop affecting the environment in any way. That is just as false as changing nothing about what we are doing. 
 

9 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

next things like Pork and beef are hard to produce due the large amount of water needed and the amount of CO2 cows and pigs make is ridiculous 

You know, an interesting thing happens when the government decides what the best technical way to meet a goal is; They make things worse. Let's talk about the side effects of DEF and how both Cummins and John Deere had started building assembly lines to build diesel engines that met emissions standards and didn't need DEF. 

Beyond that, read my first reply again: Trying to not affect the environment in any way is just as bad as changing nothing about what we are doing.

One day you're going to realize that there are 7 billion humans and we produce way more gas than all the pigs and cows combined. That's going to cause a massive problem with your logic that pigs and cows should be eradicated to save the environment.

[System Error Message]

Environmentalists think that electric cars are green, this is not true.

1) The carbon footprint of producing an electric car is more than a diesel or petrol car. The batteries, chemicals, etc produce a lot of bad waste for the environment compared to just making metals and pipes (or in the case of BMW and other german manufacturers, plastics).

 

2) Electricity isnt generated cleanly everywhere, and the grid cant handle it. This can lead to brownouts, burning more fuels for electricity, etc

 

To offset the environmental impact of producing an electric car vs fuel, you'd have to drive the car for more than its battery lifespan.

 

The answer to a greener future is not electric cars or hybrids, its hydrogen. Hydrogen as a fuel is already possible with minor modifications to a petrol engine. Hydrogen as a fuel only burns to produce water and water can be separated back using green means like solar and other means.

 

If electric cars were the future, companies would be buying tesla but tesla suffers from quality issues and their lorries, only a few are ordered peer large companies for the cool factor and PR, not for the numbers. Even the cost of buying a tesla is so much more that regular people just cant afford it. If tesla cant produce a car for around $14000 than it has not solved any problems.

 

Removing and recycling old cars on the road will reduce the environmental impact far more than putting more cars onto the road, even if electric/hybrid.

[Eduard the weeb]

Oh I think I get what you mean @straight_stewie

I think changes should be made but towards making the environment better because with things like the ozone layer beginning taking apart and the melting on the polar Ice caps could lead to problems for the current and later generations down the line so I think we should begin to cut back on things could damage the those things so that earth is still habitable in like 250 years from now. 

[TheGleaner]

2 hours ago, terrytek said:

Really I think our resources should be directed at researching cheap carbon-neutral fuel. That way gearheads can stil enjoy their fun cars, people wouldn't need to convert to electric, and you know that you can have a clean source of energy. Because a clean, worldwide energy grid powered by renewable sources isn't gonna happen overnight.

Agree, as long as its not like ethanol that ruins seals.

1 hour ago, terrytek said:

well there are more people than just me that want to drive for fun. and besides i feel like electricification boring for things such as car races and whatnot tbh.

"hey you want to go to the race tonight?" "yeah sure, I'll be you $10 that #12 sounds more like a vacuum cleaner than #89" "deal" 

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Yeah and the greater part of the world doesn't care.

 

So a motor vehicle contest. How much is that fine going to cost you?

there are quite a few races in the world with cars

 

here where I live? nothing because the cops don't do much at -40f(just like electric cars)

53 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

okay I don't understand your first question sorry

 

next things like Pork and beef are hard to produce due the large amount of water needed and the amount of CO2 cows and pigs make is ridiculous 

Methane. Not co2. I raise beef cows. Quit trying to make the ag world harder, We barely make it as it is.

47 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

It wasn't a question, it was the following statement: Your opinion is that humans need to stop affecting the environment in any way. That is just as false as changing nothing about what we are doing. 
 

You know, an interesting thing happens when the government decides what the best technical way to meet a goal is; They make things worse. Let's talk about the side effects of DEF and how both Cummins and John Deere had started building assembly lines to build diesel engines that met emissions standards and didn't need DEF. 

Beyond that, read my first reply again: Trying to not affect the environment in any way is just as bad as changing nothing about what we are doing.

One day you're going to realize that there are 7 billion humans and we produce way more gas than all the pigs and cows combined. That's going to cause a massive problem with your logic that pigs and cows should be eradicated to save the environment.

Just gotta love def and the government(or the def government). Isn't def mostly water? Also I see that our dumps won't take the jugs either, due to some toxin or something in them, so they get burnt. Real healthy.

 

Electric cars. Essentially a fancy paperweight up here where we sit below 0f for 3 months and, as per usual, a blizzard will take large areas out of service for up to 2 months at times(electricity)

 

how about this? I actually seen this demoed, looks promising.

https://www.wday.com/news/4385567-local-invention-could-double-gas-mileage-your-vehicle

 

Basically the engine runs a compressor, the tank gets up to capacity, fuel quits going to the engine, and it runs off of compressed air(that might have been another prototype) and you keep the acceleration and torque.

[straight_stewie]

5 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

I think changes should be made but towards making the environment better because with things like the ozone layer beginning taking apart and the melting on the polar Ice caps could lead to problems for the current and later generations down the line so I think we should begin to cut back on things could damage the those things so that earth is still habitable in like 250 years from now. 

250 years? That's such short term thinking, and that's exactly why I said what I said.

Let me ask you this, is there evidence of climate change before humans ever existed? Were there Ice Ages, and then periods of extreme heat, followed by more Ice Ages, and then more heat? Rinse and repeat for billions of years before our existence?

. @TheGleaner
 

Quote

"hey you want to go to the race tonight?" "yeah sure, I'll be you $10 that #12 sounds more like a vacuum cleaner than #89" "deal" 

Circle track racing will never die. Dirt Forever. But seriously, the only reason that they aren't electric already is that no one can hear anyone complain after the race  

[Eduard the weeb]

22 hours ago, TheGleaner said:

Methane. Not co2. I raise beef cows. Quit trying to make the ag world harder, We barely make it as it is.

23 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

sorry about getting the gases wrong

I'm not trying to say that the farmers should be punished for what they do, I am saying that right now is that we need to begin to make moves to make the environment and earth healthier also, its not like the world has unlimited gas/oil reserves and at the current rate of consumption we will run out in about 100 years and I before that happens we should begin moving towards things that can are cleaner and can be more effective as the tech gets better like solar panels and Hydro electric energy.

 

22 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Let me ask you this, is there evidence of climate change before humans ever existed? Were there Ice Ages, and then periods of extreme heat, followed by more Ice Ages, and then more heat? Rinse and repeat for billions of years before our existence?

yes but to the extent we are seeing know is very damaging like the ozone layer is being destroyed by green houses gases and after the polar ice caps melt it will take a long time maybe millions of years if ever for then to come back together.

 

Are you saying that what happening right now is just natural and isn't something to be concerned about ?

[straight_stewie]

2 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

Are you saying that what happening right now is just natural and isn't something to be concerned about ?

Kind of. But it's different than you've heard before.

If these extreme changes were happening before our existence, then in the long term, does it really matter if humans are accelerating it or not? I mean whether we are accelerating climate change or not, wouldn't it change outside of livable conditions on it's own accord rather quickly anyway?