Re: hybred muscle / electric commuting -- a modest proposal

[Ron Ruff]

I am a big fan of alternative transportation, and I believe it could be
very practical and cost efficient to promote the use of both bikes and
light electric vehicles... but I think it is a very bad idea to combine
these into one machine (ie hybrid).

Enclosed human powered vehicle = instant sweatbox. Very few people wish
to
become a sweaty mess or work out very hard when commuting or running
errands. The enclosure also adds a lot of weight.

Practical speed for average pedal powered commuter ~ 10mph (not 40mph).

Practical performance parameters for a light electric (enclosed)
vehicle: 250lbs, 30mph cruising speed (40mph max), 30mile range,
<$2,000. Such a car would be adequate for the majority of trips that
6,000lb SUVs are currently making. The car would have ~2kW motor so
100W or so of pedal power that could be added wouldn't amount to
much... and wouldn't be worth the added complexity.

There aren't any technological issues... these things are very simple
and easily designed and built with off the shelf parts.

There are plenty of electric scooters on the market right now. Probably
one of the best is the Emax:
http://www.electric-scooter-world.com/RoadTestEMaxSport.htm

The biggest obstacle to people wanting to use bikes or light electric
vehicles is the lack of a safe place to ride/drive them. Very few wish
to risk their lives under the wheels of all the impatient SUVs and
trucks that they are forced to share the roads with. Until this issue
is seriously addressed by restricting where the large vehicles can
drive, and allowing the smaller vehicles the right-of-way, then I have
little hope for positive change.

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

Ron Ruff wrote:

> I am a big fan of alternative transportation, and
> I believe it could be very practical and cost
> efficient to promote the use of both bikes and
> light electric vehicles... but I think it is a
> very bad idea to combine these into one machine
> (ie hybrid).

> Enclosed human powered vehicle = instant sweatbox.

I'd be surprised if that were true, or the land speed
records now being set would be impossible.

> Very few people wish to become a sweaty mess or
> work out very hard when commuting or running
> errands.

Many places I've worked cater for cyclists with
company shower rooms.

> The enclosure also adds a lot of weight.

But the weight added is more than balanced by the
reduction of air friction, in the experience of
those seeking the human-powered-ground-speed record.

> Practical speed for average pedal powered commuter
> ~ 10mph (not 40mph).

I'm 62, I'm lucky to average 6 mph in city traffic,
but that's not using the proposed vehicles, either,
with all their energy use improvements, just an
unimproved 18 speed heavy working bicycle
pumped by geezer muscles.

So, that low average speed seems to be in part due
to the poor energy efficiency and aerodynamics of
current commuter bicycles, yes?

I don't think a much more efficient solution should
be condemned for slowness until there is some
real data with which to work.

> Practical performance parameters for a light
> electric (enclosed) vehicle: 250lbs, 30mph
> cruising speed (40mph max), 30mile range, <$2,000.
> Such a car would be adequate for the majority of
> trips that 6,000lb SUVs are currently making. The
> car would have ~2kW motor so 100W or so of pedal
> power that could be added wouldn't amount to
> much... and wouldn't be worth the added
> complexity.

Unfortunately, that still runs on fossil fuel, just
indirectly as it is burned in the power plant. That
only solves part of the original problem, as all
energy supplies seem to track motor fuel prices
fairly accurately.

> There aren't any technological issues... these
> things are very simple and easily designed and
> built with off the shelf parts.

I fully agree, and there are existing Federal
programs to provide just such devices.

That just isn't a solution to the fuel shortage
problem (though it certainly helps it in a small
way), and does nothing for the obesity epidemic.

> There are plenty of electric scooters on the
> market right now. Probably one of the best is the
> Emax:
> http://www.electric-scooter-world.com/RoadTestEMaxSport.htm

Same response.

> The biggest obstacle to people wanting to use
> bikes or light electric vehicles is the lack of a
> safe place to ride/drive them. Very few wish to
> risk their lives under the wheels of all the
> impatient SUVs and trucks that they are forced to
> share the roads with. Until this issue is
> seriously addressed by restricting where the large
> vehicles can drive, and allowing the smaller
> vehicles the right-of-way, then I have little hope
> for positive change.

And yet, large urban areas around the world have
highly successful human powered commuter vehicle use.
The problem is solvable, not just in theory but in
practice. What we can target is that the high motor
fuel prices will raise awareness that current US
legal privileges automobiles enjoy over pedestrians
and human powered vehicles are misguided in a time
when automobile use should be deprecated, not
reinforced.

I live in a city (Phoenix, AZ) which is 90% level
ground, ideal for bicycle commuting [granted the
heat is a bit much, I did a six mile each way
bicycle commute here in the heat of the summer with
no particular trouble, in 1996-1998]. However, the
few bicycle lanes are poorly designed, disconnected,
and have very poor signage. This city is now
installing a light rail system, which I predict will
be wildly unsuccessful; it won't move any faster
than automobiles, since it will have to stop at the
same stoplights interrupting automobile travel. In
fact, of course, it will be much slower, because it
must consume time at waystation stops. Commuters
will be staying away in droves.

How much cheaper and easier it would have been just
to clear the same pathway and assign it as a (two
way) bike path.

FWIW

xanthian.

 

[[email protected]]

On 10 Jun 2006 20:26:16 -0700, "Kent Paul Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ron Ruff wrote:
>
>> I am a big fan of alternative transportation, and
>> I believe it could be very practical and cost
>> efficient to promote the use of both bikes and
>> light electric vehicles... but I think it is a
>> very bad idea to combine these into one machine
>> (ie hybrid).
>
>> Enclosed human powered vehicle = instant sweatbox.
>
>I'd be surprised if that were true, or the land speed
>records now being set would be impossible.

[snip]

Dear Kent,

For what it's worth, the Varna Diablo rider uses a breathing mask and
a wheel doing double-duty as an air pump to cope with ventilation
problems in his enclosure:

http://www.fortebikes.com/Diablo.htm

Not exactly heat and sweat, but a curious example of how tricky such
things can be.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

"carlfogel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:

>>> I am a big fan of alternative transportation,
>>> and I believe it could be very practical and
>>> cost efficient to promote the use of both bikes
>>> and light electric vehicles... but I think it is
>>> a very bad idea to combine these into one
>>> machine (ie hybrid).

>>> Enclosed human powered vehicle = instant
>>> sweatbox.

>> I'd be surprised if that were true, or the land
>> speed records now being set would be impossible.

> For what it's worth, the Varna Diablo rider uses a
> breathing mask and a wheel doing double-duty as an
> air pump to cope with ventilation problems in his
> enclosure:

> http://www.fortebikes.com/Diablo.htm

> Not exactly heat and sweat, but a curious example
> of how tricky such things can be.

And of how much expert technology can contribute to
a better solution.

Thanks for that URL.

I was fairly sure the community expertise could help
flesh our my non-expert proposal (which started in a
dream, from which I woke up and continued to extend
the ideas already sleep-provided).

Of course, that also lends credence to Ron Ruff's
suggestion that nothing close to those speeds will
ever be achieved in commuter human powered vehicles,
though I'm hoping he's wrong.

If a "super-aerobic" athlete can pedal for five
minutes and achieve a top speed of over 80 mph / 128
kph, I'd like to think I could achieve a quarter of
that speed for six times that long, even at my age.

I did push and pedal a bicycle for 400 miles towing
450# of luggage through the desert a year ago, so
I'm probably in adequate physical condition to
attempt such a feat.

Moreover, and back to the original proposal's goals,
I think that the ever increasing feeling of
well-being that the many obese Americans would have
when they began using their bodies in ways that
reduced their obesity (I lost 37# on my journey)
would make up for the minor annoyance of the need
for a shower at the end of the commute each way.

FWIW

xanthian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 

[Ron Ruff]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Many places I've worked cater for cyclists with
> company shower rooms.

And most do not... and what about the grocery store? Face it... you
aren't going to get very many people to go that far. Not only do you
expect them to give up their SUVs, you want them to get sweaty and
dirty everytime they take a little trip on the road!

> But the weight added is more than balanced by the
> reduction of air friction, in the experience of
> those seeking the human-powered-ground-speed record.

Go up a slight incline and you are screwed... your speed will quickly
drop to less than what you could accomplish on a regular bike.

> So, that low average speed seems to be in part due
> to the poor energy efficiency and aerodynamics of
> current commuter bicycles, yes?
>
> I don't think a much more efficient solution should
> be condemned for slowness until there is some
> real data with which to work.

Enclosed bikes for commuters have been around for a long time. Do a
search for velocars. They are capable of a little bit higher speeds on
the flat, but suffer on the hills. Those world record enclosed machines
do not resemble anything you would actually use.

> That just isn't a solution to the fuel shortage
> problem (though it certainly helps it in a small
> way), and does nothing for the obesity epidemic.

Small electric vehicles are at least 10 times more efficient than what
the average person is driving. Cutting energy use by 90% is very close
to 100%.

The obesity problem is mostly psychological... an effect of the
constant campaign for us to consume more and more. Still I do think
that most people would benefit from a little exercise. If biking was
made safe and pleasant I expect that many more people would enjoy it.

> What we can target is that the high motor
> fuel prices will raise awareness that current US
> legal privileges automobiles enjoy over pedestrians
> and human powered vehicles are misguided in a time
> when automobile use should be deprecated, not
> reinforced.

This has always been true... but there are large and powerful forces
that want us to only have more and consume more and work more to pay
for it all. They do not consider our downsizing and simplifying a
viable way for them to increase their profits... and they are right!
That is why proposed "solutions" end up being more complicated and
costly... gas/electric hybrids being a good example. And then there are
the hydrogen cars which essentially solve no problems at all (even if
they could be made).

Why did the US relax the mpg requirements on cars... and exempt SUVs?
Why did they kill the electric cars in CA? Why do we have 6,000lb
vehicles that spend most of their time hauling a <200lb load?

If I was king, I'd make at least half the roads in the business
district of cities open only to bikes and light electric vehicles and
pedestrians. Paths for these could also be built through green spaces.
Most long distance trips would be accomplished via rail or bus... and
on some you could even bring your "car" along. In residential and rural
areas either a wide shoulder would be provided (and low speed limits
for large vehicles) or a separate lane. The purchase and use of large
personal vehicles would be heavily taxed.

 

[Robert Kolker]

Ron Ruff wrote:

>
> The biggest obstacle to people wanting to use bikes or light electric
> vehicles is the lack of a safe place to ride/drive them. Very few wish
> to risk their lives under the wheels of all the impatient SUVs and
> trucks that they are forced to share the roads with. Until this issue
> is seriously addressed by restricting where the large vehicles can
> drive, and allowing the smaller vehicles the right-of-way, then I have
> little hope for positive change.

You are right. But Yodah says: Hold not your breath, Young Ron, until
right of way bicycles have, else blue turn you will.

The only hope is an extensive system of bicycle paths. And the usage
there of is somewhat at the mercy of the weather. Try riding a bike into
the teach of a 40 mph gale blowing cold rain, snow or sleet.

Bob Kolker

>

 

[Robert Kolker]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> How much cheaper and easier it would have been just
> to clear the same pathway and assign it as a (two
> way) bike path.


There you go again, being logical.

Even with bike paths, weather is a limiting factor. When there is glare
ice on the ground or even slush bikes are very difficult and dangerous
to use. Turns will have to be taken dead slow as leaning is dangerous.

Bob Kolker

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> I am a big fan of alternative transportation, and I believe it could be
> very practical and cost efficient to promote the use of both bikes and
> light electric vehicles... but I think it is a very bad idea to combine
> these into one machine (ie hybrid).
>
> Enclosed human powered vehicle = instant sweatbox. Very few people wish
> to
> become a sweaty mess or work out very hard when commuting or running
> errands. The enclosure also adds a lot of weight.
>
> Practical speed for average pedal powered commuter ~ 10mph (not 40mph).
>
> Practical performance parameters for a light electric (enclosed)
> vehicle: 250lbs, 30mph cruising speed (40mph max), 30mile range,
> <$2,000. Such a car would be adequate for the majority of trips that
> 6,000lb SUVs are currently making. The car would have ~2kW motor so
> 100W or so of pedal power that could be added wouldn't amount to
> much... and wouldn't be worth the added complexity.
>
> There aren't any technological issues... these things are very simple
> and easily designed and built with off the shelf parts.
>
> There are plenty of electric scooters on the market right now. Probably
> one of the best is the Emax:
> http://www.electric-scooter-world.com/RoadTestEMaxSport.htm
>
> The biggest obstacle to people wanting to use bikes or light electric
> vehicles is the lack of a safe place to ride/drive them. Very few wish
> to risk their lives under the wheels of all the impatient SUVs and
> trucks that they are forced to share the roads with. Until this issue
> is seriously addressed by restricting where the large vehicles can
> drive, and allowing the smaller vehicles the right-of-way, then I have
> little hope for positive change.

I agree 100%. Even here in Boulder, not all 'main' roads and most
smaller roads don't have a bike lane, shoulder. If bicycles had their
own lane/space, not only would it be used more, be safer, there would
be less car-bicycle shouting matches...Not good in Boulder country, try
Macon GA or any other place, USA, where bicycles are toys, not
vehicles.

 

[[email protected] (David Polewka)]

Ron Ruff wrote:
>
> If I was king, I'd make at least half the roads in the business
> district of cities open only to bikes and light electric vehicles and
> pedestrians. Paths for these could also be built through green spaces.
> Most long distance trips would be accomplished via rail or bus... and
> on some you could even bring your "car" along. In residential and rural
> areas either a wide shoulder would be provided (and low speed limits
> for large vehicles) or a separate lane. The purchase and use of large
> personal vehicles would be heavily taxed.

Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the economy sustainable.
A good way to use less fuel would be to have suburbanites move back
in to the cities, so they wouldn't have to drive so much.
The inner city poor would have to be relocated to make room.
First, we would have to legalize drugs to take away the black
market jobs. Then, we would need to offer them jobs and
housing on farms and factories outside the cities. That way,
more food and goods could be produced locally, for additional
fuel savings.
But if the population keeps increasing, all bets are off. No,
we have to freeze, and eventually decrease the population, too.
A good starting point would be to stop suppressing influenza.
To those who would object, I point out that we're living much
better today than even royalty did centuries ago. There should
be no complaints about having limits to longevity. There are
other creatures and future generations to think about here too.
Sustainability is all about justice, not "just us."
..
..
--

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

>> Many places I've worked cater for cyclists with
>> company shower rooms.

> And most do not... and what about the grocery
> store?

I don't have any particular problem with the grocery
store smelling like a fitness center. As for
workplaces, what we are after here is a cultural
change. That _some_ business provide cleanup
facilities for bicyclists proves that the concept is
possible. That most don't _now_ only proves that the
problem of co-workers being smelly from bike riding
isn't being encountered because the employes are
still arriving in other than human-powered vehicles.
That would change as the shift to use of
human-powered vehicles increased to a larger
fraction of the population.

> Face it... you aren't going to get very many
> people to go that far. Not only do you expect them
> to give up their SUVs, you want them to get sweaty
> and dirty everytime they take a little trip on the
> road!

_I'm_ not Pollutka, saying my will should be imposed
on the populace at large. The economic force of high
motor fuel prices is _already_ motivating the use of
increasing numbers of human powered vehicles; I'm
just trying to point to a possible technology that
would make the transition more pleasant and more
rapid.

>> But the weight added is more than balanced by the
>> reduction of air friction, in the experience of
>> those seeking the human-powered-ground-speed
>> record.

> Go up a slight incline and you are screwed... your
> speed will quickly drop to less than what you
> could accomplish on a regular bike.

Umm, you did catch the part about hybrid
muscle/electric, right? That is exactly the same
problem the hybrid fuel/electric vehicle _already_
solves. The hybrid vehicle "motor" is good at steady
state output, but needs help at accelerating from a
stop, and at going up hills. It also recovers energy
going down hills and braking to a stop.

>> So, that low average speed seems to be in part due
>> to the poor energy efficiency and aerodynamics of
>> current commuter bicycles, yes?

>> I don't think a much more efficient solution should
>> be condemned for slowness until there is some
>> real data with which to work.

> Enclosed bikes for commuters have been around for
> a long time. Do a search for velocars. They are
> capable of a little bit higher speeds on the flat,
> but suffer on the hills. Those world record
> enclosed machines do not resemble anything you
> would actually use.

But, again, that is not the technology I proposed;
we know a lot more about hybrid vehicles then we did
"a long time ago".

>> That just isn't a solution to the fuel shortage
>> problem (though it certainly helps it in a small
>> way), and does nothing for the obesity epidemic.

> Small electric vehicles are at least 10 times more
> efficient than what the average person is driving.
> Cutting energy use by 90% is very close to 100%.

However, they have too limited a range, even
compared to human powered vehicles, so most
extended trips would still be done with current
technology at current fuel consumption rates. I
cannot remember any job in my life but my most
recent one when I could afford to live within a 30
mile commute of work, and the density of traffic on
our freeways suggest that my experience is
widespread.

> The obesity problem is mostly psychological... an
> effect of the constant campaign for us to consume
> more and more. Still I do think that most people
> would benefit from a little exercise. If biking
> was made safe and pleasant I expect that many more
> people would enjoy it.

I expect that it being cheaper is going to continue
to be by far the main driving force, wrt commuting.

>> What we can target is that the high motor
>> fuel prices will raise awareness that current US
>> legal privileges automobiles enjoy over pedestrians
>> and human powered vehicles are misguided in a time
>> when automobile use should be deprecated, not
>> reinforced.

> This has always been true... but there are large and powerful forces
> that want us to only have more and consume more and work more to pay
> for it all. They do not consider our downsizing and simplifying a
> viable way for them to increase their profits... and they are right!

> That is why proposed "solutions" end up being more
> complicated and costly... gas/electric hybrids
> being a good example.

Umm, far as I can tell, they're actually _simpler_
than pure internal combustion solutions. You ditch
the transmission, you don't have to design an engine
with a wide range of efficient operating speeds or
torgue output, you lose the gearbox, and so on.
They may have more _parts_, but batteries and
electric motors/generators are well known
technologies, compared to the intense complexity of
ever higher performance internal combustion engines,
which have long ago left behind the days when they
were owner-maintainable or left any significant
vacant space in the engine compartment.

> And then there are the hydrogen cars which
> essentially solve no problems at all (even if they
> could be made).

Agreed. They are a Bush Administration fraud
designed only to appear like they are addressing the
commuter fuel crisis without having the smallest
impact on fossil fuel provider profits.

> Why did the US relax the mpg requirements on
> cars... and exempt SUVs?

That's not what happened. The US set mpg
requirements for passenger vehicles, and set a range
of weights which were intended to differentiate
individual consumer passenger vehicles from, say,
panel trucks. The SUV manufactures just made their
vehicles weigh more than what had been thought to be
the upper weight limit for an individual consumer's
passenger vehicle, exempting _themselves_ from the
mpg requirements.

> Why did they kill the electric cars in CA?

Change from a left leaning to a right leaning state
government?

> Why do we have 6,000lb vehicles that spend most of
> their time hauling a <200lb load?

The vehicles auto manufacturers developed to meet
mpg requirements were death-traps and seated two
fewer passengers. Consumers stayed away in droves,
and SUVs were put forth to satisfy what consumers
wanted, not what government told them they should
want.

Today, the reality has shifted markedly, to the
point that high fuel costs have made SUVs a drug on
the market at car rental companies, who are now
renting SUVs at low fire-sale rental rates and
fuel-efficient subcompacts at premium prices.

That's a pretty big hint that the driving public is
desperately seeking a cheaper ride.

> If I was king,

You don't have to be king, just provide a solution
to consumers that remove the current bicycle
problems: gearshifts, struggling up hills, puffing
away from stoplights, and the consumers will be fast
enough to vote the human powered vehicles a bigger
slice of the pavement.

> I'd make at least half the roads in the business
> district of cities open only to bikes and light
> electric vehicles and pedestrians.

Ummm nope. Don't mix them, the width of electric
vehicles make them incompatible with human-powered
vehicles in the same lanes.

> Paths for these could also be built through green
> spaces.

I cannot see the need to further degrade the
environment; there's plenty of existing pavement for
bikes to impound.

> Most long distance trips would be accomplished via
> rail or bus... and on some you could even bring
> your "car" along.

The passenger rail system in the SF West Bay area
already mandates at least one railroad car per train
for bicyclists, and often have two, where racks for
about 20 bikes and seats for about 20 passengers
take up the car floor.

> In residential and rural areas either a wide
> shoulder would be provided (and low speed limits
> for large vehicles) or a separate lane.

Anywhere there are at least four lanes, two of them
should become restricted to human-powered vehicles.

> The purchase and use of large personal vehicles
> would be heavily taxed.

Unnecessary and wrong headed. You're back to making
government, which has consistently screwed up this
stuff, be the driving force, where economics will
more than suffice, and eliminate unnatural
solutions through natural forces. The 1% of the
population who are rich enough to ignore today's
fuel prices won't take up much of the pavement.

FWIW

xanthian.

"The more I'm around some people, the more I like my
dog." Sonny Burgess

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

[email protected] (David Polewka) wrote:

> Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the
> economy sustainable. A good way to use less fuel
> would be to have suburbanites move back in to the
> cities, so they wouldn't have to drive so much.

How about you learn how to resist the urge to
introduce photocopies of your fascist state
solutions to problems that can solve themselves very
nicely without your help, into every discussion
where they can be somehow wedged into the
conversation, however inappropriate?

That you just cut and paste this shovelware into
Usenet, time after time, ignoring the universal
feedback that what your propose is unworkable
idiocy, isn't earning you an audience of
fellow-believers, in case you weren't aware of how
human nature works, which you aren't, you being a
brain-burned former drunk lacking empathy or morals.

FYI

xanthian.

 

[Ron Ruff]

Lots of stuff here Kent. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but a
few points should be mentioned:

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Umm, you did catch the part about hybrid
> muscle/electric, right? That is exactly the same
> problem the hybrid fuel/electric vehicle _already_
> solves. The hybrid vehicle "motor" is good at steady
> state output, but needs help at accelerating from a
> stop, and at going up hills. It also recovers energy
> going down hills and braking to a stop.

The electric motors on these are secondary... the gas motor is powerful
enough to supply the juice necessary for every situation... like
climbing a long grade. A pedal powered vehicle with an electric motor
would still rely on *human* power for long grades... unless you made it
as heavy as pure electric vehicle.

> However, they have too limited a range, even
> compared to human powered vehicles, so most
> extended trips would still be done with current
> technology at current fuel consumption rates.

Not at all. A 30mile range is more than the great majority of people
would consider commuting by bike. It is also longer than most people
commute in their cars.

> I expect that it being cheaper is going to continue
> to be by far the main driving force, wrt commuting.

Last I heard our present gas prices are not high enough to
significantly curtail gas consumption. There is also no mad rush to
trade in the SUV for a Honda Jazz. We are a *long* way from the cost of
gas pushing people to ride bikes.

> Umm, far as I can tell, they're actually _simpler_
> than pure internal combustion solutions. You ditch
> the transmission, you don't have to design an engine
> with a wide range of efficient operating speeds or
> torgue output, you lose the gearbox, and so on.

How do you manage to lose the transmission and gearbox? You still have
all the parts that a gas vehicle has, plus the complete electric
subsystem. They are inherently more complex and expensive (and
heavier), and their increased cost does not compensate for their fuel
savings even at todays prices. By contrast, the power train of a small
electric is just an overgrown alternator, a battery, and contoller...
very simple.

> They may have more _parts_, but batteries and
> electric motors/generators are well known
> technologies, compared to the intense complexity of
> ever higher performance internal combustion engines

Yup

> The SUV manufactures just made their
> vehicles weigh more than what had been thought to be
> the upper weight limit for an individual consumer's
> passenger vehicle, exempting _themselves_ from the
> mpg requirements.

That is what I meant. It would have been an easy matter to disallow
this "loophole".

> The vehicles auto manufacturers developed to meet
> mpg requirements were death-traps and seated two
> fewer passengers. Consumers stayed away in droves,
> and SUVs were put forth to satisfy what consumers
> wanted, not what government told them they should
> want.

Death traps? Small cars are safer than the SUVs... unless of course,
you collide with an SUV.

And why do people want what they want? Bigger is better. Most people
can easily afford the gas... even now. Total costs of owning one of
these is at least $.60 per mile, so at 15mpg and $3/gal the gas is less
than 1/3rd of the expense.

> Today, the reality has shifted markedly, to the
> point that high fuel costs have made SUVs a drug on
> the market at car rental companies, who are now
> renting SUVs at low fire-sale rental rates and
> fuel-efficient subcompacts at premium prices.

When they stop selling the new ones, I'll be impressed.

> Ummm nope. Don't mix them, the width of electric
> vehicles make them incompatible with human-powered
> vehicles in the same lanes.

Eh? They are no wider than a velocar (30in or so) since they are about
the same thing with electric power instead of pedals... and I think a
fine mix. They are relatively slow, quiet, and light... much better
than having to share the road with trucks going 50+ mph.

> > The purchase and use of large personal vehicles
> > would be heavily taxed.
>
> Unnecessary and wrong headed. You're back to making
> government, which has consistently screwed up this
> stuff, be the driving force, where economics will
> more than suffice, and eliminate unnatural
> solutions through natural forces.

The *correct* use of government is to enact laws that support the
"common good". We already are taxing and manipulating nearly
everything... but often for the greed of the few rather than the good
of the many. I think the way they used to require ever higher mpg
requirements on the manufacturers was a good solution. That way the
more fuel efficient vehicles were effectively subsidized, and the less
efficient were "taxed", and it gave them an incentive to make fuel
efficiency a priority in design.

> The 1% of the
> population who are rich enough to ignore today's
> fuel prices won't take up much of the pavement.

Probably around 90% of the US population is ignoring the present cost
of fuel. I live in Hawaii where fuel is the most expensive... and I
haven't noticed any drop in the number of trucks and SUVs being sold or
driven.

 

[Brian Huntley]

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Even with bike paths, weather is a limiting factor. When there is glare
> ice on the ground or even slush bikes are very difficult and dangerous
> to use. Turns will have to be taken dead slow as leaning is dangerous.


Naw, it ain't so bad. The worst things about slush are: it sticks to
the chainstays and traps salt, etc to forment corrosion; it's slow to
pedal through; and it lets debris stand upright, causing more flats
(and a cold slushy aluminum rim is not a pleasant thing to lever a tire
off of.)

Glare ice on the ground itself is rarely an issue. It's a total loss if
the city allows contractors to cover large holes with steel plates, or
if poor drainage causes *thick* ice that extends for more than a metre
or two.

Non-glare ice is worse - especially the lumpy ice that forms under
parked cars, on the south side of E-W streets that ban parking during
rush hours. Car drivers expect you to ride in the apparently empty lane
on your morning commute, but it's basically impassible. In those
conditions, I wear lights and bright colours, and hug the left side of
the right lane, and make sure my brakes are warmed up.

But those last two items aren't weather, they're maintenance issues.
Last winter, I found if I took a route that went cross town one major
block north, I could eliminate the steel plates and lump ice. The
alternate street was wide and had large set-backs and they didn't allow
parking, so that there was room to manoever around the utility cuts,
and the lump ice didn't build up due to a lack of parked cars and a
healthy dose of afternoon sunlight.

I've stated it here before, but icy weather affects commuter trains
more than it affects commuter bicycles. I've been the only one to make
it in to work on time many times over the past 10 winters.

 

[[email protected] (David Polewka)]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> [email protected] (David Polewka) wrote:
>
> > Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the
> > economy sustainable. A good way to use less fuel
> > would be to have suburbanites move back in to the
> > cities, so they wouldn't have to drive so much.
>
> How about you learn how to resist the urge to
> introduce photocopies of your fascist state
> solutions to problems that can solve themselves very
> nicely without your help, into every discussion
> where they can be somehow wedged into the
> conversation, however inappropriate?

How about underwater cities? Then we can commute
by submarine, and given your experience, you can be
a Mr. Big Shot _for real_, instead of just in your own
little mind!
..
..
--

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

Ron Ruff wrote:

> The electric motors on these are secondary... the
> gas motor is powerful enough to supply the juice
> necessary for every situation... like climbing a
> long grade.

> How do you manage to lose the transmission and
> gearbox? You still have all the parts that a gas
> vehicle has, plus the complete electric subsystem.

Probably it's not worth continuing this conversation
until you correct your misapprenhensions about
existing hybrid auto technology. Both of these
statements indicate really bad misunderstandings of
how modern hybrid autos work.

Yes, the gas motor _can_, theoretically, take you up
a steep grade alone. No, the experience will not be
an acceptable driving experience, as it will be done
at a slow walking pace. That's if it works at all;
there's no way to gear the motor down independently
of the hybrid electric system, where the throttle
control has its effect.

No, modern hybrid electric cars do not have
gearboxes, and do not have transmissions. The motor
isn't connected to the wheels by any mechanical
means at all except the frame; it connects to an
(integral, I think) generator which connects to the
rest of the electrical system.

xanthian.

 

[[email protected] (David Polewka)]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> I did push and pedal a bicycle for 400 miles towing
> 450# of luggage through the desert a year ago, so
> I'm probably in adequate physical condition to
> attempt such a feat. Moreover, and back to the
> original proposal's goals, I think that the ever
> increasing feeling of well-being that the many obese
> Americans would have when they began using their
> bodies in ways that reduced their obesity
> (I lost 37# on my journey)

How much of that 37# did you gain back since, Pigpen??


> would make up for the minor annoyance of the need
> for a shower at the end of the commute each way.
..
..
--

 

[Ron Ruff]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Probably it's not worth continuing this conversation
> until you correct your misapprenhensions about
> existing hybrid auto technology.

I think you need to do a little homework. Existing hybrids use parallel
ICE/electric systems... meaning that power can be supplied directly
from the engine and electric motor either separately or together. This
is accomplished with a CVT (continuously variable transmission).

Here is a tech page on the Prius... by far the most successful hybrid.
I don't see anything about it that is simpler than an ordinary car...
all the electric power features are additional.

http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info

You are thinking of a *series* hybrid (yes?) where the engine+generator
only charges the batteries and/or supplies electric power to a motor
which drives the wheels. This design was considered many years ago and
found to be lacking in efficiency and utility. I don't know of any
current working examples... certainly none of the production vehicles
are made this way.

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

[email protected] (David Polewka) wrote:

> How much of that 37# did you gain back since, Pigpen??

Oh, fat cells are easy to get back; I'm about 10# under where
I started.

So, tell me, how many of those brain cells you poisoned with
long time alcohol abuse have you grown back, O dancing
blue-butted baboon sociopathic megalomaniac?

HTH

xanthian.

Gods do you leave yourself open for zings by your sheer stupidity.
Your planning skills don't exceed those of your typical toddler, a
major reason your society planning is received only by guffaws
and gibes.

 

[[email protected] (David Polewka)]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> [email protected] (David Polewka) wrote:
>
> > How much of that 37# did you gain back since, Pigpen??
>
> Oh, fat cells are easy to get back; I'm about 10# under where
> I started.
>
> So, tell me, how many of those brain cells you poisoned with
> long time alcohol abuse have you grown back, O dancing
> blue-butted baboon sociopathic megalomaniac?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3606205&p1=0

[...]
The new paradigm reflects a growing awareness of how chronic
distress affects the brain. Our stress-hormone system, which
kicks us into action in an emergency, may remain switched on
in susceptible people, especially those who were very stressed
during childhood. Overexposure to stress hormones slows the
growth of nerve fibers in a region of the brain called the hippo-
campus. This brain center allows us to soak up sensory input,
link experience to emotion and store all of it as coherent
memories. The hippocampus is typically small in depressed
people, with some brain cells lost and some shrunken. Experts
suspect it is one of the structures central to the condition.

The idea that depression is linked to stalled nerve-cell growth
or faulty connections may explain an old mystery. If antide-
pressant medications boost neurotransmitter concentrations
immediately (which they do), why does it often take six weeks
or longer to feel better? Recent experiments in mice tell us that
antidepressants stimulate the growth of new hippocampal
nerve cells, which form new connections with older nerve cells.
This process takes several weeks. If drugs like Prozac ease
depression by inadvertently boosting neurogenesis, the think-
ing goes, drugs designed specifically for that purpose might
bring surer relief while causing fewer side effects.
[...]
..
..
--

 

[Kent Paul Dolan]

[email protected] (David Polewka) wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

>> So, tell me, how many of those brain cells you poisoned with
>> long time alcohol abuse have you grown back, O dancing
>> blue-butted baboon sociopathic megalomaniac?

[pointless shovelware quote having nothing to do with brain
damage and nerve cell death due to acute chronic alcoholism
poisoning, or recovery therefrom, snipped]

So I guess your answer is "zero", but you have too few intact
brain cells left to express that answer in your own words?

I am not at all surprised by that implication, and you answering
with shovelware quotes you cannot read with understanding
seems to have become a "law of the universe" ranking with
the laws of gravity and the electromagnetic forces.

Heh.

xanthian.