More on GM's New Fuel Cell Cars 497
Whispers_in_the_dark writes "Scientific American has an article about GM's approach to fuel cell based vehicles of the future. It appears that GM wants to build a common fuel cell based drive-by-wire chassis that it will mount the body panels, control systems, and passenger compartments. This would provide a great deal of flexibility and upgradability to the cars of the future. GM has even more details."
Spacious passenger compartment (Score:5, Funny)
um... what????
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
It does seem ambitious to say that you could run a farm on it though. It would take 18-wheeler sized horsepower to do it.
Size of power plant vs. output? (Score:2)
It does seem odd that GM would over-engineer the power plant by a large margin to run a farm, but on the other hand maybe the farm is using Energy Star sheep shears and milking machines.
Re:Size of power plant vs. output? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be so sure. "An electric car can have anywhere from 96V to over 300V of batteries. During cruising, the car will draw up to 200 amps, and up to 400-500 amps for acceleration." [electroauto.com] Note that in the US power to the home is about 115 VAC and 100-200 Amps. It takes a tremendous amount of power to accellerate and decelerate a car. Granted, a lot of power can be recaptured regeneratively, but cruising and starting power has to come from somewhere. That's an average car. If you design a chassis for small bus/tractor/hay wagon use, you could easily power 8 first-world homes off of it. You could probably power most of a small third-world town with it.
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:3, Informative)
All this assumes that a fuel, Hydrogen or otherwise, is available and , very importantly, inexpensive enough.
But still, it would be cool to have my car keep my house powered during a blackout.
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
They're starting with the Ford Titanic next year, followed by the Ford Continent the year after, incorporating all the know-how gained from the Ford Expedition, Excursion and Volvo Heavy Truck division.
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
During an economic depression, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to live in a nice SUV. Not to mention a lot easier to relocate to a new city when a job opportunity opens up.
"Hm. You want me to relocate to Coral Cables by next Monday? I'm in Chicago. Let's see, let me pay up the docking fee, then I'll get going by noon. I'm sure I'll be happy working for you, Mr. Highlyoverpaid Slaveowner".
Re:Spacious passenger compartment (Score:2)
GM Seeks 24 Patents for AUTOnomy Concept Vehicle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GM Seeks 24 Patents for AUTOnomy Concept Vehicl (Score:2)
Re:GM Seeks 24 Patents for AUTOnomy Concept Vehicl (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, The US government gave the US auto industry billions of dollars for the advancement of battery technology and they came up with nothing. All the while they told CARB that people wouldn't pay for an electric car and that you'd need to pay them $17,000 and give them the car. They hired experts to present this "case" to CARB. Just like the US auto industry turned away the Rosen Motors hybrid design, they will keep turning away anything which cost THEM money. They all jumped on the HYBRID bandwagon when it was shown how well Toyota was doing with the Prius but as soon as there was a way out( fuel cells ) they dropped the hybrid projects and started holding up the fuel cell banner. Only hybrids are here TODAY and fuel cells are just a "hopeful" technology.
And the result is no current change in fuel consumption for the foreseeable future. And if you thought Microsoft was bad, I'll bet the US auto industry is full of corruption at any cost.
IMHO
LoB
Re:GM Seeks 24 Patents for AUTOnomy Concept Vehicl (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason, industrially, why lithium or nickel-metal batteries should cost what they do, save that the owners of the IP want them to cost that much. And as another poster in this thread said, these new battery techs are bough up by petrocorporations as soon as they show any promise.
The "free" market, isn't. The taxpayers ponied up hundreds of millions of dollars to car companies to develop non-IC powerplants. The car companies develpoed the Insight, an great vehicle, and several hybrid vehicles, which work great too. The battery tech has stagnated, tho, for no apparent reason. GM nuked the only working electric car, to the horror of its engineers.
Point is, they didn't make an alternative to their IC cars because, well, it's suicide for them! Electric cars don't have a tenth of the parts a present-day car has. They don't break down. Theat means the entire service bay portion of the automakers' bottom line is almost GONE. It means the cars don't fall apart as fast, since the stress on the engine is nil, so that means that they can't nearly as many new cars.
Endgame: they don't want their money machine to die. They won't give us electric cars, even if we give them free tax money to develop the tech. The "free market", as Adam Smith forsaw, is it's own worst enemy. The triopolists simply have agreed amongst themselves never to make the things, and they won't. It's not in their interests.
If we want an electric car that works, let the feds give cash to non-industry affiliated universities, with the stipulation that the IP generated becomes open-source to those that paid for it, the taxpayers. Then people can hack together their own powerplants.
Not exactly news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly news - Chrysler K-Car (Score:2)
It's all a ploy to do nothing now and to spend federal grant money so it looks like something is happening.
The money and oil keep flowing as usual. And the public is buying it.
LoB
Re:Not exactly news - Chrysler K-Car (Score:2)
And what do you do when everyone hass the wonderful 15-year fuel-cell car? You build something better while the competition is still reeling from your advances.
Don't laugh (Score:2)
Re:Not exactly news (Score:3, Interesting)
True, they only seem that way, and they only seem that way because you're looking at it from the standpoint of a conventional auto.
my truck can tow/carry 1500 pounds of weight in the back and has 30+ inches of ground clearance. While on the other hand my car can't hold more than a couple hundred pounds of cargo and only has 6 inches of ground clearance
The primary differences you're noting here is the suspension and engine, which is a holdover to the way the autos are designed.
In the design GM is working on, there is no engine - each wheel holds a self-contained motor. This removes all of the problems with a conventional drive train.
Think about it: no engine - no drivetrain... imagine if your car didn't have an engine, but still had all of it's power - that would go a long way to giving it the ability to handle that 1300 pounds of cargo your truck carries.
Ground clearance is just as simple: without the drivetrain, adding/removing ground clearance becomes a simple matter of (for example) a hydraulic lift.
This is more than just a gee-whiz gimmick - once you unshackle yourself from the limitations imposed by conventional autos, you see how revolutionary this really is.
I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
...case mods for cars. *sigh*
Been there, done that. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I can see it now... (Score:2)
Re:I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
This must be some alternate definition of "sexy" of which I was not previously aware. The Fiero mods I remember looked like rejected ideas for Hot Wheels toys.
Re:I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking of car mods, have you seen some of the junk hanging off cars these days that is supposed to be "sexy"? Good lord!
Re:I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean Nostradamus. Quasimodo did come up with the rear spoiler, though.
Wired article on "GM's billion-dollar bet" is (Score:5, Interesting)
GM is the only US automaker developing its own fuel cell in-house: at the company's Warren, Michigan, research facility; at a 300-engineer skunk works near Rochester, New York, that recently expanded by 80,000 square feet; and at a third center in Mainz-Kastel, Germany.
...
Nice, but four wheels?? (Score:3, Funny)
Why? We have seen one wheel cars [cbarks.dk] before :)
Re:Nice, but four wheels?? (Score:2)
Tired of Waiting (Score:2, Insightful)
File with flying cars (Score:2)
There isn't even a prototype for crying out loud! It's LESS relevant than the concept cars you see at auto shows.
Will not happen.
Re:File with flying cars (Score:2)
Gotta love classic lies of the white man.
Re:File with flying cars (Score:2)
You mean this [cardesignnews.com] prototype? The one that was mentioned in the article I'm sure you read before posting?
Re:File with flying cars (Score:2)
Damn.
Damn.
Damn.
I won't do THAT again.
Ah hell, it doesn't count unless it's at a Detroit auto show anyway. Besides, a working demo isn't the same as a prototype.
You're being naive (Score:3, Insightful)
It would cost a lot of money and piss off the oil cartels if we replaced gas with fuel cell cars.
The big 3 don't like to innovate. Innovation is expensive. Even the energy crisis of the 1970's didn't make them change until the Japanese started selling fuel efficient cars. They'd have to spend many billions of dollars developing new cars if a switch to fuel cells really happened. Auto mechanics would have to retrain, the tow truck drivers would need to add gear to tow the new cars, full cell stations would have to be set up nationwide. Factories would have to be retooled to manufacture the new cars. They'd have to bid out a whole slew of contracts to manufacture the outsourced components.
The only real changes that have taken place in fuel efficiency has been forced by legal mandate.
If they throw a sum of money at alternative fuel R&D, they have a very strong footing to push back new regulations. "We're already developing these new cars. It will be $current_year + 20 before they're feasible!" becomes a valid, supportable excuse.
They're spending 1 billion, not to develop new cars, but to avoid spending even more on developing a real line of fuel cell cars. They want to keep selling us the same old same old year after year, which is far less expensive than developing something new.
Re:You're being naive (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, the oil industry wants to make sure they have time to adjust and control the next fuel system that comes available. George Dubya is VERY willing to make sure that happens. His inheritance is at stake. IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, fuel cell research is a good idea but not at the expense of promoting currently available systems. Hybrids already have 80% or so of the technology needed for fuelcell cars. Batteries, energy recapturing, drive-by-wire systems, power management electronics, electric motors, etc, etc. Just not a fuelcell to provide the majority of the power. Hybrids had a very efficient ICE to do that....
Like doublem implied, the fuelcell hype looks pretty fishy to say the least.
LoB
Re:You're being naive (Score:3, Insightful)
They do that every few years already. Designing new cars is nothing new. Particularly in the US the model year seems to matter to people, so every few years they actually try to make a car that appears new so more people will buy it.
They have to retrain for all the new electronic controlled engines anyways.
Tow truck gear is pretty universal. As long as the car designer keeps the wheels an appropriate distance from the front bumper, the basic wheel straps currently in use will work fine. In a new chassis design, it would also be pretty easy to include hardware compatible with major current tow hooks. As for fuel cell stations, that really depends on the fuel cell type used. Some fuel cells can take gasoline after its passed through a reformer, thus you could include a reformer between the fuel tank and the fuel cell and require no new infrastructure.
Factories would need to be retooled anyways, though I'll agree this is a much more major retooling. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if entire new factories were built expressly for the purpose of constructing these chassis.
Paris Auto Show (Score:2, Insightful)
Weeds. (Score:2)
Biomass.
Alias: Weeds, manure, inedible parts of animal carcases...
Leave it to rot and you get lots of methane. Burn that straight, or reform it into hydrogen (using the energy from burning the carbon) for fuel cells. Use the leftover solids for fertilizer.
(Most of the energy is in burning the hydrogen anyhow, and a fuel cell isn't limited to carnot cycle heat-engine efficiency. So you may even be ahead to throw away some of the energy from the carbon to get the hydrogen into a form suitable for fuel cells.)
Now maybe in the "third world" it makes more sense to use an inefficient animal that makes more animals without the aid of a factory. But China has serious industry now. It's a nuclear/space/manufacturing power, no longer a collection of farms with minimal roads.
China was a major civilization for most of history and is now breaking the ideology-bind that had it melting down its infrastructure and returning to world-class status (in more than brute-force army size) as measured by western standards.
Hydrogen from GM (Score:2)
Just talk now (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea in a nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, the idea is for a fuel cell car that can be easily produced and not put UAW workers out of a job. You have one plant making the core part of the car (the bottom part with wheels and all points in-between to make the car move). Other plants build the top part of the car (one makes SUVs another makes luxuary lines...). and plug the top part into the same base.
Now this 'plug-in' idea is not meant for the consumer to detach different car bodies at home, but it makes production cheaper since you're building the same engine.
I for one am glad that there seems to be one new idea coming out of Warren, MI.
Is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)
GM wants to build a common fuel cell based drive-by-wire chassis that it will mount the body panels, control systems, and passenger compartments
There's a reason that different cars have different chasses. I'd like to see the ride a Caddie body on a standard size frame gets. In addition, the fuel efficiency of a small car (and how small could you make it) on a standard chassis would suck, too. This would lead to a bunch of cookie-cutter cars, most of which have lousy handling, don't perform well, and are ugly to boot.
Oh yeah... I forgot. This is GM we're talking about. Never mind.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
And this is different from today... how?
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Informative)
What I want to know, is how are the chop-shops gonna streeeeetch these things for limos?
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
They'll just use two skaetboards. :-)
Imagine now someone abandoning their car on the side of the road. Minutes later, there's only a skateboard left...
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
Gas. The TDI is a dog doesn't have anywhere near the pep - you're talking 180 hp for the gas versus 90 hp for the diesel. We drove it, and it was night and day slower, while the gas turbo screams up to 6500rpm. Plus it comes with a Tiptronic transmission, which is worth every penny for the geek factor alone.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
You should check out the new Infiniti G35 [infiniti.com] - they're the first cars I know of that really paid attention to the underbody. Very well-done and smooth.
So what happens... (Score:2, Funny)
Compensation (Score:3, Funny)
I find it hard to believe that fuel cells used in cars would be so fragile that they would "crack" from the jarring involved in going over a speed bump. These things contain hydrogen after all, which is MUCH more explosive than gasoline. But by all means go ahead and drive your Bonneville into a hydrogen explosion. Somehow I doubt your big car will menace these new cars any more than it already menaces the environment and everyone else on the road.
later,
Jess
Private vehicles are still the wrong paradigm (Score:2, Interesting)
Motorcycles really aren't a solution, as they suck in bad weather and too many riders are just potential organ donors. Plus, the newest super bikes have worse gas mileage than an entry level Honda.
We need to swallow our American pride and look after our European betters. We need to change zoning laws to prevent suburban sprawl, while implementing light rail and mini-bus transportation to give everyone about the same commute time as now, but with a less polluting mass transit system. In fact, intelligently applied, commuting times might be less, as traffic density would be a lot less. The next time you're stuck in a traffic jam, think how much more productive you could be in a mini-bus with wi-fi, giving you full internet access on your Linux webpad, instead of stuck behing the wheel.
As a side benefit, we would greatly decrease our reliance on imported oil, and could tell all those towelhead in the mideast to suck sand. Japan's economy would certainly suffer, but they didn't have any qualms about destroying our electronic and automobile industry.
Now, there will be the predictable outcry from the exurbs and rural sorts, but I think private vehicles owned by rural collectives, much like the famed kibbutz of Israel or the efficient collective farms of the Soviet Union would fill the bill neatly.
Re:Private vehicles are still the wrong paradigm (Score:2)
And, although I assume your last comment was a troll, you are free to go live on an "efficient collective farm" in the former SU... If you can find one. There are also people successfully running car collectives here in the US: http://www.zipcar.com.
I apparently know more than you do (Score:2)
Fuel cells take H2 and O2, combine them through a catalyst, and generate electricity and water (actually, 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + electricity). Basic high school chemistry, check it out.
Electrolysis takes water, runs electricity through it, and generates H2 and O2. More basic chemistry.
So, the incremental cost for a fuel cell car to be able to take household 120V and reconvert the water from the fuel cell back to H2 and O2 is pretty small, and it elimates the problem of where to get H2.
Re:Private vehicles are still the wrong paradigm (Score:2)
Re:Private vehicles are still the wrong paradigm (Score:2)
Very good, m'lord.
I am implying that Hondas get better gas mileage (Score:3, Insightful)
i dunno what bikes you are riding. (Score:3, Insightful)
its a honda as well.
heck my passat gets 36-38mpg on the highway. the big 3 should just adopt supercharger/turbo technology on more of its cars if people want displacement, the turbo isnt spooling up while the car is on the highway anyways.
most new bikes still get 30+mpg.
most oil in the US is not used in cars, its used for consumer/industrial goods and power generation.
www.commutercar.com is an interesting idea. its an electric car that is a good autocorsser and does 0-60 under 5 seconds. its range is only 80 miles and can have a quick charge in 10 minutes.
too bad its super expsensive.
Nice illusion, it's never going to happen! (Score:5, Interesting)
This holds especially true of automobiles. The main investment with new automobile development is in the platform or chassis. While the body and interior are the most visible things and what define the car to the customer, they're really just eye candy and quite interchangeable. What differentiates the automobile and its driving and performance characteristics is its chassis: the rigidity of the frame, the suspension, and the engine and transmission. Car manufacturers guard their chassis as closely as aircraft manufacturers their wings.
I just finished reading a book on the take-over of Chrysler by Daimler, and one of the driving forces of the deal was the promise of platform synergies, saving a lot of money between the two companies by sharing platforms. But when it actually came down to doing it, the Mercedes folks were going to share car platforms between say an E-class and a Dodge Stratus only over their dead bodies. To them what makes a Mercedes a Mercedes is the platform--the rest are mostly components from third-party parts bins which anyone else could buy. If a customer could get the same chassis in a Stratus, why on earth would they fork out for an E-class? Incidentally, speaking of DaimlerChrysler, they're way ahead of GM in the fuel cell game, regardless of what the article might imply. In fact, the article seems to be an expanded advertising section by GM.
This all is not to mean that I don't think that GM's shared platform idea is a great idea, I just don't think that it will actually happen for competitive reasons.
Something Similar Happens Today (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean by competitive reasons. GM already owns several brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc.) and they commonly share chasis and bodies between these brands. The main differences are often just the extras (styling, interiors, etc.).
So why wouldn't they share chasis between models? Seems like a natural extension of what they are already doing.
Re:Something Similar Happens Today (Score:2)
> and they commonly share chasis and bodies between these brands.
Yes, and that's why all those meaningless brands are disappearing fast. They're there just for historic and nostalgic reasons, but have no production rationale. People are catching on to this fast and simply choosing the cheapest version of a given platform. Chrysler faced this fact by shutting down Plymouth, and no doubt they will eventually terminate other brands as well.
What I'm really talking about is that the GM article hinted that in the future chassis production might be independent of body production, reverting back to the old days of the coach works. So GM could conceivably build the chassis, which VW would then buy and put their own bodies on. Of course, it would never actually happen in that combination, it's just an example. They basically think that chassis and body production will be commoditized to the point where you could mix and match from various manufacturers.
Boondoggle (Score:2, Interesting)
Fuel cells are a boondoggle! All they are is a new way to burn old fuels. Yes, they run on Hydrogen. Where does the hydrogen come from? There are two answers:
So what is wrong with this?
Well, in the first case, you produce a lot of carbon dioxide, and worse, carbon monoxide, in the extraction process. At least the extraction process is energy self-sufficient, i.e. it gets all the energy it needs from the fuel being extracted.
Extracting hydrogen from water, on the other hand, you get out the same amount of energy that you put in, minus losses. As such, it is not a way to produce energy, only to store it. So where does the electricity come from with which to do this?
Fuel cells are an interesting technology, but they do not come anywhere near offering a solution to any energy production problem that we are likely to face.
Re:Boondoggle (Score:5, Interesting)
"It'll never fly, Orville" is a common reaction. Don't be fooled by the difficulty or the poor initial economy. All things being equal, this may be a non-starter, but a look at history shows that nothing stays equal. Ever.
Re:Boondoggle (Score:3, Insightful)
PV isn't "the solution," however. The real problems with PV are that the sun doesn't shine on them all the time, and thus batteries (or some other energy storage) are required. Electrochemical batteries are both an efficiency and environmental problem. So, PV cannot supply 100% of our energy. So why does something have to supply 100% to be useful? NOTHING provides 100% of our electicity. Not coal, not uranium, not natural gas, not fuel oil, not wind, not sun.
I maintain a FAQ on solar PV. One of the reasons I wrote the FAQ is that while there are dedicated folks who do get 100% of their power from the sun, I always felt it would do more good for 50% of the pupulation to get 10% of their electricty from the sun than it does for 0.0003% of the population to get 100% of their power from the sun.
As for wind turbines killing birds, this is a problem of early turbine designs. Newer turbines have larger blades that turn much more slowly. They don't kill birds in large numbers.
The point is not that we must find the "one true answer." We need to improve efficiency by moving up the "energy food chain."
You could do as much good as my 50% getting 10% scenario just by getting rid of every refrigerator that is more than 15 years old and replacing it with a new one. Replace incadescent bulbs with CF ones. Use less. Shut off what you are not using. Get rid of "phantom loads" (I think it is ridiculous that virtually every piece of consumer electronics uses power when it is OFF!).
The sun provides 1kW per square meter at the earth's surface. At 20% capture (common for PV) that's 200W per square meter. How many square meters of south facing roof are there? Don't try to tell me that isn't a significant source of energy.
I never tried to say that PV would provide all of our energy -- just that a significant portion can be produced that way.
So why isn't PV everywhere already? Inertia. Subsidies (the grid is everywhere because our tax dollars PUT it everywhere: See the Rural Electrifcation Act). High energy cost for monocrystalline silicon. Low production (economies of scale). Environmental puritanism (nobody seems to be commoditizing PV systems to make them "plug and play" for the average homeowner -- they are highly customized and manually installed, making them less appealing to consumers). Regulation (See article 690 of the NEC). Utility resistance (many local utilties are either ignorant of these systems, or have legitimate engineering and safety concerns that make them resist even well designed and safe systems).
It does not make sense to build massive centralized PV farms. Only utilities want this because they want to maintain a monopoly on energy production. Sunlight is not a centralized resource, and transmission line efficiency is NOT good. It make much more sense to produce the power as close as possible to where it is used, so there need not be "PV farms."
As for orbital PV, well, you may then have the sun shining all the time and you don't lose any power to the atmosphere, but whether you use wires or microwaves or any other possible transmission method, you will lose so much getting it down to the earth that (and I haven't seen numbers, mind) I cannot imagine it would be worth the cost to orbit them. PV will be (and is) heavily used in space, but to provide power for spacecraft, not the earth. (CIS cells were invented for space applications -- high efficiency solar cells are, to a great extent, a product of the space program).
Re:Boondoggle (Score:2)
Where does the hydrogen come from? There are two answers:
You know, it's too bad we can't find some way to harness the energy of the atom to create electricity. I understand the sun does this on the large scale, and nuclear weapons do on a very very fast scale, but aside from the French no one really tries to make much electricity with it. And we all know that one should never follow Frances lead in technology matters (Maginot and Minitel come to mind...)
Re:Boondoggle (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously using coal (which we have in abundance) or using Nukes is probably not what most environmentalists have in mind when they sing the praises of Fuel Cells. Realistically though that is (at least partly) what such a move would mean. Still I think the environmental impact would be a net postive one. Probably significantly so.
The international political impact would also be postive - at least from the point-of-view of the USA. The middle east and all it's problems would shrink in significance. OPEC raises the price of oil? Who cares, other sources of energy pick up the slack. Regional wars in the Middle East? We are free to stay out of it with no ill effects to us no matter the outcome. We can let them sort it out themselves, mediate a dispute or support one side or another without the overriding concern of oil and "our national interest". True in some sense the Middle East would suffer. Their one meal ticket gone they will suffer from poverty & neglect as Africa currently does. But their miseries will be largely self-inflicted (as in Africa) not the result of our machiavelian intrigues in the service of cheap oil.
Why we won't see it in the near future (Score:2)
But it'll be a long time before these take over internal combustion engines, and it's not because we can't make the technology work or get the public to buy them.
Put simply, oil. Billions of dollars in investments, oil tankers, refineries, oil rigs
It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists (we all would win), and the peace loving people of the Western world who would love to see the Middle East region reduced to nothing but a third world desert (if nobody buys oil, how could they afford those fancy weapons). Neither of the two have any foothold in the policy makers domain.
There has to be some careful decisions made if these are going to be rolled out. Lets hope for the best.
In the meantime, be a patriot; Walk.
Re:Why we won't see it in the near future (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno about this, the huge industries behind horses and steam engines could do little to prevent internal combustion.
I hear this conspiracy theory alot, but in the real world, how could they prevent a better technology? Do you actually see a law being written that forces you into a gas combustion engine?
> In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists
Hmm. Last I checked there was a huge "environmental" lobby spouting FUD and gloom and doom at every corner. Look at the energy crisis in California. We (America) has arguably more oil than the Arab world. We can't tap it because of the environmental lobby.
Same goes for the 'peace loving people'. You have a very lopsided view of government.
The world depends on oil, commuter vehicles are just a portion of that dependency. Millions of us heat our homes with it (more of it goes up my flue than out of my tailpipe), and there are plenty of other transportation technologies where hybrid fuel cells just don't apply, and wont for a long long time (planes, trains, ships, semis, buses). Electric wheels just dont turn as hard as gas-driven ones. (torque)
The dependency on oil isn't going away because of a car that runs on batteries.
This is exciting to me because it seems much more economical. It looks as though it would be less prone to breakdown, and easier to repair when one occurs.
Re:Why we won't see it in the near future (Score:3, Informative)
Simple. It's called our modern, unfair patent system. Go look at how many alternative energy related patents the oil and big-3 auto companies own.
There are plenty of other transportation technologies where hybrid fuel cells just don't apply, and wont for a long long time (planes, trains, ships, semis, buses). Electric wheels just dont turn as hard as gas-driven ones. (torque)
Buzzzz.. wrong. Electric motors have far more low-end torque than IC engines. That's why hybrids available today use electric for initial acceleration. And ever hear of the diesel-electric locomotive? (the most popular design today) Yep, electric motors. Busses? Already been done. Ships and subs? Yep, also using diesel-electric. (and done so for a very long time.. think WW2). Planes? Currently being researched. So the next step is logically to replace the diesel generators with fuel cells.
Re:Why we won't see it in the near future (Score:2)
it would be wierd to drive a silet car (Score:2)
Future cars from an independent developer (Score:3, Interesting)
These look really interesting, are affordable, and you can drive them in the HOV lanes. Not all the models are electric yet, but they seem to be working on it.
This would be the same GM... (Score:2)
Modular Cars ... (Score:2)
~LoudMusic
Perhaps this leads to more models... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if the cost of car is the sum of...
- chassis design*
- powerplant design*
- interior design
- body design
- safety testing and government approval
- marketing
- support*
... I can see the ones with stars being reduced by sharing a chassis. There will be an additional cost/unit from being constrained at the chassis/body interface. After all, the car industry optimized away frames because they could save by providing that function in the body.So, the finaly question is, does the savings in design and support justify the increased per unit cost? The answer has to be "it depends".
If GM only makes a couple of models and sells them with different trim in all their model lines like they do now, then the design savings is relatively small compared to the per unit cost.
If GM is planning to make many more models than they do now then this provides a large design savings which might more than make up for the increased per unit cost. I doubt it will work in the end. Marketing will be too expensive. It would be a nice way of letting the market decide what it wants in a car. Provide many choices and after a few years concentrate on the ones that people liked best.
-1 Flaimbate-me already (Score:2)
w00t (Score:2)
Can't wait to hear about someone overclocking their car and adding extra fans and windows in places they don't belong.
From the rejected a month ago department (Score:2)
Essentially, because fuel-cells allow a radically different organization of cars' structures, GM is betting it can make cars cheaper. This despite the fact they'd be running on the famously expensive fuel cell. Wired wrote about this"billion dollar bet" [wired.com] in its August issue and quotes a GM exec: "If we're not there by 2010, we'll have dug too deep a hole to recover the time value of that money."
In other words: call us bad businessmen if you can't drive one of these by 2010. This is some good reading for those wanting to know more about what GM's plans to do with its fuel cell "platform" that it hopes to use for virtually every vehicle it makes in the future. Of course, as Wired notes, a fairly heavy dose of skepticism is NOT optional. It's very much required.
---- SNIP ----
oh yeah, hehe
Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens [slashdot.org], don't take it personally.
Moderators: Do your worst ;-). But there are some intersting links in there, so be fair!
Drive by wire (Score:5, Insightful)
I have real questions about how well this will behave with mediocre maintenance. Engine control computers have a good track record, though, better than was expected by auto engineers in the 1980s.
I worked on an engine control reliability project in the early 1980s, so I saw some of this happen. There were lots of backup modes; not only did the computer have a stall timer and could restart in less than a rev, but the ignition module had a hardwired backup (with no spark advance) in case the CPU quit. You were limited to about 25MPH in this "limp-home mode", as it was called internally. Presumably something of equally brutal simplicity will be provided for steering and brakes.
In the end it will all work, because, unlike most software companies, auto companies have to take legal liability for their failures.
Re:time to mod (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly don't think there as much of a diffrence between auto hobiests and computer as first appears. I have noticed that a lot of the traits I have that make me good with computers are the same ones make my father good with cars.
Is it any wonder why we both like to extract every last bit of performance out of our respective platforms and try random mods?
Mods for Cars (Score:2)
Windows are a definate must.
Lights - also good.
Cooling systems are a plus.
Display Panel - I should hope.
Tool-less access doors, wireless communications, quadrophonic sound...
Hey, cars have had all this stuff for years! When did computers fall so far behind?!
Re:Mods for Cars (Score:3, Funny)
Funny you should ask that, rumour has it that when the Miss North Carolina dispute reaches the supreme court that they are going to declare George W the winner again.
On the mods for cars theme, am I the only person who finds the pick up trucks with the body jacked up a foot over the axles to look utterly ridiculous?
The whole thing you want to get good handling is to make the chasis center of gravity as low as possible and the turning moment of inertia as low as possible. So sticking the chasis up on dork stilts is only going to make the thing steer like a cow.
Re:Drive by wire steering? Not in my car pal! (Score:2)
Re:Drive by wire steering? Not in my car pal! (Score:2)
Re:Drive by wire steering? Not in my car pal! (Score:2)
The reason BMW went to all this expense is because unless there is a direct mechanical link between the wheel and the wheels, the steering feel is shit.
Many power steering systems get this completely wrong. BMW has always been a driver's car, and they aren't willing to sacrifice the "experience" for anything. This is their approach to making an active steering system - you get good road feel, but electronics can step in and assist if necessary.
I dont thinkt he BMW system should be considered "interim". Until they can accurately recreate the subtle road-feel transmitted to the steering wheel that is required for road confidence, there will be mechanical connection between driver and wheels.
Re:Drive by wire steering? Not in my car pal! (Score:3, Interesting)
Would I trust my life to a cars computer? No way.
Do you ride a bike or a '57 Chevy?
The steering may not be by wire, but pretty much every car made in the last decade uses computers to work the engine, the brakes, the airbags, and other stuff that you don't want going south at 65 MPH.
Re:Optimism (Score:2)
> inch frame, no less!) is currently total fantasy.
Actually, not at all. This is exactly how DaimlerChrysler's latest NECAR is designed. The entire drivetrain is under the floor board, and it even uses regular fossil fuels, not compressed hydrogen. What's not there yet is the commercial feasability of mass producing and selling this at competitive prices. That is, mainly the fuel cells, which are still too expensive to install profitably in a $20K vehicle.
Re:World water supply (Score:2, Funny)
Larry Burns is on record as saying "Heck, I even bathe in the stuff", shortly prior to a mystery accident which has hospitalised him. GM deny Burns' habit of smoking in the tub is to blame.
Re:World water supply (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:World water supply (Score:2)
Call me a novice, but wouldn't taking the water of the ocean raise their salinity?
Also, no chemical reaction is perfect, so we lose a little of Earth's water supply every time we expend a tank of hydrogen, do we not.
Not unless we toss it out into space. Every chemical reaction is perfect. The measurement and clean up isn't, which leaves an entrophic residue, but the water's still "here."
This seems on the face of things like a clean source of energy, but could it also be the path to even more rapid climate change?
I don't think so. AFAIK one of the chief causes of global warming is still dirty automobiles. Shifting the pollution from there to power plants would be a good one--we'd have a volume where the necessary tech to clean the exhause (really clean it, that is) is affordable.
Fuel cells, by an large, are seen as a Good Thing ecologically speaking.
Re:World water supply (Score:2)
There is no issue here.
Re:World water supply (Score:2)
Re:World water supply (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be brief: nope, you're wrong.
Yes, fresh water is low, but the fuel cells don't run on water, they run on Hydrogen, often taken from such things as natural gas. Yes, you can use electrolsys to get the h from h20, but it more expensive.
How do you propose we are going to change the salinity of the oceans? See above.
Umm... in this case, the reaction is perfect... if you don't use the hydrogen, you don't get the electron... although there will be some leakage of the tanks, I'm sure... but there's already h2 in the air, it nature does just a fine job of using it.
Re:Exhaust (Score:2)
They will. In fact, a whole industry of sound themes will sprout out of nowhere, making you wonder how you ever managed without engine sound themes before. You too can have a New Beetle with the engine sound of a Lamborghini.
Re:Exhaust (Score:2)
Re:Silly engineering (Score:2)
You can't design one chassis for multiple platforms, because the function of a compact car is not the same as the function of a truck, minivan, farm tractor, et al.
Chassis designs are shared among multiple platforms quite often in todays cars. Look at the Ford Bronco II and the Ranger - same chassis, engine, and drive subsystem. I believe that one of the larger Ford SUVs uses a standard F150 chassis, as well.
You can't have one chassis for all cars, but you can have one chassis for all cars in a given range - compact chassis, sedan chassis, boat^H^H^H^Hcaddy chassis, light truck/SUV chassis, heavy truck/SUV chassis, and performance chassis. If you use the same chassis across 2 or 3 vehicles, you've just saved a lot of R&D money. If you go one step further and make the base chassis upgradeable with different body/interiors, then you've saved even more.
Re:Make Fuel Cells Open Source (Score:2)
No, they'd spend five years coming up with two (or more) different and incompatible types of fuell cells, neither of which was really any better than the five-year-old GM product. Then they'd get into huge flame wars over which of their designs was better. Finally, they'd whine like babies when a commercial interest chose to use the best features of both designs to create something that had half a chance of competing with GM's product. Of course, by then the GM fuel cell would be far advanced from the prototypes which the open source folks originally tried to improve upon.
Re:Toyota to beat them again (Score:2)