Review Of GM's HyWire Hydrogen Concept Car 529
SanLouBlues writes "Autoweek has a detailed review of a test drive in GM's HyWire concept (second item). The gas and brakes are both on the steering wheel which may be placed on either the left or the right with little effort. Overall some very positive marks for such a radical car."
Slashdot had a concept Methane PT Cruiser once (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdot had a concept Methane PT Cruiser once (Score:2, Funny)
Hand brakes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, a page from the infamous Flintstones Big Book of Engineering.
Too bad they couldn't prevent the cars from tipping over when you slap a rack of Brontosaurus ribs on the driver's side door.
That rollover was faked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Works great.
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:2)
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Informative)
I was pretty impressed with the performance specs. 97+ MPH out of 130ish horespower is not bad. When they can pull 200 HP out of it and have 4 wheel drive (more for safe delivery of power than offroad, think Audi Quattro not Land Rover) and you'll have something I'll want to buy. Oh, and 250-300 mile range would be good also.
Begs the question of "how do you measure fuel economy". MPG (or L/100Km) is a bit off, unless you measure the capacity at STP. I think we need to go to a straightforward percentage (how many joules were liberated and how much forward momentum/sec was generated).
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:2)
Uh, yeah it is. Honda's been making cars that'll do 120mph with less than 90hp for decades. 97mph is a joke. Then again, I've never fully understood why cars in the US can go 120mph which is double the old national speed limit.
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because infernal combustion engines and their associated machinery like gearboxes aren't efficient when run near the upper or lower limits of their capability, but in the middle. Upper is defined here as maximum rpm, not torque (which occurs closer to the middle rpm), and lower is the idle rpm. Car gearboxes aren't like aero engines; there is a direct relationship between engine rpm and wheel rpm via the gearbox.
If you want a car that runs well at 60mph, you have to built one that peaks at 120.
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
To turn your argument around, I've got a 1 HP engine in a radio controlled car, and it'll do 60. Some others will do 85 with not much more power. So Honda's not living up to that standard! How dare they produce inefficient cars that take 90 HP to get to 120 MPH.
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:4, Informative)
Well that's all up to the transmission, displacement, and a few other factors. Most cars generate peak torque low in the rpm range and higher horsepower as the rpms increase. Nearly every VTEC equipped Honda will generate peak torque around 3000-3500 rpms, while the peak hp comes at redline in each gear. On the other hand, your garden variety Subaru Impreza WRX generates peak torque at a low low 2200rpm, and peak hp near 6000rpm.
At any rate, comparing rc cars to full sized vehicles is just a ruse. Thanks for the insight.
Re:Hand brakes? (Score:2)
To be able to stay in front of the trucks
60MPH sounds like a reasonable top speed, up a 50% grade!
Re:Hand brakes? RTFA (Score:2, Informative)
My Mother-in-Law's hand brake (Score:3, Funny)
interesting auto (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the drive by wire, brake by wire, does that mean we will finally have real "backseat drivers"?
Re:interesting auto (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:interesting auto (Score:3, Insightful)
More mods on crack I see.
Of course not, this is just silly. Think of how much stuff you use that is powered by either build in software or embeddeded devices. Do you get a license agreement with them?
Again, of course not. Many parts of the automobile are already controlled by embedded hardware, making the jump to software is no big deal. They already have the ability to stick a chip in your car to limit its speed, but they don't. Why not? Because it's stupid.
Ah, so this is why this has been marked as "insightful". Make any positive, but retarded remark about open source and get modded up.
user interface (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so the familiar motion of going for the horn might produce either a burst of acceleration or a sudden stop. Is the horn on the floor?
Re:user interface (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, if they were to replace the steering wheel with a set of handlebars (ala motorcycle), then they might be able to pull this off. Of course, then you've just invented the four wheel version of the Tron Light Cycle.
Hmmm...
Re:user interface (Score:4, Funny)
It'll bring a whole new dimension of fun and entertainment to cutting people off in traffic.
Re:user interface (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft LookOut! which will remember the last place I drove to and keep taking me there unless I re-install it.
Lexmark Premium DiHydrogen Monoxide service pak, which will refuse to let me pull into service stations not owned by Lexmark.
The RIAA approved theft prevention radio that accepts my credit card number as the PIN and decides a listening program based on my revenue profile.
The GTA3 augmented reality patch that overlays cool stuff on my external visual screens.
Sure the efficiency is great... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's ugly, the consumers won't like it and thus the whole concept will be proven to be unacceptable... hmmm...
WTF?
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Engineering-wise, this has some impressive shit inside, if not entirely innovative. It's certainly a noteworthy achievment. Sure, it's really not that cutting edge, instead it's just an aggregation and refinement of stuff that's been done already.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here (and will be modded down for it, of course), but here goes...
Does anyone else miss real cars? Aren't you sick of these underpowered, jellybean-looking, rice-burning, gook specials out there? Do all the new electrics and hybrids need to go down the same path?
Don't you miss that 2-tons of Detroit steel, the kind of car that can register on the Richter scale on ignition?
Why does the vision of the future have to be so passified? Why can't it be kind of rugged? I'd feel pretty damned fruity (ala Ed Begly Jr) driving around in one of these plastic-turds.
So, yes, I'll give them some credit for the engineering. And, yes, it's a somewhat noble cause. But, can't these designs still be fun? Why do they all have to conform to some worn-out template of how a car of the future should look? C'mon, just a little creativity and passion would be appreciated... stupid fuckwads.
Who wants to bet there's a pointy-haired manager responsible for the aesthetics (probably the one that gave the quote in the parent post)? The conversation probably sounded something like this:
Designer - "Here's our new electric vehicle."
Management-Jerkoff - "But... that looks like a regular car."
Designer - "Um, well, yeah... we didn't want to alienate our customers."
Management-Jerkoff - "But, how will anyone know it's electric if it looks like just any other car?"
Don't they realize, if these things didn't stick out so much, they'd sell more? Most people don't want to look like a dork in one of these (yes,
There's a very heavy user interaction (look & feel) component that goes into choosing a car. These companies insist on alienating their consumers from the hybrid/electric market by making their cars look rather goofy. They're futuristic, but goofy nonetheless.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, maybe they'll have a "sounds like a real car" option too... And you'd be able to download different soundpacks depending if you want it to sound like anything from a Model T to a commercial jetliner... shouldn't be that difficult to gauge what's happening on those wires and play/tweak the correct sounds.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Not everyone finds American classic cars attractive. I myself find none of the American classics nice looking, with the possible exception of the original (underpowered) Corvette. It's all the more sobering to know what hunks of garbage they were in anything but straight-line drags, ridiculously humongous horsepower notwithstanding.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I don't miss those 2-ton Detroit steel barges. Mainly because they don't handle, but also because they're criminally inefficient.
About the looks: this isn't the only concept car that's come out of Detroit recently. There were several that should be more to your liking. The Ford 'Tonka' pickup, for example (even more monstrous than current offerings), Dodge had another 'full size' pickup, and they were both shown with alternative propulsion (the Ford was Diesel-electric, and the Dodge used LNG, IIRC).
The HyWire mainly looks goofy because it can. It's not only a hydrogen-power prototype, it shows off an entirely different way of building cars. Why stick that underneath some bog-standard undistinctive bodyshell?
Once this technology goes mainstream, you can bet there'll be body styles to suit everyone.
Great name for a car (Score:5, Funny)
Mentally confused or erratic; crazy: went haywire over the interminable delays.
Not functioning properly; broken.
almost as good as the Nova in spanish countries, nova - no go.
Re:Great name for a car (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great name for a car (Score:2)
I often wonder about that, I've heard if enough to suspect it's urban legend. GM, Ford, etc. usually sell cars under completely different names in other countries.
"Haywire" would be infamous, however, if their execution matched that of the Corvair or Fiero. In both cases there were simple fixes where GM could have seized the initiative and fixed problems, admit to being human and moving forward. In both cases GM ran away and buried their head in the sand. Too bad, both were good concepts (as the VW beetle and Toyota MR2 demonstrated.)
that Nova item is nonsense BTW... (Score:2)
The GM "HyWire" ? (Score:2)
Re:The GM "HyWire" ? (Score:2)
Re:The GM "HyWire" ? (Score:2)
Let me get this straight. (Score:4, Funny)
People still have trouble with the accelerator and brake pedals in their traditional spot. Now you want to put them on the steering wheel? I'd really rather not have one of these coming toward me.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the controls are really different, twist = acceleration, squeeze = brake. Not terribly different from motorcycle controls when you think about it.
Second, this is probably not going ot turn into a production vehicle. It is sort of a meta-concept car. The fuel cell stuff is all squished into an eleven inch slab centered roughly at the wheel axes. Basically, less the controls, the everything useful but the passengers fits into this tiny space. Next they bolt a bunch of random stuff onto the top. It allows them to design a bunch of body plans without having to remake or remount the engine every time they come up with a new body concept.
The weird controls probably evolved out of this in a way, they wanted a interface module that could be removed easily. Pedals, because of their location relative to the slab thingy would require a commitment on their part as to where a lot of stuff would go. This way they can play around with configuration to their hearts content.
Not entirely unlike a 'skinnable' car when you think about it. I think it would be kinda neat to see in a production car, modular form like this. You go in, choose a chasis power rating or something, then choose a bunch of options (two, three, four, or six seats, truck bed, trunk, seats that recline all the way back, sporty aerodynamics, maximum cargo space, driver seat with a high field of view etc). Then you leave for a few hours while they bolt the thing together. Okay, maybe not, but, it's an interesting concept. Imagine, instead of renting a truck for the weekend to move, you go down to the dealership and rent a truck bed, they hold onto your rear seats until you come back.
As far as the completely transparent front design, I imagine that takes some getting used to, what with the road being that much more obvious as it streams past you.
GTA Vice City (Score:5, Funny)
I was already concerned about having the "pedals" on the steering wheel but, now you want me to face a roadway full of people that learned to drive by playing Vice City?????
God help us all.
Re:GTA Vice City (Score:2)
Why not? The way everyone drives around here, I swear they lerned the rulz of da road ethier in Gran Turismo or Midtown Madness.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Because it sucks and is the number one reason why people who want total control when playing racing or flight sims get hooked up with pedals/sticks/etc. Also, there are no G's pulling on you when you're playing a video game. Doesn't matter if it's 'by wire' or physical connect, wheels can change directions very quickly and with great force, and the steering wheel must remain in sync with them at _some_ ratio, or the steering mechanism would be unreliable at best and useless at worst. Imagine trying to make an emergency maneuver at speed with steering and throttle/brakes, all on the same controller. It wouldn't be pretty. While I won't argue that the current standard control layout in cars is somehow ideal or perfect, it definitely seems to fall in the 'aint broke dont fix' group.
Gas and breaks on the wheel? (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't want a car that looks like a bubble with three wheels or controls in places they're not accustomed to.
People just want a car! Plain and simple. Most people don't care what is under the hood as long as the car is familiar(controls where they should be, etc..) and they can fuel up anywhere. Cars are meant for convenience as far as most people are concerned. Despite what really bad Sci-fi movies would have you believe, the 21st century just isn't ready for some of these new radical concept designs.
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? (Score:4, Informative)
B: Today's hybrid gas/electrics AREN'T bubble cars.
OK, I'll give you the Insight is a bubble car. But it's also a two-seater semi-concept car. The Prius is closer to a real car, but I swear to god it looks like an Echo. The Civic, on the other hand, is just a Civie EX with a fancy transmission and electric moter. Obviously, it's got some other differences, but the only noticible one on mine is the the back seats don't fold down (that's where the batteries are).
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously haven't driven many cars. This is a myth yuppies perpetuate to justify purchasing an expensive Eurotrash car because there really isn't anything else about them worth praising. Since GM practically invented everything about the modern car, its ridiculous to claim their cars do not handle well.
Most BMW's are crap. A stiff suspension is not the only definition of a car, and doesn't affect its handling. This is why Cadillac invented active suspension, to variably control the handling of the vehicle depending on driving conditions.
Personally, variable suspension is preferable in the Americas. We have larger countries, and road quality is not as consistant as in Germany or England. We have more highway in the US than all of Europe. There are many instances where a stiff suspension will not provide optimum road handling, almost to a dangerous degree. Hit a pot whole with a stiff suspension and your car may bounce out of control.
Seriously, we having been designing cars for 100 years. All cars are produced with exceptional quality today. BMW produces a car which never changes, never improves. It caters to people who prefer a static reality. This is why a BMW today looks essentially like a BMW of 30 years ago.
And outside the US, there still is a big difference in perception (and with these prestige brands, that is important) between Cadillac/Lincoln on one hand, and the European marques on the other.
Oh yes, and what part of the world have you been to? Its funny because Mercedes-Benz produces the most taxi cabs in Europe. They practically hold the same place as the Ford Crown Victoria or the Chevrolet Caprice. "Luxury" is a very different thing in Europe, where society is not as stratified. There, the sheer size of some American cars would be decadent enough. I guarantee you a Lincoln Navigator would hold far greater sway in the luxury department than a BMW 740, if you were France.
So much easier (Score:3, Funny)
Push the joy stick forward to accelerate, pull it back to brake, lean it left and right to steer. The trigger is the emergency brake, and the thumb button turns your car back upright when you roll it.
What else do you need?
no gas pedal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no gas pedal? (Score:2, Insightful)
the pedal concept can be improved upon.
take a course on human factors.
Re:no gas pedal? (Score:2)
CLI or GUI
one button or 2. or 3. or 5.
keyboard or touchscreen
Ergo or regular keyboard
QWERTY or Dvorak
drive on the right or the left
tiller or steering wheel
steering wheel or joystick (Saab prototype)
touchtype or thumbing
People CAN get used to new ways of doing the same task. Sometimes they are better. Sometimes not. We shall just have to wait and see.
This IS great news, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope for a speedy incorporation of this wonderful technology, but I prepare for the typical halts to progress that corporations often impose.
Re:This IS great news, but... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, they will eat into the pockets of anyone that dares to buy one. The article mentioned that the engine alone is $40,000. That's part of the problem that the existing hybrids have. They are low production, high R&D. You have to pay a lot to get these first generation models.
Re:This IS great news, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. Since there are no hydrogen wells, or really any natural source of hydrogen in quantity, it's going to have to be artificially produced. Which requires power. Lots of it, in fact. Which will likely come mostly from the usual suspects: oil, NG, coal, etc.
The conversions from fuel -> power -> hydrogen and hydrogen -> power are hideously inefficient, I'd say the oil companies are going to love this.
Re:This IS great news, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you say that? Who do you suppose will be "Big Hydrogen" if these sorts of vehicles become popular? Exactly the same people who are Big Oil now, after all, they already have the refineries, the distribution network, and the retail outlets.
The real threat to Big Oil comes from pure electric vehicles - and even then, Big Oil can still sell to power generators. Infact, it might even be better for them, as they won't have to carry their retail operations.
but I prepare for the typical halts to progress that corporations often impose.
Pretty much every useful piece of technology was developed by a private corporation. Don't try to tell me about NASA - velcro could have been developed a hell of a lot more cheaply if they hadn't had to fund orbital missions to do it! If anything holds progress back, it's governments, who make entire industries wait while they dither. The next tech revolution will be biotech, and the Western governments are doing their level best to drive it offshore with their heavy-handed regulations!
Are you nuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about? The only reason there is a strong biotech industry is because of the government. Government grants from the NSF and NIH fund enormous amounts of fundamental research. The applied research in corporations would never be where it is now if it hadn't been for government research paving the way. The corporations would probably have never developed some of the underlying ultra-high risk science.
Pass me some of whatever you are smoking.
A Very cool mix. Diesel and Hydrogen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Diesel has made much more progress in the past few years as far as an efficient fuel than gas. Try on the Turbo-charged VW Diesel Jetta for a great drive w/ superb miles to the gallon.
A marriage between these technologies is a great deal for the auto industry, the environment and everything else. The one question is $.
Will the manufacturers be able to bring the price down far enough to entice Soccer Moms everywhere that their SUV can be environmentally friendly and fuel efficient?
Governments could offer serious incentives to consumers in the area of tax credits for purchasing such vehicles. Hell, I'd buy one if the deal was sweet enough.
Re:A Very cool mix. BioDiesel and Hydrogen. (Score:2)
Do a google for BioDiesel
Sounds screwy but its true - used oil from deep fat fryers can easily be converted to a CARBON NEUTRAL FUEL
Re:A Very cool mix. Diesel and Hydrogen. (Score:4, Funny)
I've driven a Prius, and I've driven a cardboard box. I might have only been 8 when I drove a cardboard box, but I still think I'd remember it enough to have noticed if the Prius was in any way similar.
When can I get one? (Score:2)
Infrastructure (Score:2, Insightful)
The gas stations will not invest in the eqipment to dispense hydrogen until there's a large number of the cars on the road that can use it.
Jason ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Infrastructure (Score:2)
Where's the all-hydrogen car? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hydrogen hybrid cars are all well and nice, but they don't get us anywhere. At the moment the only ways to produce hydrogen are expensive and inefficient, and end up costing more "regular" energy (usually provided by fossil fuels or nuclear power) to produce. Electrolysis is good to play with in the physics labs at school, but when it comes to produce very large quantities of Hydrogen for mass consumption it's worth practically zero.
I read a while ago in New Scientist that some group in Japan was trying to use a solar-pumped laser in a satellite to convert large quantities of salt water (in a big tank on an island) with an added catalyst, into hydrogen. That's the sort of news which are worth noting when it comes to cleaner fuels. Once hydrogen is available in every gas station, oil will die off naturally. Until hydrogen can be produced cheaply and in very large quantities, there's not going to be hydrogen in gas stations, and all these hybrid efforts are just lip service to make Sunday Ecologists feel better about themselves, so presenting this sort of news as a notable even in the move towards cleaner fuels is like saying "Microsoft issues a new patch for IIS, saves the internet from script kiddies".
Daniel
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? (Score:2, Insightful)
I got into the most ridiculous argument over the weekend with a flaky chick who fancies herself a savior of the earth. She got into a rant about how I should feel ashamed that I use oil to heat my house, burning it and creating pollution, while she has an electric furnace.
Eventually I gave up trying to explain how all her electric system does is centralize the source of pollution to the power plant. She seemed oblivious to the fact that millions of tons of coal go up in smoke to make that electricity.
I didn't even bother to bring up the fact that my furnace is much more efficient, and that all the work and money I put into upgrading my homes insulation over the last year means that the furnace fires up for at most an hour or two a day.
She probably would have gone through the roof if I told her I planned on removing the 2 electric water heaters in place now, replacing with one larger oil-fired heater.
Sure, she's a flake. But there are plenty of flakes out there, ready to hop behind the wheel of a brand new hydrogen car, completely oblivious to how much energy it actually takes to drive. All they understand is 'steam comes out instead of smoke so it's saving the planet!'.
They redisigned it from the ground up (Score:2, Funny)
Interior photos (Score:2)
I must say, this looks pretty snazzy. Assuming it would hold up in a crash (which, I'm sure, will be addressed). With the suicide-hinge rear doors [akamai.net], some impressive engineering will have to go into making this crash-worthy. (Why do you think they call them "suicide doors"?)
Re:Interior photos (Score:2)
That doesn't completely remove the problems with that design, but it does make some inroads.
Hydrogen economies / environmental effect (Score:2)
Obviously, there are economies of scale in producing hydrogen in mass quantities, but it seems to me the claims that GM has made to the effect of removing the car as a significant factor in the environment are utter horsehockey.
Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect (Score:2)
The inevitable (and tired) 'cars v. computers' (Score:2)
Oh, right: "If cars were like computers, we'd be driving a flying car that got 1,000 miles to the ounce"
Next?
Pentagon Seeks Robots: You could win $1 Million [xnewswire.com]
Re:The inevitable (and tired) 'cars v. computers' (Score:2)
Thank (your personal deity). I don't want all those idiots tooling around in their VTOL Mustangs over MY house.
Hey, how about a car that drives itself?
We're still years and years away from that. You'd need to refine radar resolution and control down to a few inches at the most.
A car that drives itself on an empty road is not too hard. Put it out on the chaotic streets, and you'd have to make it be able to avoid a dog AND a soccer ball at the same time. Without hitting the telephone pole.
Or have it make the decision...Soccer ball + kid or dog. You want a computer to recognise and decide that?
Good Concept, Bad Idea (Score:2)
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
I'm not even going to bother asking about getting a stick-shift version :)
brake actuation (Score:3, Interesting)
That's about the only part of this configuration I have a problem with. Frequently, you tighten your grip when on a bumpy road, tenseness, whatever. Having that be the braking signal may not be what you want at that time.
Joking aside, this is big. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been following this thing from some time.
Quick points:
- You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.
- Yeah, it's Hydrogen, but it's not gonna blow up. Certainly not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car. Go read the Wired article if you want details. It's not a rolling Hindenberg.
- The wheels can pivot in any direction, which is why the steering is different. No more parallel-parking mishaps, hopefully.
- They are still more expensive than regular cars, price- and energy-wise, but the trend is looking quite hopeful.
- The space-savings inside the car itself are remarkable, and allow for all sorts of kooky things, such as a floor-to-ceiling windshield. (how weird would that be on the highway?)
- The HyWire is a concept. They won't all be 'ugly'. The whole thing is still a good 10 years away.
GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years. Which is a big concern for GM, obviously having a 20-year-turnover on cars is going to nail their bottom line... until you figure in the savings on engine parts, assembly lines for those engine parts, etc. Suddenly the AUTONOMY is a lot more attractive, as they might eventually cost a fraction of what regular cars do. GM recoups the lost turnover sales from the other 80% of the planet who can now afford a vehicle. And we get cool pivoting space-cars that cost $5000 and go for 2 decades.
Re:Joking aside, this is big. (Score:2)
Re:Joking aside, this is big. (Score:2, Funny)
*any* direction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*any* direction? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Joking aside, this is big. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.
I'm betting that your friendly neighborhood GM dealer would be happy to provide "Skinning" service so that you can rent a minivan skin for the holiday trip to grandma's and go back to your sedan for the next work week. If GM wants this idea to go over, as far as the dealers are concerned that idea is going to be massive. Dealers have been getting less and less return work over the last few decades; this is a way to send more business to the dealers. Of COURSE, they'll have to run a diagnostic before skinning, and suggest fixes for any problems they find...
I love this HyWire car. Too bad it's GM and not Ford doing it ;>
Saw this on South Park (Score:2, Funny)
That sounds too much like the gyroscopic type vehicle from South Park. I wonder if GM will offer the driver stability probes front and rear?
Can we Overclock this thing dammit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this equivalent to the infamous quote: "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM..."?
I would hope that you could hack the "skateboard" so you can go faster than 97 mph. Can you imagine the mod chip business for this?
Re:Can we Overclock this thing dammit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this equivalent to the infamous quote: "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM..."?
Exactly how is this an equivilant? Speed limits are there for safety reasons. And your average person isn't going to nessesarily drive longer each day just because their car has a greater range.
Unless there are some major changes in motoring as a whole (like computer controled cars, driving at high speed on super-highways etc). Saying that it will satisfy most drivers needs today isn't silly at all.
FedEx Express? (Score:3, Funny)
TOKYO (Dec. 2, 2002) - Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express") and General Motors Corp ("GM") announced a joint program to advance fuel cell technology by conducting the first commercial test of a fuel cell vehicle in Japan.
Wouldn't that make their name expand to "Federal Express Express"? Is that like KFC chicken?
Re:FedEx Express? (Score:2, Funny)
This will work..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Only when a couple of things happen:
#1. People can't tell that it is not a gas driven car. Either by looks, power, or speed. The only exception will be if it end up having more power/speed.
#2. A law / bill is passed forcing them into market or giving such a large price break on them forces people to by them out of pure guilt.
What have you got under the hood there Franky? -- This is a turbo charged, water cooled, triple output, 4 switch power grid with a inverted v8 power cell.
It is going to take a little bit longer than your typical transition.
Re:This will work..... (Score:2)
Here is an easy test you can do for that. Put you mouth up to the tail pipe and if you don't get a mouth full of water vapor you know your still using gas.
Cool! My car has cheat code buttons! (Score:2)
To switch to MIB Speeder mode: BRAKE GAS GAS BRAKE BRAKE BRAKE GAS BRAKE.
WARNING: The PS2 console accessory that allows drivers to play "Grand Theft Auto III" while driving has resulted in serious injury and death. Sony cannot be held liable...
Non-standard UI (Score:2)
What's with the non-standard UI? Why fix something that isn't broken?
Who do these people thing they are? GNOME or KDE developers?
Everybody knows [reader please select one of:
- Windows XP style gigantic red and blue buttons
- Apple style one button mice and one menu bar
- a pure command line interface, an ESCape meta key and a vi-style seperate insert mode
- three different meta keys, a built-in Mayan calendar and a LISP interpreter in your emacs editor
]is the only true interface!
All else is the devil's spawn! Burn the heretics!
won't be available in 10 years (Score:2)
In the mean time you can support the detroit project. [detroitproject.com]. Its great, you can help make fun of the Bush administrations
"marijuana helps terrorists" campaign and bash SUV owners at the same
time
Glitterbangers for sale cheap, inquire within (Score:4, Insightful)
Hydrogen is just taking energy from one source and storing it for release by something else later, you're time shifting energy. Hydrogen like gasoline and lead-acid batteries is just an energy carrier. Unlike gasoline where the energy has been put there by millions of years of microbial activity on organic material, we have to put energy into hydrogen ourselves. The only clean way to do so is with renewable HSW (hydro/solar/wind) sources. All of these methods of energy capture are horribly inefficient, they only collect a fraction of the energy they are presented with. Cracking the hydrogen out of water takes a bit of energy, as much as you end up getting back out of the hydrogen - minus of course the losses to heat and other inefficiencies in the system. So you have inefficient energy production at one end used to power a transportation system filled with inefficiencies to power ICE autombiles that are replacing energy dense gasoline with hydrogen. Please.
Fuel cells are much better uses of hydrogen but they still suffer from the same problems as hydrogen ICEs, the hydrogen's generation, storage, and transport. Liquid hydrogen is ridiculously expensive for use in cars or small applications. Metal hydrides like LiBH4 + 4H2O and LaNi5H6 are heavy for the amount of power they can store per volume. A liter of LaNi5H6 has about 3.3kwh in it but weighs almost nine kilograms or four pounds. So you're left with at least for the time being, organic hydrogen containers like decalin and methanol. These of course emit carbon byproducts when cracked so they are no-nos to environuts despite they only release the amount of carbon they pulled out of the environment to produce.
I'd rather see high temperature superconductors be given a bit more funding along with hydrogen extraction research. If you can get power to my house with very little loss, centralized production systems can produce less power at peak demand. I can also store that energy by cracking water and storing the hydrogen at my house for use in my fuel cell at night or to put into my car. Let the wire transport the energy for most of the trip and let me pump it and water into a refrigerator sized appliance in my garage to make hydrogen for me to use elsewhere. This works well for solar and wind power because it is difficult to make them constant power sources, every house storing its own energy would mean if power output dropped nobody is going to really notice.
Any new system that requires a radically different and naturally expensive infrastructure to support it is not going to be accepted very quickly. Oil is important to the world because it is cheap and gives them the power they want and need. There's better ideas but until you can engineer them to be drop-in replacements for oil based systems they are a no go. I'd think slashdorks would realize this, until Linux is a drop-in replacement for Windows it is not going to take over the world. You can't just beat a new paradigm or lifestyle into someone and expect everything to work. If you're introducing something new it has to work with systems that currently exist.
On the flipside to that however, people need to realize their Earth Raper 4000 SUV is a bit ridiculous. For most uses a 100 watt light bulb is overkill. better insulation in your home will cost more initially but give you some pretty good long term savings while at the same time making for less polution overall. People in first world nations need to figure out how to disseminate clean technologies to third world nations that are just developing industrial bases. A currently developing country shouldn't have to go through the smokey coal powered industrial revolution to come up to par with more modern nations.
The Sun would have a billion years sliced off its lifespan if everyone on the planet used as much energy as people in the US and Europe do. Drop-in replacements are needed to make their energy usage cleaner but also to make them use less energy. You don't need four televisions but if you do have them and want them it'd help if they used as much power as a single old television used. A computer in every room would be cool if they used about as much power as a leaky cable box.
Hopefully some day.
Re:Glitterbangers for sale cheap, inquire within (Score:3, Insightful)
As I tried to explain hydrogen can't be stored effectively in another other than a chemically bonded material. Even as a compressed gas it boils away far too easily to be transported or stored for long periods of time. You'd be pissed if you bought a couple gallons of hydrogen and left your car for a couple days and found that your hydrogen had all evaptorated. You wouldn't buy a car that leaked gasoline when it sat too long would you? Also as a compressed gas the energy density of hydrogen is horrible (like I said) so you'd need enormous volumes of hydrogen transported to make the system effective overall.
It makes far more sense economically and thermodynamically to pipe the power required to crack hydrogen or store in a capacitor or battery into my house and let me store it than it is to ship refined hydrogen to me. Trying to replace an oil economy with a hydrogen economy of a feat of heroic perportions. No one wants to invest in it because there's so little return for the next fifty years and the initial switch offers no benefits to anyone in the short term. Hybrid cars make more economical sense to release than hydrogen cars. A hybrid will run forever on a tank of gas, a hydrogen car will run as long as a gasoline car and use costlier fuel you can't get from anywhere. Hybrids will lead the way towards biofuels like methanol and biodiesel, methanol will lead to methanol fuel cells which might some day lead to a fully hydrogen economy. That day if it ever happens is quite a ways off and wackos trying to railroad hydrogen into market acceptance are doing more harm than good for their cause. Beating someone over the head until they listen to you does not make you right in your arguments.
Why big oil doesn't stand a chance (Score:3, Interesting)
First we'll start with the military. One of the biggest pains in the ass about any military campaign is supply lines. Keeping supplies going into combat zones is obviously vital, and the only thing thats more of a pain in the ass to get to a mechanized unit, for example, after ordinance is fuel. Tanks, APCs, helicopters, etc., eat up insane amounts of fuel, so the sheer mass of the fuel that has to be supplied is ungodly. However, since hydrogen, as a gas, is compressible, one fuel truck would be able to do the work of dozens, whereas before the lines of tanker trucks could stretch for miles. This means more leeway for tactics, as well as more secure operations, not to mention massive savings in cash and manpower. So of course it'll give the government a hard on.
Secondly, look at the effect this will have at home. Right now America is enjoying the highest gas prices since the fuel crisis we had back in the day, think it was the 70s. And, unlike most countries, America relies far more on automobiles than countries that actually took the time and energy to develop a working mass-transit system. Its common here for families to own one car, if not more, for every person who can drive, and then we also have massive fleets of tractor trailers and whatnot as well. On the other hand, my friends in England and Germany own typically one car per family, and my friends in Germany, who live in one of the larger cities, simply keep that one in storage, since they never use it. So, likewise, what
Americans normally use in gas is far more than other industrialized countries,
With the advent of hydrogen fuel cell cars, for which the fueling stations are really pretty simple, the cost savings alone will be absolutely staggering. If you want to seem an economic BOOM, wait til that happens. Sure, oil companies will lose something like 80% of their business, but screw em, they've screwed us long enough. Once we get to the point where hydrogen fuel cells are common in not just cars but planes, large body vehicles, and industrial equipment, profit margins for shipping companies, airlines, and construction and development companies will go throughthe roof, since probably upwards 30% of their costs will go down. And, since consumers will know this, they will eventually demand costs be lowered, which means the cheaper something is to provide,the more profit you can make as a seller, even if you lower the price, and the more money you can save as a buyer. Boom. Also, we can say "Screw you Middle East, and F off OPEC!!!" Because, hey, what do we really need the OPEC countries for then? Some experts are predicting that once everything is fully implemented, we'll be able to supply our oil needs out of texas and alaska alone. So right there is another eason the government would love this, no matter how much money is being tossed their way, because they've no longer at the whim of OPEC.
All this potential economic magic, because hey, its government, its all about money, will leave the goverment no choice but to make it legally required that such a technology be fully supported, kinda like broadcasters have to be high-definition compliant in like a year or two I think. And, as for big oil, if they're smart, they'll start plans on developing an infastructure to be the fuel suppliers for this new breed of industry, so it won't hurt as bad.
Sorry this post is so long, but I've been really hyped up about these things since I read an article in Discover magazine about their development over four years ago. Crazy its finally happening.
Computer-Car Metaphors Will Be More Appropriate (Score:3, Interesting)
To any
Ever had the power windows bust on your car while the window is down? Imagine what fun you'll have when the by-wire system, shorts, gets cut or comes loose. Weee!
______________________
Why Hydrogen is Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, hydrogen is not an energy source when used in a fuel cell. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to be a replacement for gasoline. Gasoline is not an energy source in the same way hydrogen isn't. Gasoline is millions of years of stored solar energy.
It took millions of years to create the raw materials we use to make gasoline. Once we run out (and we will run out - we are taking it out faster than nature puts it back - it's just a question of when) we will have to either make more gas ourselves or split water to make hydrogen. There's no special difficulty hydrogen presents in this regard - anything we use to run cars is going to be in the end an energy storage device, unless we have nuclear/solar powered cars. Both are impractical, for different reasons. So we have two problems in the future - generate power to replace the huge stored supplys we current are tapping, and store it for use in automobiles.
People seem to assume hydrogen is being proposed as a power generator. FALSE. Hydrogen is being proposed as a way to store energy for use in cars, which can't generate power on site in most cases. Gas is stored power - so is hydrogen when used in a fuel cell. We can't practically create gasoline ourselves - it's much easier to split water and recover the hydrogen. Plus fuel cells are extremely clean and don't give us the byproducts gasoline does. An extra benefit.
That leaves the question of where to get the power to drive this system. That's a completely separate problem, and one of the most crucial. Solar and wind are the two major untapped as far as non-nuclear power goes. Nuclear isn't practical in the us IN ITS CURRENT FORM. Fusion power is under development, and if a power producing fusion plant can ever be created, that will provide lots of power with byproducts that decay in hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. That may be managable. Otherwise, we will have to adjust ourselves to run on only what power we can recover from solar and wind.
It's never popular to say it politically, but we can in fact do a great deal to lower our power consumption. Better consumer habits, more efficient homes and utilities, smaller cars, etc. etc. etc. If we can't solve fusion, the cost of power will force this change to take place. It's not an argument of "we shouldn't develop renewables and hydrogen because they can't deliever our current level of power." Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that. Our current level of power generation is unsustainable unless we shift almost totally to nuclear power. Peroid. We don't know exactly how long it will last, but it WILL come to an end. What is up to us is how we cope with it. I'd rather be prepared with the best we can do in alternatives. Hydrogen might allow us to run cars after we can no longer produce gasoline cheaply. Plus it's a cleaner system when the source power is produced from clean sources. It doesn't provide gluttonous power, true, but it might allow us to sustain the worthwhile parts of our lifestyle. That's why this is a development to be cheered on.
Re:But? (Score:3, Insightful)
ntill the goverment MAKES people do something about their waste - People will do nothing
And I suppose the fortunate transition from coal gas was the result of such governmental control, or because it was expensive, dirty, and dangerous?
Re:But? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:2)
Tip: Read article then talk.
Re:It will take a while (Score:2)
The new hybrid and electric cars have almost identical pick-up and cruising speeds as a "normal" car. Some even say that they are faster at accellerating because of improved torque.
Re:Is this car really all that? (Score:3, Informative)
Every US fighter jet has been all electronically controlled(aka, fly-by-wire) for 20+ years. No major problem, you just have to design with the problem in mind.
Also, to echo what many others have said, braking/acceleration on the *steering wheel* is utterly ludicrous. They're very much suited to foot pedals.
Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct. Have you ever driven a motorcycle?
Finally, is the hydrogen car the one which only outputs CO2, and no other emissions? I thought I heard that somewhere. Interesting that GM don't seem to give a shit about the emissions (that really is a big reason why new techs are being developed, isn't it?), as they don't mention it on their site.
No. Hydrogen(H2) cars only put out H20. No carbon in fuel means no carbon emission. Of course, generating H2 could generate carbon emissions, but it doesn't have to.
Re:Is this car really all that? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are still a few fighter jets that rely on mechanical systems. A-10 Thunderbolt, F-14 Tomcat (not all systems fly-by-wire), and heavies such as the B-52's(not all components fly-by-wire) Galaxies (a few systems are software controlled), Orions, and Tanker/refuellers to name a few.
I agree with you on the propulsion and brake controls. The foot-pedals came into being because all of the systems on the first vehicles were mechanical. You can push a brake pedal with your legs harder than you could pull a brake lever. There also wasn't an acceptable way of attaching a mechanical device to a steering wheel or column during the early days of automobiles. Besides, would you want to try to turn a car that didn't use power steering with one hand while trying to simultaneously apply the brake lever? The fact that the propulsion and brake controls have remained as a foot-pedal has as much to do with tradition as it does with practicality. Now that software controls have finally made it to the automobile, the floor-pedals should be replaced with a digital component. Cruise control was the first attempt at moving propulsion from the floor to the control panel. It eliminated fatigue (in the calves) and increased the gas milage of the vehicle. Why not remove all control components from the floor if they no longer need to be? It would simplify chassis design, and provide for more leg room.