It might seem crazy to ask whether Tesla’s a car company – they certainly make cars, and on paper, cars are about 82% of their YTD revenue as of the third quarter of FY2017. However, I’m going to argue that they might not be a car company, but rather an energy company that makes cars, and there’s a few things that make me believe that. Continue reading
I feel like there’s room for a follow up to my previous piece on the Le Mans Prototype 1-Hybrid subclass, now that there’s been additional news, including the news that Porsche is terminating their LMP1 program after this season is over.
Those that see hybrid technology as being bad for LMP1 see this as vindication of their ideas, now that the best reasonable case for 2018 is that we get two or three Toyotas in the top class at Le Mans. I don’t think they’re right… but there’s some interesting points that they bring up. Continue reading
It’s been a day since the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and I’ve finally put my thoughts together on it. It was something else, nothing like I’ve ever seen before.
Before the 24 Hours of Le Mans, predictions were that Toyota would walk away with the race on both pace and reliability. Predictions were that the all-new and huge LMP2 field would have failures en masse, having shown mediocre reliability in the lead-up to Le Mans. And, fears were that the GTE-Pro field would have poor balance of performance, allowing someone to run away with it. Continue reading
In case you’ve been living under a rock, Volkswagen was caught cheating on emissions testing with their 2009-2016 diesels. Recently, a proposed settlement including a buyback program (as well as, potentially, a fix) has been announced for the 2009-2015 2.0 liter vehicles. One concern, however, is the CO2 emissions impact of this buyback – both in terms of manufacturing emissions, and in terms of fuel consumption.
That’s right, MPG is bullshit (and along with it, MPGe).
I don’t mean that the emphasis on improving fuel efficiency in personal transportation is bullshit, to the contrary, it’s one of the most important things we can do today. Similarly, I see the value in representing the efficiency of non-gasoline vehicles in a way that translates to gasoline units of energy – it helps put things into context for an efficiency-minded buyer.
The problem with MPG is that it, as a metric for measuring vehicle efficiency, is terrible at representing that efficiency in an intuitive way, and as a result, has discouraged improvements in efficiency in the vehicles that need it the most, and caused efforts to be directed to vehicles that need it less. To illustrate this, I’ll create a scenario.
You have two older vehicles that you drive about equally, one that gets 15 MPG (probably a full-size pickup or a large SUV), and one that gets 30 MPG (probably a compact car). You’ve got the funds to replace one vehicle, and you want to get something more fuel efficient, without losing capability – so you’re looking at either another full-size pickup or SUV, or another compact car. You look at the vehicles that are available, and see that you can get a full-size truck or large SUV that gets about 20 MPG. Alternately, you can get a car that gets 50 MPG nowadays, and it’s even a fair bit bigger than a compact. Which should you buy, to reduce your fuel consumption by the most?
Intuitively, you’d get the car – it gets 20 MPG better than your car, and it’s 67% better than your existing car on MPG. The truck only gets 5 MPG better, and only 33% better MPG.
And this gets into why MPG is bullshit – MPG determines how far you go on a fixed amount of fuel, and you’re not driving for a fixed amount of gallons, you’re driving a fixed amount of miles. In Europe, the standard (at least outside of the UK, anyway) is to report fuel economy in terms of liters per 100 kilometers. It answers the question of how much fuel it takes to go a fixed distance, instead of how far you can go on fixed fuel. Metric system issues aside, I’ll illustrate how this is a superior system for representing efficiency, using gallons per 100 miles – the familiar units in the US.
Under the gallons per 100 miles system, your truck is now rated for 6.67 gal/100 mi, and your car is now rated for 3.33 gal/100 mi – the conversion is merely 100 divided by the MPG. And, the new truck and new car are rated for 5 gal/100 mi and 2 gal/100 mi respectively. So, in 100 miles, the new truck uses 1.67 gallons less fuel over 100 miles, whereas the car only uses 1.33 gallons less fuel over the same distance. Upgrading the truck reduces your fuel consumption more than upgrading the car, even though the intuitive ways of looking at MPG (numeric or even percentage improvements in MPG) make it look like the car is the better option.
Ultimately, because MPG as a measurement is relatively insensitive to even large improvements in efficiency in inefficient vehicles, while magnifying minor improvements in efficiency in already efficient vehicles, it’s arguably hurt the American automotive marketplace. The American automotive market is one that buys plenty of large, inefficient vehicles for various reasons, and in those vehicles, if a consumer sees a “mere” 1 or 2 MPG difference between two models, they may be less inclined to take a more efficient option, even though it would save a significant amount of fuel. Conversely, consumers may prioritize replacing already efficient vehicles with vehicles that are only slightly more efficient, because of a large difference in MPG.
It’s worth noting that on fueleconomy.gov, the US government’s website for information on vehicle fuel economy, in addition to the MPG (or, for electric vehicles, the MPGe) figures, they list gal/100 mi and kWh/100 mi figures (in smaller print, however, leading with MPG or MPGe), as well as allowing users of the site to have figures displayed in either gal/100 mi or l/100 km. I applaud them for this much, but I’d personally like to see MPG abolished altogether, in favor of reporting efficiency in gal/100 mi (l/100 km is just asking too much, especially because fuel’s sold in gallons and distance is measured in miles in this country) as the primary method of reporting for liquid fueled vehicles, as well as on the Monroney sticker that’s on all new cars.
I’m going to rant a bit about the availability and pricing of transportational cycling gear inside the US, because I’ve been inspired by recent purchases. Continue reading
I’ve been busy upgrading my folding bike.
Starting point was a bone-stock 2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1.
Added the following:
- Skyway Tuff Pads (they appeared to be the Kool Stop salmon compound, and the LBS had them in stock, not sure that’s what they actually are, though)
- 1976 Sachs Duomatic 28h 2-speed kickback IGH coaster brake hub, built into a Sun CR18 rim by the LBS (gearing is 48/22)
- Planet Bike Superflash, turns out that it lines up perfectly under the sprung saddle
- TransIt Epic DX rack trunk
- Biologic Joule 2 20h dynamo hub (Biologic/Tern sells these prebuilt with Kinetix Comp rims for $115 shipped to the US)
- Tektro Sabre BX2 brake lever (the stock plastic lever was honestly terrifying)
- Busch & Müller Lumotec Lyt BN plus headlight (in German)
I think this is pretty much all this bike needs except for maybe tires and a pedal upgrade.
Stumbled on a cool airplane-based 3-wheeled vehicle build on the Hemmings blog tonight, and it’s for sale.
This thing is really friggin cool. Execution of the nose is a bit weak, but… I really like the layout.
Now I want to find a damaged four-place single-engine low-wing plane and do that myself. Two ways to get reverse, really – use the GL1500 drivetrain like that guy did as-is (I’d want Megasquirt and taller gearing, though), or do a through-the-road hybrid system with the hybrid system on the front wheels, and implementing reverse. That allows one to use the GL1200 fuel injected driveline instead – less displacement, lower cylinder count, etc., etc.
With a GL1500 megasquirted, I’m thinking it’d get around 70-75 highway, 40-50 city.
With a GL1200 FI and a hybrid system, 75-85 mpg highway, 60-90 city depending on how well the hybrid system is tuned.
Weight would be in the 1200-1500 pound ballpark I think, both engines are in the 90-100 hp ballpark (the GL1500 was all about more torque), so you’d be looking at 0-60 times in the 5-7 second ballpark, top speeds probably 140-150 mph (quite low drag), although you won’t want to go that fast.
And, it’d be a more practical layout than my main 3-wheeler project idea if executed properly – 4 seats plus some (not much) cargo room, instead of 1 normal seat, 1 barely usable seat, and less cargo room. Downside is, production would be less practical – it ain’t cheap to build things this light new. Piper wants $301,500 for an Archer TX – even if you go with the “half of the plane price goes to the lawyers” rule, and even if you knock $100k off for not needing all the FAA certs and the Lycoming engine and all, you’re still looking at $50k.