... This communist effort to "somehow" reduce car CO2 emissions in every part of the world - for which the whole planet is now trying to take part in - is hilarious, ridiculous and totally unproductive. Everyone is reporting myriads of successes in this area, with astounding 10-20% in emission reductions, murdering fuel and CO2 taxes, while the only true automotive breakthroughs adhere to engine downsizing, the cutting of power, torque, number of cylinders, etc.
Plus, the planet is suddenly buried in stupid and extremely heavy batteries that give such a pathetic power/weight ratio, maybe even lower than the much cursed fossil fuels. In ten or twenty years we will have gigantic mountains of batteries to which Toyota, Renault and other "green" car companies would have contributed considerably.
What will we do with this long-term polluting and highly toxic waste? Especially compared to the now common burning of gasoline. How will we get rid of it? We'll just throw it under the carpet and deposit it in third-world countries, right? Then we'll think of something else to do with it... someday. For example, I propose we bury it in the oceans. It's cheap and with no visible downsides... at least for the first couple of years.
This is obviously ridiculous! Ridiculous and extremely nonproductive! We are just fooling ourselves.
The solution is so clear and visible, but it's ignored. Obviously, because of economic reasons. Just how much of a fuel consumption reduction do you achieve by putting a couple of tiny electrical motors to supplement an anemic internal combustion engine on a two and half tonne behemoth? How much good did you do for your planet by combining a puny engine with batteries that add another 500 kilograms (1100 pounds) to the car's overall mass?
Think about it for a minute! How much would an internal combustion engine's mileage be, one that usually uses let's say 10 liters of fossil fuel per 100 kilometers (US 23.5 mpg) around town, if the mass it has to carry is at least twice as smaller? Won't it have a better energy efficiency and mileage? Apart from the better economy and lower emissions you also shouldn't forget the improved overall performance.
I think that the future belongs to much lighter cars. The future means cars that are constructed out of composite materials, so that a car should would be of normal size but weigh a maximum of 500 kilograms (about 1100 pounds). A small car from the future should weigh as much as a current motorcycle, so it would be able to use smaller and more efficient engines, while its fuel consumption and emissions would be ridiculously tiny compared to today's standards.
This is the future gentlemen! Drastic reductions in weight. If you think my idea is close to impossible just take a look at Gordon Murray's T.25 project. OK, some alternative fuels would be nice, or even electric engines. The problem is that without some intelligently-designed batteries, with bigger storage capacities and much more friendly with the environment, preferably organic, it would be a crime to switch to "electric" so soon.
Current electric engines are truly a crime against humanity. They're much more evil than normal ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) in the long term and extremely uncomfortable for any sane being. Plus, I think we all agree an electric car should be capable of somehow recharging its batteries while driving. It's pretty stupid to charge your car from your home's power outlet on a daily basis. Where do you think that energy comes from, since it doesn't fall out of the sky? Think about it!
I propose we stop being ignorant and phony and start thinking before throwing the whole planet in an indescribable and unprecedented mess. I think that the experience with diesel fuel has sufficiently demonstrated the fact that we must pay for any stupid thing we do.
The pollution made by diesel-powered cars is greater than ever, with whole European cities (which haven't yet banned this type of fuel) being suffocated by older cars with no catalysts or any kind of particle filters. And all for just a smaller fuel consumption, but with the price of cars that are stupid, loud, hard to maintain, uncomfortable and only good for plowing in the field, as my colleague Sir Bach strongly thinks...
Instead of progressing, we always choose the "cheap" solutions, which is usually much more dumb and less healthy in the long run. In the race for quick profits, the big car manufacturers don't give a rat's a** about a real change and only oblige themselves to follow dumb rules invented by a bunch of old rich politicians, who are so stupidly and superficially governing the faith of the whole planet.
It's time to start thinking and come up with real solutions! With long term solutions, that actually provoke change for the better instead of an avalanche of age-old problems relaunching with a different look...
Plus, the planet is suddenly buried in stupid and extremely heavy batteries that give such a pathetic power/weight ratio, maybe even lower than the much cursed fossil fuels. In ten or twenty years we will have gigantic mountains of batteries to which Toyota, Renault and other "green" car companies would have contributed considerably.
What will we do with this long-term polluting and highly toxic waste? Especially compared to the now common burning of gasoline. How will we get rid of it? We'll just throw it under the carpet and deposit it in third-world countries, right? Then we'll think of something else to do with it... someday. For example, I propose we bury it in the oceans. It's cheap and with no visible downsides... at least for the first couple of years.
This is obviously ridiculous! Ridiculous and extremely nonproductive! We are just fooling ourselves.
The solution is so clear and visible, but it's ignored. Obviously, because of economic reasons. Just how much of a fuel consumption reduction do you achieve by putting a couple of tiny electrical motors to supplement an anemic internal combustion engine on a two and half tonne behemoth? How much good did you do for your planet by combining a puny engine with batteries that add another 500 kilograms (1100 pounds) to the car's overall mass?
Think about it for a minute! How much would an internal combustion engine's mileage be, one that usually uses let's say 10 liters of fossil fuel per 100 kilometers (US 23.5 mpg) around town, if the mass it has to carry is at least twice as smaller? Won't it have a better energy efficiency and mileage? Apart from the better economy and lower emissions you also shouldn't forget the improved overall performance.
I think that the future belongs to much lighter cars. The future means cars that are constructed out of composite materials, so that a car should would be of normal size but weigh a maximum of 500 kilograms (about 1100 pounds). A small car from the future should weigh as much as a current motorcycle, so it would be able to use smaller and more efficient engines, while its fuel consumption and emissions would be ridiculously tiny compared to today's standards.
This is the future gentlemen! Drastic reductions in weight. If you think my idea is close to impossible just take a look at Gordon Murray's T.25 project. OK, some alternative fuels would be nice, or even electric engines. The problem is that without some intelligently-designed batteries, with bigger storage capacities and much more friendly with the environment, preferably organic, it would be a crime to switch to "electric" so soon.
Current electric engines are truly a crime against humanity. They're much more evil than normal ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) in the long term and extremely uncomfortable for any sane being. Plus, I think we all agree an electric car should be capable of somehow recharging its batteries while driving. It's pretty stupid to charge your car from your home's power outlet on a daily basis. Where do you think that energy comes from, since it doesn't fall out of the sky? Think about it!
I propose we stop being ignorant and phony and start thinking before throwing the whole planet in an indescribable and unprecedented mess. I think that the experience with diesel fuel has sufficiently demonstrated the fact that we must pay for any stupid thing we do.
The pollution made by diesel-powered cars is greater than ever, with whole European cities (which haven't yet banned this type of fuel) being suffocated by older cars with no catalysts or any kind of particle filters. And all for just a smaller fuel consumption, but with the price of cars that are stupid, loud, hard to maintain, uncomfortable and only good for plowing in the field, as my colleague Sir Bach strongly thinks...
Instead of progressing, we always choose the "cheap" solutions, which is usually much more dumb and less healthy in the long run. In the race for quick profits, the big car manufacturers don't give a rat's a** about a real change and only oblige themselves to follow dumb rules invented by a bunch of old rich politicians, who are so stupidly and superficially governing the faith of the whole planet.
It's time to start thinking and come up with real solutions! With long term solutions, that actually provoke change for the better instead of an avalanche of age-old problems relaunching with a different look...
Google News