• Welcome to Camera Craniums: The Photography Community for Enthusiasts.
 
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 62,411
  • Total Topics: 5,704
  • Online today: 297
  • Online ever: 856 (January 21, 2020, 09:07:00 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 265
  • Total: 265
  • Google
Wish
Amazon Spring Deal: SanDi...🌸🌼 Get Ready to Blossom w...Marantz Professional MPM-...Google Pixel 7a and Pixel...JasmineSanDisk Ultra 64GB USB Fl...SanDisk 512GB Extreme PRO...GiaDo You Shoot Photos With ...Which eye do you use with...SanDisk 256GB Extreme PRO...Duracell Plus Alkaline 1....RØDE VideoMicro Compact O...I must be one of the rare...Learning ResourcesPhotography and Time of D...

What bemused you today?

Started by greypoint, August 24, 2009, 07:51:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

picsfor

I've said it before and i'll say it again - the Carry On Team would do a better job of running this country.
I spotted carry on at your Convenience on the other week and had a watch - honestly if you'd just had Andrew Marr from the BBC offering an opinion you would have thought it was a documentary on our government!

Jonathan

The "new" Ford Fusion Hybrid has just won best car in some US back slapping competition.

This is largely because of its awesome environmental claims - it does an astonishing 41 miles to the gallon!!!! (on paper).  To be strict that's an EPA estimated of 41 mpg in the city, 36 on the "highway".  On our combined figures that would be more like 38 or 39.  It uses cutting edge technology and a (massively polluting to manufacture) NiMH battery to achieve this astonishing feat.  At least 8 mpg better than any other car in its class in America.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

My Skoda is just over 3 years old but was cutting edge when I bought it.  So the tech is roughly 3 years older than the Ford Fusion.  It doesn't have a massive NiMH battery - it runs on diesel with a particulate filter.  It could also run on chip fat.  It averages about 45 mpg in the real world.  (Official figures 48.2 mpg on combined).

Now the US gallon is smaller than the UK one.  A quick bit of maths says that in the US, on paper my Skoda would do a shade under 41 mpg (40.13 since you ask).  There are more economical models and the Octavia is a lot bigger than the Fusion.

So what's going on?

I reckon hybrids should be at least 50% more efficient than pure fossil fuels to make it worth all the complicated tech and manufacture of the batteries.  But in fact they are less efficient.  For example the Passat "Blue Motion" is a similar size to the Fusion and about as new.  The Blue Motion is just a bit of spin - it's a turbo diesel tuned for efficiency.  The estate does 54.3 mpg (45 m per US gallon).  10% better than the super green Fusion.

Is it that Ford aren't really trying?  Or that they would rather put loads of whizzy tech in a car to make it look more efficient than actually, you know, make it more efficient?
It's Guest's round

picsfor

#227
How cynical Jonathan!

American's not entering the spirit of saving the planet? Clearly not enough profit in it for the corporates yet!  ::)

On a slightly different note - how goes the snow in Canterbury? A few of us had planned to trip over there for some pictures this week but...

Jonathan

If I was cynical then I'd suggest the reason Ford want to sell you a 40mpg hybrid is so they can sell you a 60 mpg hybrid in 2 years.....

Still plenty of snow on the ground - pretty slushy.  None falling.  It will all be gone by about Thursday.

When you coming over?  I'm in London most of the week....
It's Guest's round

Hinfrance

Jonathan, my Octavia TDi estate is 9 years old and I cannot remember the last time it returned less than 55mpg. My idiotic Suzuki jeep does over 40mpg, and even my old Corvette C5 (Predator tuned, over 400bhp) will do over 30mpg on a steady 85mph run up the motorways to blighty on the odd occasions I make the trip.

Hybrid technology is definitely going to end up in the bin of history. Even the new Pious, sorry Prius, can't beat my old Skoda for economy and I have added advantage that I don't have to pay out several thousands every few years to replace the battery pack.

If the Chinese are not lying and they really have cracked the iron based battery nut then maybe electric vehicles will be a large part of the future. But, pray tell, where will the electricity come from?
Howard  My CC Gallery
My Flickr
The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H.L Mencken.

Nemesis

Had this conversation with a friend in the US on many occasions.  Obviously an equivalency between vehicles between the UK/US is difficult (my Fusion certainly aint the same as the US model of the same name), but if you go to Nissan ranges, a small MPV in the US returns around 30mpg, wheras here for a similar model (admittedly with a smaller engine) you'd be looking at 45-50mpg.  The manufacturers clearly have the engine and engine/fuel management technology to roll out more economical cars, so the question is why isn't that technology made available in the US market  - could it be down to their low fuel costs not creating a demand and supply situation for such?

CML-1591

£449.99 for a teleconverter  :o :legit:
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment. - Ansel Adams,

Hinfrance

#232
I was saddened, although not surprised, to read of yet more of the Met Office's fiddling of climate records. The winter that we are all shivering through up here in the northern hemisphere is already definitely, according to them, one of the mildest winters ever* seen.

How do they reach this preposterous conclusion? Simple. In determining the average seasonal temperature they take only fifteen data points (out of the 90 plus any sensible person looking for an average or median from 90 plus days' data would use - and then you'd use the max and mins, making 180 data points). Not only do they only take 15 data points, but they only take the warmest outliers. Winter includes November, November was warm, so all the data points used to determine the warmth or otherwise of the whole winter are based on the November data points. For those of you who don't know, this is just about as precisely opposite to the approach you would normally take to establish a meaningful average or median - you ditch the outliers, and keep everything else - as you can get.

It's so absurd you probably couldn't make it up.

This would explain why summers of continuous flooding are described as drier than normal for example. They just take the fifteen days when it might not have rained and extrapolate from that the conclusion that it didn't rain at all. Utterly delusional and would be hilarious were it not for the fact that governments throughout the world are planning to sabotage their own economies and standard of living for their citizens based on pseudo scientific drivel like this.

*BTW 'since records began' in Met Office speak means 'since 1971' or the long version, 'since we decided that 1971 was a bit nippy and we can prove global warming if we take that as the base point'.

I honestly have trouble even imagining that there is an AGW proponent out there who could tell the truth even if their very lives depended on it.

Part of an ongoing series of occasional rants here and there . .
Howard  My CC Gallery
My Flickr
The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H.L Mencken.

picsfor

strange they need to do it that way - given the Met Office has one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, computer in the country.
Their data processing is second to none in this country.

However, i'm glad i don't listen to only the Met Office. I like to listen to a few other people and here a few other scientists give their view first.

anglefire

One problem is that the Yanks don't like Diesel. Even a lot of their trucks run on petrol!

As for the Ford using NiMh - not good - Li-ions are much more efficient apparently.

And according to a friend of mine who has built several electric cars, they are the future. Not hybrids, not hydrogen, but batteries.

My first Audi (An A4 from 2000) averaged 47mpg, my 1st A6, 44mpg and my second 37mpg. All diesel, the latter being automatic.

Petrol is powerful, but not efficient (At the moment - I'm sure it will get a bit better, but is seen as about 95% developed), diesel is seen as a dirty fuel (Especially over the pond), but is probably only 80 or 85% developed (I.e. more efficiency is still possible). But it gives off particulate, which is cancerous.

Oh, and if you want to know why not hydrogen, then there are a couple of reasons.

1. Its pretty explosive.
2. Conversion of water to hydrogen is about 50-60% efficient.
3. Conversion of hydrogen to energy is about 50-60% efficient.
----------------------------------
Mark
* A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SHORT STORY* 'Hydrogen is a light, odourless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.'

CPS Gold Member
My Website

Current Bodies:
Canon 1Dx
Canon R3
Canon R5

Sold Bodies:
Canon 350D
Canon 1DMk3
Canon 5D
Canon 1Dx Mk3

Jonathan

Quote from: anglefire on January 11, 2010, 07:45:39 PM
But it gives off particulate, which is cancerous.

So....for the car the holiday and the boat......why aren't particulate filters mandatory on all diesels?
It's Guest's round

anglefire

Good question. A lot of cars are fitted with them - but why its not legal I've no idea - everything else seems to be!

Its always seemed to me to be a very weak argument against diesels. That and Clarkson doesn't like diesels! ;D
----------------------------------
Mark
* A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SHORT STORY* 'Hydrogen is a light, odourless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.'

CPS Gold Member
My Website

Current Bodies:
Canon 1Dx
Canon R3
Canon R5

Sold Bodies:
Canon 350D
Canon 1DMk3
Canon 5D
Canon 1Dx Mk3

Forseti

#237
Quote from: anglefire on January 11, 2010, 08:20:25 PM
Good question. A lot of cars are fitted with them - but why its not legal I've no idea -

Do you really need to ask that question - the answers pretty obvious - it's money in the bank for the government of your choosing. Example: three years ago here in Germany they introduced a new environmental policy (Umweltgesetzgebung). On the outskirts of an increasing number of towns and cities you will be presented with a sign - Umwelt Zone - with three discs; red, green and yellow. Your car has to have displayed one of these coloured discs in order to enter the town/city boundary. Recently, Berlin and somewhere else (can't remember where exactly now) removed the red disc so that now only vehicles displaying green or yellow are allowed to enter the town or city. By 2012 so they say, only a green disc will be displayed on the signs so if your vehicle doesn't have a more modern exhaust system (Cat 4 or 5 over here) you won't be able to enter the town or city. The discs cost 8 Euros and are compulsory - yes, even for foreign vehicles.

So where does the bemused aspect fit into this? Well if you drive a 4-year old Golf IV TDI (to give but one example) it will already be fitted with a Cat 4 satisfying exhaust system by the manufacturer and will automatically be given a *green* disc - no inspection required. Wonderful you say - an environmentally friendly car. Well no. Only the later Golf IV's have a particle filter fitted and because of this, and because one is considered not Umwelt friendly the penalty is an extra thirty or so Euros on the annual road tax. It costs between 500 - 700 Euros for your *average* car to be retro fitted with a particle filter so doing the maths one can see that you would need to drive this Golf for approx 16 years to make the retro fit worthwhile - if even then. You can imagine for yourself how many diesel cars have had the particle filter retro fitted - not many and is an area of conflict between the ADAC (our RAC) and the Chancellor. Not as many Euros are entering the big collection box as had been budgeted for.

This is typical for Germany I'm sad to say. On the surface wanting to be seen as *green* but the reality of the entire exercise is simply to generate income for the Chancellor. I personally would have no objection at all if the Government were to say that *all diesel cars MUST have a particle filter fitted* but that would be going up against the motor industry and considering that 60% of all German jobs are related in some way to the production of motor vehicles you can see that that would be a non starter. After all, that's where most of the tax originates. See - it all comes down to money in the end.

Going to bed now - it's been an exhausting day. But first,  :beer: No, non of that black stuff - a real beer.  :tup:
Canon 7D,  Canon SX1 IS, EF100 f/2.8 USM Macro, EF70-200 f/4 L IS USM, EF17-40 f/4 L USM, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM, Canon Speedlite 580EX MkII

"Everyone can take a great picture with digital, the knack is to take two" - David Bailey

spinner

Quote from: anglefire on January 11, 2010, 07:45:39 PM
One problem is that the Yanks don't like Diesel. Even a lot of their trucks run on petrol!

Oh, and if you want to know why not hydrogen, then there are a couple of reasons.

1. Its pretty explosive.
2. Conversion of water to hydrogen is about 50-60% efficient.
3. Conversion of hydrogen to energy is about 50-60% efficient.


Define, trucks. If you include vehicles such as mine, a Ford Pickup used mostly for personal use, then yes a lot run on gas. If you're talking commercial I doubt you'll find any that don't run on diesel.

It's not popular in north america because Gasoline is cheap by any standard. I thought about switching from a gasoline engined Ford pickup to a diesel powered pickup because I'd planned on installing a Camper back and touring North America when I retired. I sought opinions from truck owners on a Ford pickup Forum. Most people, the vast majority, pointed out to me that at current gas prices I would have to drive a lot of miles and keep the truck for a lot of years to see any substantial savings. Never having priced European models of vehicles I have no idea how things work but as an example, that self same pickup truck sees a whopping price increase of between $15000 and $20000 on the final price if you substituted a diesel over a gasoline engine. At an average of $2.75 per U.S. gallon that's about 7500 gallons of gas that could be purchased for that cost of the engine.

As for Hydrogen, there is no infastructure in place to dispense it and the cost of setting up and infrastructure is excessive.  It's similar to the Ethanol idiocy, they've taken away huge portions of food producing acreage to grow corn for Ethanol production, but that production is operating at a loss because from what I understand the energy produced from ethanol doesn't come close to gasoline but they can't actually sell it for what it cost to manufacture. No one would switch if they did.
And more, much more than this, I did it my way
Ol' blue eyes

http://ddsdigita4.wix.com/ddsdigital
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spin498/

Hinfrance

Forseti, we have a similar system here in France, except that we only have a 'green' sticker. And restrictions only apply if there is a pollution warning.

Two thing make this a bit silly from here in the countryside - 1, we never get a high pollution day, and 2, even my V8 has got one. Go figure.
Howard  My CC Gallery
My Flickr
The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H.L Mencken.

Camera Craniums is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Program. This affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on Amazon.