Engineering Explained:Why Tesla's Are Bad at Towing

[redpoint5]

If CO2 emissions is a catastrophic problem to solve by aggressive means, the proper way to go about it would be to first establish what amount of anthropologic yearly production is acceptable. Some cap, if you will.

You would then distribute that cap to every nation based on per-capita allowances. It would be up to the nation to determine how to spend that allowance.

Any individual, group, or nation exceeding this limit would be taxed based on the amount exceeded. This would have the effect of reducing emissions because taxation represents a loss of economic value, and economic value is directly related to consumption and emissions.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Thank goodness there is a loophole!

A bamboo bicycle from 1896

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_bicycle

A decision may involve impulsiveness.

Looks like a pretty good loophole. Of course, powering it as intended will require CO2 emissions.

For now, it seems there is no reasonable way to avoid a net CO2 emission to procure necessary materials for transportation machines, or to power them, or both.

Of course, my point was that setting an acceptable amount of emissions limit for individuals is arbitrary. People (perceived as) emitting more than us are selfish and irresponsible, and those emitting less than us are primitive. It's like Carlin says, those driving faster are maniacs, and those going slower are idiots.

Then, what constitutes a good vehicle and a bad one also needs to consider use. Is a person with a 10 MPG vehicle that drives 1,000 mile a year worse than someone that has a 100 MPG vehicle that drives 10,000 miles?

It's simply absurd to demonize a hybrid as not being clean enough after claiming faith in nothing, morality to be subjective, and the necessity to meet a certain arbitrary and undefined standard of emissions.

A decision may involve impulsiveness, but is a decision nothing but impulsiveness? If so, why does acting as if it doesn't (we all behave as if it doesn't) end up being very useful? My belief is both in ballistics and in course correction. Seemingly and paradoxically incompatible, but then the (poorly described) theory suffers no greater than any other theory.

[rmay635703]

https://youtu.be/Hatav_Rdnno

More mental masturbation to describe why batteries are bad because they are heavy compared to gasoline

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If CO2 emissions is a catastrophic problem to solve by aggressive means, the proper way to go about it would be to first establish what amount of anthropologic yearly production is acceptable. Some cap, if you will.

You would then distribute that cap to every nation based on per-capita allowances. It would be up to the nation to determine how to spend that allowance.

Any individual, group, or nation exceeding this limit would be taxed based on the amount exceeded. This would have the effect of reducing emissions because taxation represents a loss of economic value, and economic value is directly related to consumption and emissions.



Looks like a pretty good loophole. Of course, powering it as intended will require CO2 emissions.

For now, it seems there is no reasonable way to avoid a net CO2 emission to procure necessary materials for transportation machines, or to power them, or both.

Of course, my point was that setting an acceptable amount of emissions limit for individuals is arbitrary. People (perceived as) emitting more than us are selfish and irresponsible, and those emitting less than us are primitive. It's like Carlin says, those driving faster are maniacs, and those going slower are idiots.

Then, what constitutes a good vehicle and a bad one also needs to consider use. Is a person with a 10 MPG vehicle that drives 1,000 mile a year worse than someone that has a 100 MPG vehicle that drives 10,000 miles?

It's simply absurd to demonize a hybrid as not being clean enough after claiming faith in nothing, morality to be subjective, and the necessity to meet a certain arbitrary and undefined standard of emissions.

A decision may involve impulsiveness, but is a decision nothing but impulsiveness? If so, why does acting as if it doesn't (we all behave as if it doesn't) end up being very useful? My belief is both in ballistics and in course correction. Seemingly and paradoxically incompatible, but then the (poorly described) theory suffers no greater than any other theory.

The virtue signaling believers only want "to do something" until it inconveniences them.
Hell the vast majority don't even have an electric vehicle or solar panels.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Looks like a pretty good loophole.

The IF-THEN statement was the loophole.

A decision may involve impulsiveness, but is a decision nothing but impulsiveness? If so, why does acting as if it doesn't (we all behave as if it doesn't) end up being very useful? My belief is both in ballistics and in course correction. Seemingly and paradoxically incompatible, but then the (poorly described) theory suffers no greater than any other theory.

We are driven by our appetites.

exploringthemind.com: Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”

In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand.

The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand.

Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.

“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We are driven by our appetites.

exploringthemind.com: Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”

The machine observes the process of decision making, just like those fast connections to the NY stock exchange that get notified of an event that has already occurred before the rest of the world can react.

I do think machines will be able to accurately detect a lie in the future. At least, accurately enough to be legally admissible.

Funny how people's memories are about the worst form of evidence, yet it's admissible evidence. It should be a simple matter to see if a story that is being told is originating from the memory part(s) of the brain, or the creative part(s) of the brain.

Then we'll be able to know if someone is lying before they utter the words.

[teoman]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If CO2 emissions is a catastrophic problem to solve by aggressive means, the proper way to go about it would be to first establish what amount of anthropologic yearly production is acceptable. Some cap, if you will.

You would then distribute that cap to every nation based on per-capita allowances. It would be up to the nation to determine how to spend that allowance.

Any individual, group, or nation exceeding this limit would be taxed based on the amount exceeded. This would have the effect of reducing emissions because taxation represents a loss of economic value, and economic value is directly related to consumption and emissions.

.

Maybe some are trying to increase their cap using the Corona virus.

[hayden55]

Whale, he's not wrong. I've been saying the same thing.
1. Electric vehicles are fantastic for low consumption uses.
ie: intown towing, commuting, electric bicycles, electric motorcycles, a 2nd vehicle, etc...
2. Electric vehicles are bad for high consumption uses with long duration.
ie: boats, airplanes, going over battery capacity range where charging is required.
The big issue is the average speed of the vehicle. Averaging the speed limit at 65-70 mph, then having to charge 1/3 of the time, your effective average speed gets to be around 45 mph.
For most people who can afford to tow with an electric vehicle, I'm betting they would tow long range once then never do it again after enduring the painfully long trip time. (ie: towing a race car from my town to the race track. 6 hours @ 70. 9 hours with charging?)

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I think just making the car lighter, more resilient, and more aerodynamic would help more than the small improvements they can make to engines. Is there a new technology that will give a 10% increase in efficiency made to an ICE engine? Was it in a car that was not also a Hybrid? Even in the lab? Lean burning engines have been around for a while now...

Make the body panels out of easily to replace plastic panels, including bumper covers. Make the frame stronger and stiffer (lots of known ways to do this) and also safer. Decrease drag and weight of the vehicle. It would be easier to repair, safer, and more efficient. People, like Amory Lovins from Rocky Mountain Institute, has been talking about this for a while. Then you could decrease the size of the engine if the car is lighter and save even more fuel.

Just a thought.

The efficiency of the drivetrain is the number one factor for the efficiency of any vehicle. That's why EVs are so much more efficient, than ICEs.

[freebeard]

Meanwhile, back at The Whiteaker:



www.repairerdrivennews.com/2020/02/05/xponentialworks-project-produces-3d-printed-suspension-parts-for-aricimoto/

“In response to your questions, once the component is designed the machines can print the part much quicker than a regular designed part (in a matter of hours) and with quantity comes efficiency of costs,” spokeswoman Oshy Ellman of Silicon Valley Communications wrote in an email.

The price also drops because less material is necessary, according to Ellman.

“The cost is reduced because one doesn’t use as much material as you would do with regular manufacturing,” she wrote in another email. “You also don’t spend time connecting many parts to create the bigger part. With 3D printing you can make one connected part (due to the complex structures) so a lot of time and effort is saved.”

Let’s say XponentialWorks and Arcimoto’s project goes the distance and finds a home on the retail FUVs now being produced. That means the 3D-printed suspension parts would be placed on an sub-$20,000 electric vehicle with a top speed of 75 mph and a range of 100 miles.

Note that this is all unsprung weight.

[Xist]

Isn't 3d printed metal weaker than conventionally fabricated parts?