Toyota Prius, transport, and the future.

Originally Posted by BillyC

Ladies and Gentleman, I show you the true rant

Really, I know what you're saying, but I'm not quite as cynical. The Prius was a bold step, no one else was doing anything like this, and only Lexus have some something vaguely similar (and even more useless).

I feel that too many people are praising the Prius, rather than constructively pointing out the defects, and scurrying off to find solutions to them.

Other manufacturers were busy making diesel engines from existing processes with existing kit that consistently get 50mpg, ill pick one of those over sshi-tus any day

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by BillyC

A good efficient petrol car, albeit a small one (more relevant when comparing with motorbikes), might achieve 45mpg. The bike will probably do something similar - but it's half the size.

But with comparable peak power. If you detuned a bike engine to the same level as a car engine they'd kick the fuel efficiency bit into the weeds.

Look at that enfield motor, they tested it on the EUs idea of a fuel consumption test and where cars claimed 40mpg this thing turned in 100+.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

Within the timescales were require manufacturing more oil isn't a viable option, for the purposes of this discussion the potential energy stored within oil can be considered as a finite resource that just is and that will run out when we've used all of it

Correct. But once all the oil is gone, we'll be reliant on energy storage media unless someone comes up with something else to burn - or someone invents a nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a bike

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by ophic

Correct. But once all the oil is gone, we'll be reliant on energy storage media unless someone comes up with something else to burn - or someone invents a nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a bike

Well yes, obviously...

But that's nothing to do with the meaning of my original post you quoted

[CheGuevara]

The hype over the recall is some of the saddest reporting I've seen. The explanation provided by (I believe it was) the head of Toyota UK was that the issue is some drivers being unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) with the feel of a particularly agressive setting on the ABS system -functioning as it is intended. Presumably more people have been exposed to ABS in action because of the recent bad weather.

On the whole though, I'm quite happy about the existence of the Prius. I wouldn't personally own one, but they're nice enough to ride in as a taxi. I commend Toyota for bringing it to market though, and making it a relative success. Somebody had to do it first (on this sort of scale) and because of the general acceptance hybrid cars will continue to be developed, improved, and prices will drop. The Toyota Camry Hybrid sold in Canada has 187hp -more than the non-hybrid 4cyl version of the car, and it probably wouldn't exist if the Prius hadn't come before it.

[Red Herring]

Let me just work this out. My wife has a small diesel car and she takes great pride in telling me she manages 60+ MPG and she's going to keep it until it's run into the ground rather than splash out on a new one..... I on the other hand drive a 3.0l car 100 mile round trip to work every day and then spend the weekend going around in circles burning off super unleaded and Dunlop as quickly as I can, often with several mates doing the same thing... Fortunately we're both very happy and neither begrudges the other what they enjoy doing.

The reality is we are all individuals and if someone is happy believing they are doing their bit by driving a Prius who am I to tell them not to, or even to criticize their decision. They're not doing me any harm or breaking any laws, and provided they keep everything in perspective and don't try and interfere with my lifestyle then good luck to them. Cars such as the Prius achieve so little (or nothing if you listen to some arguments) for the "big" picture. If we as a global population were serious about reducing fuel use/emissions then the only way would be a significant change in the way we do things, and that just isn't going to happen, or at least not until we have to because there isn't an alternative.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

Well yes, obviously...

But that's nothing to do with the meaning of my original post you quoted

Yeah it has. We need the technology to develop efficient energy storage and delivery. Although hydrogen isn't a fuel in that sense, it's still important as these are the primary obstacles that need to be overcome. Generating[1] energy is comparatively easy and the technology has been around for decades.

By generating of course I mean transferring into a usable form. Or whatever.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by ophic

Yeah it has.

No it hasn't

I was simply posting a response explaining the difference between a fuel in the conventional sense of petroleum and a means of storing energy whereby the energy has to come from somewhere initially

I never commented on hydrogen's suitability, efficiency or importance in distributing energy to where we need it

You used semantics to pick up on the fact that I didn't specifically say that the potential energy in fossil fuels wasn't created but came from previous interactions, even though in the context of the post it was irrelevant, then changed the subject to the need for new infrastructure and technology to cope with a shift away from fossil fuel dependent society when I pointed out said irrelevance

But thanks for playing...

[ophic]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

I was simply posting a response explaining the difference between a fuel in the conventional sense of petroleum and a means of storing energy whereby the energy has to come from somewhere initially

Your explanation missed the crucial point, which is time.

[yorkie_chris]

200 million years makes many points of argument invalid...