2-3 years: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2167/69/
Going to be ass expensive and totally impractical just like the current hybrid cars on the market.
What makes the current hybrid cars totally impractical? As long as the individual buyer judges the increased price against the increased mileage, i think they are a viable option. I'm not sure a hybrid moto would be so appealing, seems like you could get similar mileage gains with smaller displacement and/or different engine designs (diesel, turbo, direct injection, etc.)
Because they're overweight and underpowered, which drops their fuel savings significantly when put in normal use. Then couple that with their price premium and you have an impractical vehicle. Prius vs Corrola. 45mpg vs 28mpg normal use. It'd take around 15 years for the Prius owner to break even with the Corrola owner. Now go and try to stick two engines in a motorcycle and see what happens.
Just wait until all of the hybrid owners have to put new batteries in them. They are going to shit a brick when they find out how much they are. Hybrids are a band-aid on a slit artery. Yes they have less emmisons but what are we going to do with all of the old batteries when they go bad? Bury them?
Quote from: metallimonster on October 06, 2008, 11:35:12 AM
Just wait until all of the hybrid owners have to put new batteries in them. They are going to shit a brick when they find out how much they are. Hybrids are a band-aid on a slit artery. Yes they have less emmisons but what are we going to do with all of the old batteries when they go bad? Bury them?
You touched on a good point with the batteries. With what it takes to manufacture, maintain and recycle a hybrid over it's life compared to a regular car, it's actually a less environmentally responsible option.
I don't understand the hybrid bashing. I have several green friends that have em and love em.
But!!! I can't see going in that direction with motorcycles. There is an unfilled niche out there for a high performance
high gas mileage bike. MC engineers need to change the paradigm. I see no reason why a 350 lb bike can't make 60 hp and get
100mpg. If high mileage were a goal it could be done with a conventional engine.
I'm bashing hybrids because high mileage can be done with conventional engines. The 1987 Honda Civic CRX hf was rated at 57mpg hwy. If you use today's rating system that's still 51hwy. The first step is to ditch the suv's and be happier with smaller, lighter cars. It takes energy to move mass. Less mass, less energy input. Hybrids are a neat idea but the technology still needs to advance, which it undoubtedly will. At the moment there are cheaper and easier ways of achieving the same goal. Just my .02
Quote from: alfisti on October 06, 2008, 02:08:52 PM
I'm bashing hybrids because high mileage can be done with conventional engines. The 1987 Honda Civic CRX hf was rated at 57mpg hwy. If you use today's rating system that's still 51hwy. The first step is to ditch the suv's and be happier with smaller, lighter cars. It takes energy to move mass. Less mass, less energy input. Hybrids are a neat idea but the technology still needs to advance, which it undoubtedly will. At the moment there are cheaper and easier ways of achieving the same goal. Just my .02
You know, when the car came out, a number of people claimed it was too primitive to replace the horse.
The hybrids will do better.
No doubt. All kinds of factors are pushing battery technology forward. I would love to see on board starters for F1 cars. You know if an F1 car needs a battery that will start the car the engineers will dump all kinds of resources to make it tiny. Surely that will trickle down to production like so much other F1 tech (abs,traction control,efi,camless etc)
Quote from: alfisti on October 06, 2008, 02:08:52 PM
I'm bashing hybrids because high mileage can be done with conventional engines. The 1987 Honda Civic CRX hf was rated at 57mpg hwy. If you use today's rating system that's still 51hwy. The first step is to ditch the suv's and be happier with smaller, lighter cars. It takes energy to move mass. Less mass, less energy input. Hybrids are a neat idea but the technology still needs to advance, which it undoubtedly will. At the moment there are cheaper and easier ways of achieving the same goal. Just my .02
Most of what you say I agree with.
I had this conversation with one of my friend that owns a Prius. I told him that it just doesn't make sense that a vehicle with two motors and two means of storing energy
should get better mileage than a light vehicle with one power source. The engineering goal should be to develop a single engine vehicle that runs on a renewable source of energy. He agreed and added that his Prius was only an interim step and not the final solution.
Now, the technology race is on to come up with the ideal power source of the future. We seemed to have at last waken up to the fact that someday we will run out of oil.
From Einstein we know that the universe is made up of matter and energy. And one can be changed into the other. All we have to do is be clever enough to figure out
how to apply such a basic concept to propelling a car. Should be easy as [bang] [bang] until we figure it out.
Quote from: akmnstr on October 06, 2008, 02:53:26 PM
The engineering goal should be to develop a single engine vehicle that runs on a renewable source of energy.
Exactly to a point. "Renewable source of energy" is only applicable to all electrics where the method of power generation is from wind, solar, geothermal or hydrodynamic. Biofuels are a joke as there isn't enough farm land in the world to satisfy a world wide demand plus it is generally a bad idea to burn food and rely on a sorce that can be wiped out due to environmental factors. All electrics have a place as daily return to source vehicles provided the power generation infrastructure is upgraded accordingly and will be more viable as battery technology gets more refined. The most viable replacement for fossil fuel vehicles is hydrogen as it is available everywhere. Still needs a lot of research and diverting funds and time chasing dead end tech like hybrids and biofuels is not helping.
Hey!!! Didn't we start this thread with reference to motorcycles??
What about a super efficient bike and I am not thinking of a 21st century version of
the Honda 90.
With proper fueling, cams, and timing we should do much better.
My monster does no better than my friend's Prius.
Quote from: alfisti on October 06, 2008, 02:08:52 PM
I'm bashing hybrids because high mileage can be done with conventional engines. The 1987 Honda Civic CRX hf was rated at 57mpg hwy. If you use today's rating system that's still 51hwy. The first step is to ditch the suv's and be happier with smaller, lighter cars. It takes energy to move mass. Less mass, less energy input. Hybrids are a neat idea but the technology still needs to advance, which it undoubtedly will. At the moment there are cheaper and easier ways of achieving the same goal. Just my .02
One thing that bothers me, being a fan of diesel power, why use gasoline/electric... lets see diesel/electric!!!
HERNDON, Va., Sept. 29 - The world's most fuel efficient couple, John and Helen Taylor, have broken the current world record for lowest fuel consumption across the 48 contiguous United States averaging 58.82 miles to the gallon. They ended their 20 day trip in West Virginia on Thursday, Sept. 25, 2008. To help them break the world record, they drove the all-new, 50-state-compliant clean diesel Volkswagen Jetta TDI, fueled by Shell Ultra Low Sulfur diesel fuel under real world driving conditions, simply applying easy to use fuel saving tips and the latest efficient engine technology available for good clean diesel fun.
Now add electric power to that!!!
Quote from: akmnstr on October 06, 2008, 12:31:51 PM
MC engineers need to change the paradigm. I see no reason why a 350 lb bike can't make 60 hp and get
100mpg. If high mileage were a goal it could be done with a conventional engine.
+1. Vespa already get close to 100 mpg I believe.
Quote from: CDawg on October 07, 2008, 10:19:58 AM
+1. Vespa already get close to 100 mpg I believe.
True, but why can't we get similar mileage with a motorcycle. We got about the same mileage from small bikes
made by Honda back in the 60s. I think we could do better if we made it a goal.
Quote from: akmnstr on October 07, 2008, 10:28:57 AM
True, but why can't we get similar mileage with a motorcycle. We got about the same mileage from small bikes
made by Honda back in the 60s. I think we could do better if we made it a goal.
I believe aerodynamics plays a large role. Absolutely no reason why we cannot make it better. Heck, I'm still waiting for an Akira bike! [moto]
I thought you meant this:
http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq275/ancalagon08/1sttHybridMotorcycle.jpg (http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq275/ancalagon08/1sttHybridMotorcycle.jpg)
:)
Quote from: CDawg on October 07, 2008, 10:36:12 AM
I believe aerodynamics plays a large role. Absolutely no reason why we cannot make it better. Heck, I'm still waiting for an Akira bike! [moto]
Not to mention, you're going to burn more fuel pushing all that air at 100+ mph, as opposed to a scoot that only hits 42.