Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:30:21 +0200
Yiannakos wrote:
>
> > However, the Insight, due to the electric backup, the extremely low
> > curb-weight [820kg!], and a drag coefficient of 0.25, should have about

[schnip]

>
> My gad! Howinhell did they get the curb weight so low? That's what killed

Well Geez... my 1972 Ford Escort only weighs about 780kg...
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLE IN FENESTRA
Message no. 2
From: _hEx_ iti03678@****.co.za
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:10:46 +0200
From: abortion_engine <abortion_engine@*******.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: 14 February 2000 11:36
Subject: Re: Insight


>From: <HHackerH@***.com>
>> In a message dated 2/14/00 1:59:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>> abortion_engine@*******.com writes:
>I don't think I'll be buying an electric car anytime soon. Any
vehicle
>powerplant that requires you to replace most of the vehicle
superstructure
>with lighter materials just to perform at levels equal to gasoline
engines
>is inherently inferior, IMO. And some of these do have accel rates
nearly
>equal to normal sedans [Camry, etc.], but at the expense of top end,
>distance, and stiffness.
>
>I suppose it's one of those things; like these new speakers that
claim to
>perform at the levels of speakers 100 times their size. Sure, they
sound
>nice, but where's the floor shaking in the middle of pipe organ
solos?
>Electric cars may be quick and light, but the idea of driving one
leaves me
>cold. Practicality has no place on the American road.

While I agree with your points on the lack of machismo these cars
offer, I'd like to point out the environmental advantages. Oil is an
expendable and non-renewable resource, which will in time become very
expensive and eventually depleted. Either the personal transport
paradigm will have to shift or people will have to get used to
hybrid/electrics. For the sake of the planet, I hope the paradigm
shifts, but knowing people, they'll find a way to make gas out of
something else. Here in SA, we have the SASOL facility that makes
petrol from coal, a resource we have plenty of. I've read SF that
proposes making it fro plants too.. any idea how thats supposed to
work?

<hex@*************.com>
bad luck
Message no. 3
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:27:08 EST
In a message dated 2/14/00 4:36:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

> Even the Lotus Elise [drool] electric version has a maximum speed of 90mph.
> Choke me. :)

Actually, the street level Elise is 90MPH, but the drag-racerish-thing
they've built out of the Elise (IIRC, that's the model) has as speed of 220.
Electric as well.

> I don't think I'll be buying an electric car anytime soon. Any vehicle
> powerplant that requires you to replace most of the vehicle superstructure
> with lighter materials just to perform at levels equal to gasoline engines
> is inherently inferior, IMO. And some of these do have accel rates nearly
> equal to normal sedans [Camry, etc.], but at the expense of top end,
> distance, and stiffness.
>
> I suppose it's one of those things; like these new speakers that claim to
> perform at the levels of speakers 100 times their size. Sure, they sound
> nice, but where's the floor shaking in the middle of pipe organ solos?
> Electric cars may be quick and light, but the idea of driving one leaves me
> cold. Practicality has no place on the American road.

that's hilarious considering that the "American road" is one of the slowest
places in the world...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 4
From: Simon Fuller sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:40:24 +1100
-----Original Message-----
From: _hEx_ <iti03678@****.co.za>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Insight


>>cold. Practicality has no place on the American road.
>
>While I agree with your points on the lack of machismo these cars
>offer, I'd like to point out the environmental advantages. Oil is an
>expendable and non-renewable resource, which will in time become very
>expensive and eventually depleted. Either the personal transport
>paradigm will have to shift or people will have to get used to
>hybrid/electrics. For the sake of the planet, I hope the paradigm
>shifts, but knowing people, they'll find a way to make gas out of
>something else. Here in SA, we have the SASOL facility that makes
>petrol from coal, a resource we have plenty of. I've read SF that
>proposes making it fro plants too.. any idea how thats supposed to
>work?
>

The problem is, EVERYONE has gasoline buning engines, so there is a lot of
money in making better petrol engines. The alternitive energy engines are
either ridiculously expensive or inadequate in comparison, but if they
started to be used regularly, the technology would shoot ahead.
Unfortunately (without getting too deeply into conspiracy theory) there is
too much money tied up in oil for this to happen until there is no choice.
I heard that it would take a few million to make a large solar panel
factory big enough to mass produce solar technology cheaply, but nobody will
invest because there isn't enough of a market. Meanwhile nobody buys solar
panels for power etc. because the cost is too high. Catch 22, Yossarian
style. I imagine the same applies to cars.
Message no. 5
From: _hEx_ iti03678@****.co.za
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:46:15 +0200
From: Simon Fuller <sfuller@******.com.au>
Date: 15 February 2000 09:32
Subject: Re: Insight


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: _hEx_ <iti03678@****.co.za>
>To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
>Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Insight
>
>
>>>cold. Practicality has no place on the American road.
>>
>>While I agree with your points on the lack of machismo these cars
>>offer, I'd like to point out the environmental advantages. Oil is an
>>expendable and non-renewable resource, which will in time become
very
>>expensive and eventually depleted. Either the personal transport
>>paradigm will have to shift or people will have to get used to
>>hybrid/electrics. For the sake of the planet, I hope the paradigm
>>shifts, but knowing people, they'll find a way to make gas out of
>>something else. Here in SA, we have the SASOL facility that makes
>>petrol from coal, a resource we have plenty of. I've read SF that
>>proposes making it fro plants too.. any idea how thats supposed to
>>work?
>>
>
>The problem is, EVERYONE has gasoline buning engines, so there is a
lot of
>money in making better petrol engines. The alternitive energy engines
are
>either ridiculously expensive or inadequate in comparison, but if
they
>started to be used regularly, the technology would shoot ahead.
>Unfortunately (without getting too deeply into conspiracy theory)
there is
>too much money tied up in oil for this to happen until there is no
choice.
> I heard that it would take a few million to make a large solar panel
>factory big enough to mass produce solar technology cheaply, but
nobody will
>invest because there isn't enough of a market. Meanwhile nobody buys
solar
>panels for power etc. because the cost is too high. Catch 22,
Yossarian
>style. I imagine the same applies to cars.

I'm well aware of the petroleum lobby's powers of persuasion, Simon.
What they dont seem to be able to wrap their heads around is the fact
that the source of the dirty money they want to get their greedy
little fingers into is non-renewable. Eventually, it's all gonna just
dry up and looking for more is going to get too damn expensive. At
some point, and rather sooner than later, somebody is going to have to
stick their neck out and sink the needed money into solarcell and
other alternative energy sources. By the SR era, I presume that this
has been done, and thus the lack of an oil company among the megas.

<hex@*************.com>
bad luck
Message no. 6
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:48:07 +0100
According to Yiannakos, at 14:21 on 14 Feb 00, the word on the street
was...

> Probably not with a battery-powered engine. There's been ideas kicked around
> (dreams, really) about power lines laid in the road that cars could draw
> power off of subway-style. It'll never happen, not anytime soon, but I
> imagine you could get some great accel. and top speed off of one of those,
> (as long as you didn't jump your track and lose your power source...)

The question I have, though, is: is that necessary? Electric cars would
(IMHO) be used mainly in cities, where a high top speed is just about the
last thing that will come in handy. Acceleration might be nice, to pull up
from traffic lights and so on, but since in many cities the traffic often
slows down to a slow crawl, I don't see why an electric car should have a
high top speed...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And it feels like I've got something to prove,
But in some ways it's just something to do...
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:01:08 +0000
Gurth wrote:
> According to Yiannakos, at 14:21 on 14 Feb 00, the word on the street
> was...
> > Probably not with a battery-powered engine. There's been ideas kicked around
> > (dreams, really) about power lines laid in the road that cars could draw
> > power off of subway-style. It'll never happen, not anytime soon, but I
> > imagine you could get some great accel. and top speed off of one of those,
> > (as long as you didn't jump your track and lose your power source...)

> The question I have, though, is: is that necessary? Electric cars would
> (IMHO) be used mainly in cities, where a high top speed is just about the
> last thing that will come in handy. Acceleration might be nice, to pull up
> from traffic lights and so on, but since in many cities the traffic often
> slows down to a slow crawl, I don't see why an electric car should have a
> high top speed...

And that is the thing that the car manufactures need to realise. The
problem with the current alternative technology vehicles is that the
manufactures are trying to get electric cars that travel at over 80mph
whereas if they tried making cars that go slower we could have them
today.

We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.

-Andrew

--
"I can only conclude that I'm paying off karma at a vastly accelerated
rate."
- Ivanova (B5)
"These are my opinions and not those of my employer"
Message no. 8
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:13:23 +0200
Andrew Norman wrote:
>
>
> We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
> cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.
>
> -Andrew
>

Two problems with that statement: First, cars take forever and a day to
reach their absolute top speed, so a car who's top speed is exactly the
legal limit will never actually reach that speed (not to mention dying a
horrible death on even gentle hills), and Second, how are you supposed
to get away from the Star with the paydirt in a crappy little electric
runabout?
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLE IN FENESTRA
Message no. 9
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:23:21 +0100
Allen wrote:
> > We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
> > cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
>
> Two problems with that statement: First, cars take forever and a day to
> reach their absolute top speed, so a car who's top speed is exactly the
> legal limit will never actually reach that speed (not to mention dying a
> horrible death on even gentle hills)

The new version of the Toyota Supra Twin Turbo are limited in Europe to
about 270 kph, and there's no way in hell he gets there slowly. Limiting
cars to the legal speed limit won't have any impact on performance until it
reaches that limit.

There's one major drawback is that I *want* to be able to exceed the speed
limit in times of trouble and when I do, I pay the speed-ticket for that
privilege.

/dev/dennis

a.k.a.

DV8

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is,..."
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 10
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:35:19 +0000
Dennis Steinmeijer wrote:
>
> Allen wrote:
> > > We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
> > > cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.
> >
> > Two problems with that statement: First, cars take forever and a day to
> > reach their absolute top speed, so a car who's top speed is exactly the
> > legal limit will never actually reach that speed (not to mention dying a
> > horrible death on even gentle hills)
>
> The new version of the Toyota Supra Twin Turbo are limited in Europe to
> about 270 kph, and there's no way in hell he gets there slowly. Limiting
> cars to the legal speed limit won't have any impact on performance until it
> reaches that limit.

No but by making the legal speedlimit the limit of the car means that
more
energy can be put into making the cars more efficient rather than fast.
It
has been demonstrated that a car can be built that is *extremely*
efficient
but the top speed is rather limited, because of this reason no-one was
interested in buying them. This ASAIK is the reason that the california
zero-emission restrictions have been put on the back burner for a while.

> There's one major drawback is that I *want* to be able to exceed the speed
> limit in times of trouble and when I do, I pay the speed-ticket for that
> privilege.

But why break the speed limit ... thrills ??? I personally don't break
the
speed limit ... not because I fear the law but because I have seen to
many
friends (6 in the last 4 years) die because of speed. Most of the
vehicles
I drive can go fast (200kph+) but I enjoy the acceleration up to the
speed
limit and then stop. I push the limits on cornering but never on top
speed.

I agree that there are times when you *need* to break the speed limit
(in the
SR world) but I was talking about the everyday normal run-of-the-mill
person.
But real shadowrunners would customise any vehicle to outrun cops etc.

-Andrew

--
"Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow."
"These are my opinions and not those of my employer"
Message no. 11
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:43:17 +0200
Dennis Steinmeijer wrote:
>
> Allen wrote:
> > > We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
> > > cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > >
> >
> > Two problems with that statement: First, cars take forever and a day to
> > reach their absolute top speed, so a car who's top speed is exactly the
> > legal limit will never actually reach that speed (not to mention dying a
> > horrible death on even gentle hills)
>
> The new version of the Toyota Supra Twin Turbo are limited in Europe to
> about 270 kph, and there's no way in hell he gets there slowly. Limiting
> cars to the legal speed limit won't have any impact on performance until it
> reaches that limit.

Not that I've ever driven such nice fast cars, but in my experience,
once you approach the top speed, you start running out of power really
quickly... accelerating from 180 to 190km/h in a 1600 ford bantam took
me over 30 seconds

Of course, the governor you mentioned means that those particular cars
will still have plenty power on tap. I wonder just how fast they could
actually get without it?

>
> There's one major drawback is that I *want* to be able to exceed the speed
> limit in times of trouble and when I do, I pay the speed-ticket for that
> privilege.
>

Me, I just enjoy driving fast - it's just one of those stoopid macho
things :-) And when they finally catch me, I'll gladly pay the fine, to
make up for all the times I got away with it :-)

Yup, I'm definitely first in line for my VCR...

--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

The only way to die, is in a cartwheeling, flaming wreck, down an empty
stretch of freeway, at 300+ kph, yeah, born to rig, live by the road,
die by the road
Message no. 12
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:49:41 +0200
Andrew Norman wrote:
>
> > There's one major drawback is that I *want* to be able to exceed the speed
> > limit in times of trouble and when I do, I pay the speed-ticket for that
> > privilege.
>
> But why break the speed limit ... thrills ??? I personally don't break
> the

I can think of several reasons. The wife in the backseat, in labour.
the old man having a heart attack needs a quick ride to hospital. Or
(as has happens quite regularly in certain parts of the country), the
local car theft syndicate tries to take your car from you while you're
still on the road.

But in all honesty, I personally exceed the speed limit out of
impatience, but hardly ever by more than about 10% (I'll do 130 in a 120
zone). My personal brand of fast driving involves more late braking,
tyre-screeching, over-steer cornering than straight-line speed. My
little car doesn't have a big enough engine for that :-)
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLE IN FENESTRA
Message no. 13
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:59:02 +0000
Allen Versfeld wrote:
>
> Andrew Norman wrote:
> >
> > > There's one major drawback is that I *want* to be able to exceed the speed
> > > limit in times of trouble and when I do, I pay the speed-ticket for that
> > > privilege.
> >
> > But why break the speed limit ... thrills ??? I personally don't break
> > the
>
> I can think of several reasons. The wife in the backseat, in labour.
> the old man having a heart attack needs a quick ride to hospital. Or
> (as has happens quite regularly in certain parts of the country), the
> local car theft syndicate tries to take your car from you while you're
> still on the road.

The first time I read the above paragraph I thought you were saying that
you wanted to give the old man the heart attack :)

No .. I agree with you there are reasons to speed. But again do we
**really** need cars that can go twice to three times the legal speed
limit.

> But in all honesty, I personally exceed the speed limit out of
> impatience, but hardly ever by more than about 10% (I'll do 130 in a 120
> zone).
> My personal brand of fast driving involves more late braking,
> tyre-screeching, over-steer cornering than straight-line speed. My
> little car doesn't have a big enough engine for that :-)

Try a motorbike. I used to scrap the foot pegs on corners way to often.
It is an easy way to get good at driving fairly quickly. And as a
morbid friend once commented ... "the only good things about motorbikes
is that you will most likely only kill yourself in an accident."

-Andrew

--
"Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow."
"These are my opinions and not those of my employer"
Message no. 14
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:01:23 -0500
From: "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*********.com>
> :I have a difficult time believing that any electric engine, all else
> :remaining equal, can produce the same amount of torque that a gas engine
> :can. I'd like to see some more information.
>
> What should remain equal? A gas engine is gonna suck by comparison if
> you require it to opperate with zero emmisions (from the vehicle)- that's
> why you se electric powered carts used indoors already! The technolgies
are
> fundamentally diffrent, and the designs are apllication specific.

I suppose that's sort of the issue; the purpose of electric cars isn't my
purpose in driving. <shrug> Would be nice to be able to start the car in the
garage without filling it with Carbon Monoxide. :)

> Torque is
> not, however, the problem with electric motors- range is. Hell, they use
> electric motors to lift elevators and run hydraulic pumps! Electric motor
> torque curves are (more or less) FLAT, something a gas engine simply can't
> match. In fact, at low RPM, gas engines can't match a similar wieght
> electric motor for torque.

Mmm. I'd like to spend some time thinking about a Lotus Esprit with a
perfectly flat torque curve...mmm. Thank you.

> The problem is range (or wieght)- nobody can design a battery that,
> pound for pound, yeilds the same amount of stored energy that petro-fuel
> does (thoug batteries can be made to release that enrgy just as fast as
fuel
> can- so again, torque / horspower isn't the problem). No big suprise in
> that! This is partly what a hybrid system attempts to overcome- by using
> an oboard fuel engine to charge the batteries, you get the benefit of the
> energy density of petro-fuel (low weight / good range), and the engine can
> be tweeked to opperate at peak effeciency, because its RPM and torque load
> can be fixed at whatever is best for that engine. Simply put, you don't
> need as many (heavy) batteries, cause the gas engine acts as a onboard
> battery charger system. That makes the car lightr, faster, and gives it
> better range.

The hybrid system certainly is a nice comprimise at this point, but it still
doesn't match the performance of a gasoline-powered car. Not to mention I'm
not certain what you'd be able to tweak on an electric car. [Well, there's
superconductive drive, but that's not real. :) ] It's not exactly like you
can supercharge it, or force-air it, or much of anything else. With no
exhaust, there's no tuning. [Oh, my. These cars must sound so terrible.
WheeWhee!]

I wonder, as the next decade wears on, what sort of performance
modifications we'll be able to expect.

> IMO, to simulate this in Shadowrun, it would be simplest to just use
the
> reules for electric vehicles, with an onboard chargin system with rules
> similar to "suncell", except that it consumes a fuel of some sort. This
> ignores the potential of using both systems when peak output is demanded,
> but SR vehicle rules paint power systems with a pretty broad brush anyhow.

I like your idea of using Gridlink *only* in special parking structures
[preferably covered]. This allows the GM to essentially restrict access to
power. Still, the idea of an electric car with no batteries is nice; power
to weight, power to weight.
Message no. 15
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:23:36 -0500
From: <HHackerH@***.com>
> In a message dated 2/14/00 4:36:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> abortion_engine@*******.com writes:
>
> > Even the Lotus Elise [drool] electric version has a maximum speed of
90mph.
> > Choke me. :)
>
> Actually, the street level Elise is 90MPH, but the drag-racerish-thing
> they've built out of the Elise (IIRC, that's the model) has as speed of
220.
> Electric as well.

Now *that* I would like to see.

Sorry, nationalistic pride; I'm a Lotus junkie.

It probably helps that the "standard," and I use the term lightly, Elise
weighs 670kg, or 1477lb. It's not a road car; it's not even legal to drive
on the road in the States.

> > I suppose it's one of those things; like these new speakers that claim
to
> > perform at the levels of speakers 100 times their size. Sure, they
sound
> > nice, but where's the floor shaking in the middle of pipe organ solos?
> > Electric cars may be quick and light, but the idea of driving one
leaves me
> > cold. Practicality has no place on the American road.
>
> that's hilarious considering that the "American road" is one of the
slowest
> places in the world...

Ah, but the way you all feel about your cars! The feeling that a car is your
birthright. And the big shiny heavy steel gas-guzzling flare-winged
high-torque loud-ass *monsters* that you build! No European car is like
that; the Esprit, for instance, is a beautiful car, all thin lines and
subtlety. But you people built the Dodge Viper! Not even the Germans would
have made something so gratuitous! Ahh.

And, no, I don't claim to understand why the country that produced the
Mustang and the Corvette would have such stupid safety requirements and such
low speed limits. But for me, it's the feeling of the heavy steel, the black
iron gods you make in your factories, that makes me feel that practicality
has no place on the American road.

_____________________________________
"No man with a good car needs to be justified."
Message no. 16
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:27:02 -0500
From: "Andrew Norman" <andrew_norman@******.com>
> We can live and hope that the modern society moves away from needing
> cars that can travel faster than the legal speed limit.

Bite your tongue, man! :)

Seriously, if you don't want to drive a car that travels faster than the
speed limit, don't. Buy the Insight. But don't think that the rest of us are
going to do so.

___________________________________
The devil is an angel just like everyone else.
Message no. 17
From: Airwisp@***.com Airwisp@***.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:00:56 EST
In a message dated 2/14/2000 9:50:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.com writes:

> <SNIP>
> > The thing about the Insight's power plant is that it is a gasoline
> > engine, with a lot of battery packs stuck into the vehicle
> > (somewhere).
>
> In the rear, under the cargo area.
>
> > When the vehicle is moving along at a steady speed the
> > batteries are being charged by the engine.
>
> And when the vehicle is decelerating.
>
> > The batteries come into
> > play when the driver decides to accelerate to a higher speed. When
> > this happens the batteries take over the responsibility of providing
> > the additional power (acceleration)to get the car to the higher
> > speed.
>
> Yup. I don't know if the electric motor can power the car if the car runs
> out of gas...
>
> > This is where the fuel economy savings come into play, hence
> > the incredibly high fuel economy (which translates roughly into
> > 28/32 km/liter - different than yours).
> <SNIP>
>
> I think the difference may be a matter of rounding ...
>
> However, if you simply floor it, the Insight's Economy drops all the way
> down to 50 mpg (about 21 km/lt); about as good as the best a Diesel car
> can reach (according to an article I read on the Web.)
>
> IMO, this is not really a matter of a car with two powerplants but a car
> with a hybrid powerplant. To really be accurate, the powerplant would
> have one or two standard fuel economy ratings (gas and electric power),
> one to three speed, accel, load, sig, and fuel ratings (Hybrid, gas only,
> and electric only), one special economy rating (PF used during assisted
> accel), plus a recharge rate for the batteries. Hmmm ... perhaps this is
> too convoluted to be included (in this form) in any upcoming SR products
> ...

I'm not certain I would assign this vehicle two separate fuel economies,
perhaps the best route would be to say having a hybrid power plant of this
type would bring an increase in the fuel economy and let that be the end of
it.

> Btw, anybody know what stat(s) torque translates into? The article I read
> said that (torque) is something electric engines have in spades.

I have no clue, I look forward to Jon giving us some more information on that
if he does so.

> Btw, I don't remember the site I went to, but I found some awesome
> concept car/bike pics. If you want some inspiration for SR bike/cars, do
> a websearch for concept cars. BMW made a bike with a roof and seatbelts
> :) and some of the Honda ones (for Japan) are FUNKY! Also, they made a
> bike that looks a bit like the BMW Blitzen (Someone at Honda playing SR?
> ;)). If anyone finds a site that has a collection of images of past
> concept cars, please drop me a line. :)

I agree, I'd like to see that web site also.

-Mike
Message no. 18
From: Jinx jinx@*******.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:20:14 -0600
On 15 Feb 00, at 9:46, _hEx_ wrote:

> I'm well aware of the petroleum lobby's powers of persuasion, Simon.
> What they dont seem to be able to wrap their heads around is the fact
> that the source of the dirty money they want to get their greedy
> little fingers into is non-renewable. Eventually, it's all gonna just
> dry up and looking for more is going to get too damn expensive.

Believe it or not, we're not as close to that as you'd like to believe.
Predictions for fuel usage, including growing consumption as the
planet's population continues to grow, compared to predictions of
how much natural gas and crude is available, indicate that it will be
a long long time before we could possibly exhaust those
resources, more on the order of a thousand or couple thousand
years, depending on which study you read.

As our knowledge of geological processes and history increases,
we're beginning to understand just how much natural fuel is
available. More to the point, using improved technology, including
neural nets and new drilling techniques, it is becoming far easier to
predict where the oil will be and to get at it. As technology
improves, rather than running out and not being able to go after it
for economic reasons, it will actually become easier to go after the
reserves that are currently out of our reach, because the current
equipment is not up to the task and the risk is too great. Rigs are
drilling in deeper water now than they have before, but the shallow-
water wells are still producing.

Until such time as we actually do run low on gas reserves, there
are only two reasons that could turn the world away from them:
environmental concerns or superior alternative energy sources.
Environmental lobbyists are trying very hard, and they are making
headway, encouraging manufacturer's to produce more efficient
engines, with consequently lower emissions, encouraging people
to conserve fuel by walking, carpooling, etc, and doing their share
of Congressional bullying to get laws passed over production and
consumption of natural resources. Only when solar power or
electrical power or some other alternative becomes more
economically feasible will people be willing to switch, unless forced
to by law.

Jinx
Message no. 19
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:43:25 -0500
From: "Allen Versfeld" <moe@*******.com>

> > My gad! Howinhell did they get the curb weight so low? That's what
killed
>
> Well Geez... my 1972 Ford Escort only weighs about 780kg...
> --
> Allen Versfeld

Yah, but your '72 Escort (that's a whole 'nuther issue right there ;-))
doesn't have a battery of....batteries (sorry) in it somewhere which weighs
a hell of a lot more than a gas tank.

Signing off before GridSec has my head...

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 20
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:28:04 +0100
According to Allen Versfeld, at 12:13 on 15 Feb 00, the word on the street
was...

> Two problems with that statement: First, cars take forever and a day to
> reach their absolute top speed, so a car who's top speed is exactly the
> legal limit will never actually reach that speed (not to mention dying a
> horrible death on even gentle hills)

Not if the top speed is set by a limiter in the engine, as it is in many
current cars.

> Second, how are you supposed to get away from the Star with the paydirt
> in a crappy little electric runabout?

That is not a realistic question, IMHO. Normal people don't try to flee
from the police, because they should not have any reason to. I somehow
doubt car manufacturers will build cars specifically so criminals can
outrun the police in them...

Anyway, shadowrunners and other criminals (as well as police forces) would
simply use gasoline-powered cars that do not have the low top speed of
electric cars.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm talking to strangers to see what I feel
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:55:22 -0500
abortion_engine wrote:

> Ah, but the way you all feel about your cars! The feeling that a car is your
> birthright. And the big shiny heavy steel gas-guzzling flare-winged
> high-torque loud-ass *monsters* that you build! No European car is like
> that; the Esprit, for instance, is a beautiful car, all thin lines and
> subtlety. But you people built the Dodge Viper! Not even the Germans would
> have made something so gratuitous! Ahh.

You can thank Mr. Ford for that attitude. When he introduced the
assembly line into his automobile factories it made cars quicker and a
buttload cheaper to own than ever before. Soon everyone and their dog
owned autos.

>
> And, no, I don't claim to understand why the country that produced the
> Mustang and the Corvette would have such stupid safety requirements and such
> low speed limits.

IMHO, lawmakers make the limits so low because they *know* that a good
majority of drivers are going to speed a little bit. The limits are
starting to creep back up (they dropped to 55 in the late '70s due to
the oil shortage), most states now allow 65 on the highways and IIRC
Montana has a few stretches that aren't limited at all (although if
you have a speed related accident your butt is toast).

--
Iridios
"Proud to be American."
Message no. 22
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:44:40 -0800
From: Iridios <iridios@*****.com>
> IMHO, lawmakers make the limits so low because they *know* that a good
> majority of drivers are going to speed a little bit. The limits are
> starting to creep back up (they dropped to 55 in the late '70s due to
> the oil shortage), most states now allow 65 on the highways and IIRC
> Montana has a few stretches that aren't limited at all (although if
> you have a speed related accident your butt is toast).

As a Montana native I can tell you Montana has never "really" had a speed
limit. Before they totally dropped the limits except on the mountain passes
and for semis you hardly ever got busted for speeding. If you did it was a
"Waste of Natural Resources" ticket and a on-the-spot fine.

The feds pressured the legislature by threatening to withhold highway
maintenance funds unless they reinstated a speed limt so Montana now has a
(high) speed limit. Not that anyone is dumb enough to treat the passes as
the autobahn (unless you want to fly off a mountain).

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 23
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:51:32 -0600
:Ah, but the way you all feel about your cars! The feeling that a car is
your
:birthright. And the big shiny heavy steel gas-guzzling flare-winged
:high-torque loud-ass *monsters* that you build! No European car is like
:that; the Esprit, for instance, is a beautiful car, all thin lines and
:subtlety. But you people built the Dodge Viper! Not even the Germans would
:have made something so gratuitous! Ahh.

I myself am more of a BMW R100 GS / Range Rover Defender kind of person.
They are powerful, work flawlessly, can go anywhere at fairly high speed- so
what if they are ugly as sin, and don't make cool zoomy sounds? That's
still plenty gratuitous, in its own fasion, since I've never had to drive
further ofroad than a gravle driveway. It's like driving a TONKA toy- hell,
you cen even get them in yellow / black paint scemes!
Though I don't feel a car is a birthright. In fact, I'd be willing to
never drive again if it would eliminate half the cars in this country (and
half the money spent on roadways, etc.)

:But for me, it's the feeling of the heavy steel, the black
:iron gods you make in your factories, that makes me feel that practicality
:has no place on the American road.


Well, folks buy lots of Geo Metro's, Saturns, and Plymoth Caravans- and
not just because they want to save money. Some people are practical
minded... but enough are not, that more indulgent vehicles sell quite well.
Nobody has ever acused Americans as a people of having an excess of
maturity, to be sure.
Um, and to make this OT- that's apparently the case in SR. It would be
EASY to put GPS and ID recognition in every car, and have the car either
autmatically penalize drivers who break the law (and make it impossible for
others to drive at all), or have the autonav make it impossible to violate
speed limits and such. Hell, theres the tech to do that (to an extent)
toaday- in the areas such programing covered, at least. But the books don't
really specify this, and the vehicles are not (at all) slanted towards that
sort of use, so apperently attitiudes towards private transport have not
changed much. Instead, you actually have such monstrosities as the Saab
Dynamit and BMW Blitzen- and rightly so. The make the game a lot more fun.
Of course, being one of the few people with a "sleeper" in a world of
folks in "private transport pods" (and totally illegal go gangers) would
also be fun....

Mongoose
Message no. 24
From: Chrome chromeelf@**********.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:48:48 -0500
I, personally, in my infinite wisdom have solved the problem of the range of
electric vehicles. One simply requires two batteries. As battery A
discharges, powering the vehicle, the motion of said vehicle charges battery
B. When A runs down B kicks in powering the vehicle while A charges.
Presto! Infinite range. Right?


::silently cringes in anticipation of mention of DaVinci and the "P" word::
Message no. 25
From: Simon Fuller sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Insight
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:26:39 +1100
-----Original Message-----
From: Chrome <chromeelf@**********.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2000 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Insight


>I, personally, in my infinite wisdom have solved the problem of the range
of
>electric vehicles. One simply requires two batteries. As battery A
>discharges, powering the vehicle, the motion of said vehicle charges
battery
>B. When A runs down B kicks in powering the vehicle while A charges.
>Presto! Infinite range. Right?
>
>
>::silently cringes in anticipation of mention of DaVinci and the "P" word::


Piss off DaVinci? NO, I give up, what P word? :)
Oh, unless you mean perpetual motion, which is what that system would be,
which isn't possible. Energy is expended in motion, so there would be less
of a charge returning from the motion.
As I understand, A Grade mechanic that I aren't, the battery in a normal car
is recharged by the engine movement after the initial spark, a single
battery would be needed for this system to work, if physics didn't stick its
acne'd nose in and ruin it for everyone.
Message no. 26
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Insight
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:07:32 +0100
According to Chrome, at 14:48 on 16 Feb 00, the word on the street was...

> I, personally, in my infinite wisdom have solved the problem of the range of
> electric vehicles. One simply requires two batteries. As battery A
> discharges, powering the vehicle, the motion of said vehicle charges battery
> B. When A runs down B kicks in powering the vehicle while A charges.
> Presto! Infinite range. Right?

If it were that easy, we wouldn't hear all that stuff about running out of
natural resources to make electricity and fuel from...

There's the simple principle of conservation of energy, which means the
above is only possible if you could make the whole thing in such a way
that it doesn't lose one bit of energy anywhere -- and if you can, why do
you need the second set of batteries? :)

> ::silently cringes in anticipation of mention of DaVinci and the "P" word::

Da Vinci.
Porridge.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm talking to strangers to see what I feel
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 27
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:51:33 EST
In a message dated 2/17/00 2:05:45 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

> > I, personally, in my infinite wisdom have solved the problem of the range
> of
> > electric vehicles. One simply requires two batteries. As battery A
> > discharges, powering the vehicle, the motion of said vehicle charges
> battery
> > B. When A runs down B kicks in powering the vehicle while A charges.
> > Presto! Infinite range. Right?
>
> If it were that easy, we wouldn't hear all that stuff about running out of
> natural resources to make electricity and fuel from...
>
> There's the simple principle of conservation of energy, which means the
> above is only possible if you could make the whole thing in such a way
> that it doesn't lose one bit of energy anywhere -- and if you can, why do
> you need the second set of batteries? :)

He's right concerning the rules of physics and such. There is one question
I've always wondered though (well ... not *ALWAYS*, but you'll get my drift).
How *much* PF does a Train have the ability generate using the idea of
alternator-type electrical generation were it a part of each car??? (strange
thoughts)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 28
From: Chrome chromeelf@**********.com
Subject: Insight
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:32:42 -0500
> > I, personally, in my infinite wisdom have solved the problem of the
range of
> > electric vehicles. One simply requires two batteries. As battery A
> > discharges, powering the vehicle, the motion of said vehicle charges
battery
> > B. When A runs down B kicks in powering the vehicle while A charges.
> > Presto! Infinite range. Right?
>
> If it were that easy, we wouldn't hear all that stuff about running out of
> natural resources to make electricity and fuel from...
>
> There's the simple principle of conservation of energy, which means the
> above is only possible if you could make the whole thing in such a way
> that it doesn't lose one bit of energy anywhere -- and if you can, why do
> you need the second set of batteries? :)
>
> > ::silently cringes in anticipation of mention of DaVinci and the "P"
word::
>
> Da Vinci.
> Porridge.


<ahem> Actually I was thinking of perpetual motion. Da Vinci tried it with
two springs that were suppoed to unwind while winding the other infinitely.
Unfortunately physics has that irritating property of reaching an
equilibrium so eventually the springs would stop winding/unwinding when they
reached a balance with each other. I assume the same would be true with a
battery powered varient.
Message no. 29
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Insight
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:28:49 +0100
According to Chrome, at 0:32 on 18 Feb 00, the word on the street was...

> > > ::silently cringes in anticipation of mention of DaVinci and the
"P"
> word::
> >
> > Da Vinci.
> > Porridge.
>
> <ahem> Actually I was thinking of perpetual motion.

That's what I thought, but those are two words, not one :P

> Da Vinci tried it with two springs that were suppoed to unwind while
> winding the other infinitely. Unfortunately physics has that irritating
> property of reaching an equilibrium so eventually the springs would stop
> winding/unwinding when they reached a balance with each other. I assume
> the same would be true with a battery powered varient.

It's true with everything -- you always lose energy somehow (usually by
heating up whatever it is you're driving with your energy source) which
means you can't get all the energy you put in, back into your other
storage system. In your case, that's the second set of batteries, in Da
Vinci's case the second spring.

Where's Adam Getchell when you need him? ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm talking to strangers to see what I feel
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Insight, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!