On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:58:34 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
Jon, when you pile up some automotive design engineering experience,
you'll have something of your own to talk about. In the meantime,
trying to second-guess and criticize the engineering behind the Volt
is an exercise in foolishness.
There's more to it than building some one-off that you can show off to
the press. There are a lot of one-offs and prototypes out there that
looked good at first glance. Then you look at the manufacturing that
would be required to make something like them in production, even in
modest quantities, and you realize that most of them don't have a
Hope springs eternal, however, and most of them keep going until, like
Aptera, they go Chapter 7. So now the Chinese may take another stab at
Good luck. Car production in composites is an iffy proposition. Bodies
are one thing; structure is another. As I said, a production,
all-the-same IndyCar is $385,000 for a rolling chassis. It isn't
because there's so much composite material in it. It's because the
entire process is expensive and slow. These aren't fiberglass fishing
Good, now all you have to do is stop suggesting what I do with my life
or that the Chevy Volt represents something great... it doesn't.
On the other hand, the Edison II does represent greatness and it's
been rewarded for its greatness.
"Hey, I thought you were identifying a great marketing opportunity. If
it's so hot, why not jump on it?"
You thought wrong.
"Yup. They got their 15 minutes of fame, and enough money to really
whoop it up for a big time in Lynchburg."
It's more money than you or I will even win for our ideas. I'm not
jealous but you appear to be.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
That's all you got, more made up nonsense. I got tired of convertibles
about 2 decades ago. Wind in my hair? Gives me a headache, which is
one of the reasons I wear a helmet when riding, whether legally
required or not.
Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making shit
up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
Do you know the meaning of the word contradiction? It can't be
fundamentally good if it's double the correct weight and triple your
If you had a brain in your head then you'd instinctively know that the
only way to get serious weight reduction and meet the same goals would
be to use expensive materials, which would fuck up your idea of
cutting the price by 2/3. And if any of your ideas were as easy as
you say they are, then they'd have been implemented long ago.
I predict that you will NEVER put up an ounce of proof to support your
rants, and neither will Bonkers. Well OK Bonkers will probably find
some Popular Science covers and pretend the artwork makes his case. In
fact I don't understand why he doesn't post a jpg of some money and
pretend it's his paycheck.
Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just WHERE
the weights arise from?
Then mebbe you can answer yer own Q.
Oh, silly me.... but you DON'T know what the weight profile is.....
OK, carry on, as usual.
Sure it can. Your brain is just too hormonally out of whack to grok the
notion. Low-T AND high-E??
Oh, and you are a car engineer/designer, now? AND and astronaut?? AND a
gourmet chef.... wow.....
you must drink Dos Equis beer.... stay thirsty, my asshole friend....
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
up shit and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
skycar flies around the world nonstop.
You wouldn't understand it, anyway, cuz, well, deys numbers involved....
But it's coming, just got Haas problems, is all.
In fact, since YOU are so effing smart, YOU should outline the what-if
strategy, for determining, when/where/if/how electrics are more
user-economical than gas. Quite a few surprises, if you do it right. A big
IF, in your case.
As far as GM goes, cuz GM made it 3800#, it MUST be 3800#, right????
Gee, I guess they didn't include Logic 101 in your GED/Astronaut curriculum,
3800# for a compact *energy-saving GREEN car* is PRIMA FACIE ridiculous.
Oh, sorry.... here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.