h a l f b a k e r yGo ahead. Stick a fork in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Seats 2 comfortably with some luggage space or 4, less
comfortably with less luggage space.
A small hybrid flex-fuel vehicle with a hydrogen cell, solar
panel
& two tanks that runs on any mix of ethanol & vegetable oil in
one tank, hydrogen in the other or electricity.
Has adapters for
multiple types of charge points & Includes
both
electric & (for when the battery is dead) a crank starter.
Interchangeable bolt on fiberglass & plastic bodywork is a
primary feature, the default kit is designed for fuel economy
(aerodynamic) with printed artificial sharkskin finish.
Also has a plug socket so you can run ordinary domestic
appliances from the battery should you wish to.
Think a modern hi-tech CITROËN 2CV, Beetle or Mini type 'car
of
the people' for the intent behind it.
Design criteria (roughly in order of priority) include:
Ease of repair & part replacement, Reliability, Durability,
Fuel economy, Affordability, Size (small), Comfort, Range &
Performance.
Fashion comes a long last place with luggage space only just
before it.
Marketed as a build yourself kit car & sold with home brew &
distilling kit with form L5 & instructions on completing it for a
rectifier's licence included.
'Green' fuel options aren't widespread yet so one of
the vehicles selling points is it can run on any ordinary fuel
(the flex-fuel may be optimised for Ethanol-Veg Oil mixes but
like the Model T runs on just about any liquid fuel) as
well as most green options.
Flexible-fuel vehicle
https://en.wikipedi...exible-fuel_vehicle
[Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Ford Model T
https://en.wikipedi...g/wiki/Ford_Model_T
So, the flex-fuel thing can be done without any massively modern tech then. [Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Wood Gas Powered Cars
https://www.lowtech.../wood-gas-cars.html
I quite like the thought of running more of these - which could be powered by sustainably managed forests - come a petro-chemical shortage, these should still be viable conversions. [zen_tom, Oct 11 2019]
Hydrogen vehicle
https://en.wikipedi...ki/Hydrogen_vehicle
[Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Fuel cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
[Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Electric car
https://en.wikipedi...g/wiki/Electric_car
The first practical electric cars were produced in the 1880s, so there must be a lot of non-proprietary tech out there we can use. [Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Hybrid vehicle
https://en.wikipedi...wiki/Hybrid_vehicle
[Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
You'll need form L5 for a Rectifier’s licence
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/spirits-duty
I 'think' it's free to apply for? [Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Synthetic Shark Skin
https://www.smithso...ark-skin-180951514/
[Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Don't bother with wood gas [zen]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car
just go straight to a steam car if you want to use wood. [Skewed, Oct 11 2019]
Sinclair C5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5
WikipediA [Skewed, Oct 14 2019]
Lotus Omnivore engine
https://youtu.be/fIG9pWldO8U
video animation of the engine [discontinuuity, Oct 14 2019]
Hydrogen combustion engine
https://en.wikipedi...tion_engine_vehicle
internal combustion engines can run on hydrogen with few modifications [discontinuuity, Oct 14 2019]
Lotus - runs on coffee
https://en.wikipedi...wiki/Lotus_Bakeries
[MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 14 2019]
Mythical Model T Flex Fuel
https://www.hemming...multi-fuel-vehicle/
[bs0u0155, Oct 15 2019]
YouTube: EEVblog: Sinclair C5 Teardown & Test Drive
https://www.youtube...watch?v=xS6q27VOTOk
The video description describes it as an "electric "car"". [notexactly, Dec 09 2019]
[link]
|
| |
//Reliability. Durability. Affordability.// Ah yes, the so-
called "magic triangle" of the automotive industry. You're
allowed to pick any none from three. |
|
| |
Which is why of course we won't be employing anyone from
the automotive industry in our design team. |
|
| |
You can actually have all of them, just ranked by priority. |
|
| |
The reason the automotive industry spreads the myth .. |
|
| |
//You're allowed to pick any none from three// |
|
| |
.. is of course because they've other priorities ranked far
above them that tend to be in direct opposition to
them, specifically Profit, Cash flow, Repeat sales &
(as they often also have interests in fuel outlets &
production, or those have interests in them) Consumables
sales (which mostly means fuel but, in opposition to
durability, includes parts). |
|
| |
Ranked #1 is the ability to crush cyclists and their wretched velocipedes without sustaining any marks or damage, and without leaving any evidence at the site of the <Coughing/> "accident" ... |
|
| |
Unfortunately this is all just a bunch of baked goods with a
generous handful of WIBNI sprinkled on top. |
|
| |
//rectifier's licen(s)e//[+] |
|
| |
//without sustaining any marks// |
|
| |
//without leaving any evidence// |
|
| |
So you're in the market for a streetsweeper with bull bars on
the front & the brushes on the back then? |
|
| |
Extra powerful washer jets misadjusted to wash
the bars clean might also be useful. |
|
| |
Thing is, if you need a vehicle it means you're starting from
the wrong place. |
|
| |
// washer jets misadjusted // |
|
| |
We already have a passenger-side jet "misadjusted" so as to be able to spray cyclists at traffic lights, with a malodorous and highly aggressive detergent solution. |
|
| |
"Aw, sorry mate, didn't see you there !! " (in your stupid garish plastic hat, and dayglo lycra, and flashing LED beacons ...) |
|
| |
The bits that formulate this magic-mobile are fit in
where, weigh how much, and affect the driving,
handling, suspension, and performance
characteristics exactly how? |
|
| |
//The bits that formulate this magic// |
|
| |
//baked goods with
a
generous handful of WIBNI// |
|
| |
& the WIBNI is only in the area of unreasonable hope
any auto manufacturer will mash
these
comestibles together.. so you've lost me
[Ray],
need to explain yourself better? |
|
| |
Though that aside we hasten to point out that other than
fuel economy 'performance' issues were somewhat low on
our list of design priorities, field tests to date have
shown it performs well in comparative trials with a Sinclair
C5 & we're quite happy with that. |
|
| |
We do feel you've missed the charms of (what we consider)
the best feature of the sales package,
the home still (not part of the car of course) sold with it. |
|
| |
Technical and economic feasibility are
questionable. So [+]. |
|
| |
One of the many things I find infuriating about
modern cars (and other appliances) is lack of
maintainability. Even with skills and tools, it’s
impossible to maintain them because parts aren’t
available, or it’s just bloody impossible to get the
damn thing apart. |
|
| |
[Frankx] yes! As with smartphones, it's more like you rent
the car. You're not allowed to do anything to it yourself
other than drive it (and even that only in the "correct"
way...). Non-maintainability and planned obsolescence will
be the death of us all. |
|
| |
Combustion engines can burn hydrogen fuel, which would be cheaper than a fuel cell but not as clean or efficient. |
|
| |
Lotus made a prototype "omnivore" engine with variable compression that could run on gasoline, ethanol, or diesel. |
|
| |
//Lotus made a prototype "omnivore" engine// |
|
| |
Ford did that with the Model T way back in 1908 [old link, 2nd
one down], it ran on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol. |
|
| |
That Lotus took another hundred years (plus some) to
learn to do
the same really isn't something to shout about ;p |
|
| |
Yes, but it's excusable given that their main business is
making biscuits to go with coffee. |
|
| |
Really? I haven't ever had a Ford biscuit, and I am a bit of a connoisseur of coffee and baked goods combinations. Does Ford have only a limited regional distribution of its biscuits? |
|
| |
You can ferment biscuits you know [poc], you can ferment
practically anything organic, so the Ford T can run on
biscuits too, indirectly, probably more efficient just to
ferment the biscuit ingredients before making them into
biscuits though. |
|
| |
//Ford T// presumably related to Yorkshire Tea biscuits which are made in a T shape? |
|
| |
Meaning that in my automotive career, I've spent a good amount of
time massaging the numerous constraints that automobiles are
designed around, and coming up with concepts that roughly fit that
design space. |
|
| |
Solar panels are bloody inefficient for collecting much more than a
small fan's worth of power. |
|
| |
Running on the usual flex fuels requires chemical compatibility and
some engine flow, cooling, and timing compromises that aren't
pretty. Expanding the fuel base beyond that is trying to move in
every direction simultaneously. Electronic valving can help, but
maple syrup has a different viscosity than gasoline, you see, and so
doesn't quite want the same cylinder or header shape or intake size.
And whatever you do, don't put Sturton's latest "all-natural tequila-
derived recycled worm-juice fuel" in it; the resulting gunk will clog up
your catalytic converter something fierce. |
|
| |
Well we're not looking for a super sports car [Ray]. |
|
| |
Anything
that performs as well as the original Model T would do us
(well, me) &
I'm sure a hundred years on we can do better than that. |
|
| |
Your expectations are perhaps just beyond what would be
my
requirements for 'performance' in a 'utility' vehicle. |
|
| |
Or maybe
you just missed or misunderstood the utility bit in the title? |
|
| |
//Solar panels are bloody inefficient// |
|
| |
Doesn't matter, that bits mostly so we can virtue signal,
play the radio with the engine off without draining the
battery & make sure there's always a bit of juice in
the battery to start the engine (we know we've got the
crank
starter but we'd rather not use that unless there's no other
option). |
|
| |
We do not expect to run the vehicle on it for a round trip of
the british coastline with nothing in the tank. |
|
| |
//Solar panels are bloody inefficient// |
|
| |
Negatively efficient, really. The power density will never
offset the weight/area/cost. |
|
| |
//Model T way back in 1908 [old link, 2nd one down], it
ran on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol.// |
|
| |
Take a look at the <link> The model T was accidentally
flex fuel. By modern standards it's extremely low
compression, retarded timing (5deg), and rich running
engine. That makes it non-fussy about fuel. The knock-on
effects of this are horrendous efficiency. A model T is a
10-20mpg vehicle, that's 1960's muscle car territory, with
0 fun and 0 cool. Low compression/pedestrian timing and
rich mixture also help it get away with minimal cooling by
thermosyphon. |
|
| |
//We do not expect to run the vehicle on it for a round trip
of the British coastline with nothing in the tank.// |
|
| |
You are such a pessimist, [Skewed]. Did you know that the
UK
receives more sunlight than any other developed country in
the world? That the difference in insolation between
midsummer and midwinter is less than any country more
than
ten degrees away from the equator? That the predictability
of sunshine is higher in the UK than almost anywhere else?
Coupled with our superb system of roads, this makes the UK
the absolute number one country in which to operate solar-
powered vehicles. |
|
| |
Hang on. I may be thinking of Dubai. |
|
| |
//Did you know that the UK receives more sunlight than any
other developed country in the world? That the difference in
insolation between midsummer and midwinter is less than
any country more than ten degrees away from the
equator?// |
|
| |
My bovine poo meter's going nuts. Or the insolation meter
has been installed under a streetlight. |
|
| |
I did not misunderstand you. Even utility vehicles
go through a great deal of performance testing to
become moderately passable. |
|
| |
The design space for cars truly includes a great
deal of unworkable nonsense due to the
constraints. |
|
| |
Can we bypass those constraints by not calling it a car, or do
we just need a different design space ;) |
|
| |
//Even utility vehicles go through a great deal of
performance testing to become moderately passable.// |
|
| |
Are performance goals and levels of testing needed now
at a cripplingly high level? The amount of platform
sharing, use of design modules, and cooperative
development projects kind of suggest that. I mean, the
Mini was kicked off in 56', 2 engineers, 2 students & some
draughtsmen had a prototype together by 57', car is in
production and on sale in 59'. I think that would be an
agressive timeline for a bootlatch nowadays. |
|
| |
People expect their cars to go 150,000 miles or
more, get 30+ miles to the gallon, survive years of
road salt and dirt roads and dust storms and such,
not wake the neighbors, go faster than the fastest
land animal, park themselves, have 8 cup holders,
protect all passengers as well as the pedestrians
they hit, listen to them asking to play their
favorite jingle, look out for other traffic, and do so
for less than their monthly cell phone bill. That’s
a pretty selective Venn diagram. |
|
| |
There’s a scary amount of material science and
technology that goes into engine design and
manufacturing. Non mech eng types don’t really
appreciate how much analysis work goes into the
simplest of parts used. |
|
| |
//not wake the neighbors, park themselves, have 8 cup
holders, protect all
passengers as well as the pedestrians they hit, listen to them
asking to play their favorite jingle, look out for other traffic// |
|
| |
I think I begin to see the problem, you can junk all those
'requirements' for a start. |
|
| |
It's the difference between a viable commercial product, and someone's shed-dream. |
|
| |
Until we're all paid handsomely for tinkering about in our sheds (and let's hope
that day will one day be upon us) sadly, the constrictive commercial Venn diagram
will be forever imposing its requirement constraints - and so informing our best and
brightest engineering minds. |
|
| |
Alternately, there's always the military, but they're likely to have an equally
tight albeit different set of constraints - except perhaps in the midst of desperate
total war, when it seems desperation and a need to gain even a temporary advantage
made radical technological redrawing of those constraints viable, generating such
things as pyecrete, panjandrums, inflatable decoy tanks, the krummlauf, bouncing
bombs, pigeon-guidance and all manner of ingenious convention-bending. |
|
| |
So in terms of (commercial) viability, it's a choice between sheds or total war -
I'm all for sheds - which for me means - in the current context at least, finding
some existing supply of pre-completed work, and making modifications. There's
precedent in retro-fitting LPG kits or bioethanol conversions onto stock-cars, often
with good results - or the wood-gas conversions which too, on a robust pre-
electronic-managed vehicle has tended to go quite well. In the past, I've seen
modifications done on ancient land-rovers, which can be picked up for next-to
nothing on military surplus sites, and these would make an ideal base for such
tinkering. |
|
| |
//People expect their cars to...// Hmm, I admit it's a
tough job improving on such a mature product. I am
amazed at how many 300k mile 96' Toyota Camrys in my
area survive on apparently no maintenance, annual small
crashes and roads covered in salt and/or monster
potholes. I wonder how much work is in actually
improving a car, and how much is fitting a planet's worth
of government compliance into one product. |
|
| |
//play their favorite jingle, look out for other traffic,// |
|
| |
I don't want any of that... there is definately a population
of car people like me. I hate all the bongs, beeps, the
crowded design. The touchscreen that's laughably out of
date by the car's 1st oil change, the complexity in
general. Someone took the wing mirror off my better
half's Mazda, should be no big deal, a new one with
indicator, heating, electric adjustment and blind spot
monitoring is $500. Of course it then needs matching to
the body color, call that $150. That's nuts, leaving the
only financially responsible option: have a slightly shitter
car with a base mirror and a permanent warning light,
like a cab driver. Down the road is a Volvo 240 wagon, I
covet it, especially the inviting V8-sized engine bay. |
|
| |
What about a bike? A human can run on a great many kinds of fuels (even without necessarily needing
them fermented), and heals automatically from a wide variety of types of damage. The bike can more
easily than a car be made easily repairable, too. |
|
| |
// the Mini was kicked off in 56', 2 engineers, 2 students & some draughtsmen had a prototype together
by 57', car is in production and on sale in 59'. I think that would be an agressive timeline for a bootlatch
nowadays. // |
|
| |
I wish I could design and build a prototype of something as complex as a car latch in under three hours,
never mind production… |
|
| |
//a car latch in under three hours,// |
|
| |
I was saying 3 YEARS would be aggressive for clean sheet
latch design to production. And there are still recalls,
there were a couple of Renault designs of latch that
forced a big recall sometime in the mid 2000s. |
|
| |
The mini, like most things in the 50's and '60s essentially
entered production as a prototype. It's spectacularly
efficient at at rusting, they made sure of that by making
it very leaky, the heater would be inadequete for a car
half it's size, but great at simply encouraging a slightly
higher humidity for rusting the trickier spots, the radiator
design was stupid, the rear radius arms were fragile,
everything feels tinny and flimsy... and so on. Still great
though. |
|
| |
You need a heater? what's wrong with you, don't you own a
jumper? |
|
| |