His argument over price defeats itself as he wants an annual tax increase that then means the underlying price of the liquid is irrelevant ( like it is in the UK ).
It becomes a revenue source .... and don't believe a WORD that the extra money goes to improve the infrastructure. UK has copied unfettered capitalism from the US and we've shown the path. It does NOT get spent on what is used by cars
Chemically diesel is a plus as their is more energy per litre.
BUT the issue of soot microparticles is still an issue I don't think has been addressed effectively and as we continue to lower the bar on our demands it becomes the high tide marker
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
The soot issue will soon be a problem as the direct gasoline injection becomes norm. The spray/mixture control allied to more sophisticated hardware needed to meter the gasoline to ensure proper atomization across a specturm of load and operating temp will necessitate more expensive hardware, if just to avoid spending even more money on particulate filter like whats being used on diesel right now. Especially since the gas version will cost even more with the higher operating temp....
As far as gas tax goes, you need to give people an incentive to move to more efficient cars. The last few years' trend in US points to an increase in sale of fuel efficient cars when gas costs more, but as the price trends down the truck sale goes up again. And they probably could use more money to fix the crumbling roads here....
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
Last edited by jcp123; 05-01-2013 at 02:49 PM.
An it harm none, do as ye will
Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
Meh. Colour me as one of the "I don't care much about air pollution on my own and the more pop culture tells me to be green, the less I want to do it" crowd.
Seriously. I avoid blockbuster movies, facebook and Dancing with the Stars just because every one else Does watch/do those things. So...as being green gets more popular, I get more contrarian. I can't even stand the word green anymore, even when just describing the colour. Character flaw I guess.
An it harm none, do as ye will
Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.
Or ignorance? I dunno....
Efficiency, less pollution, alternative energy are all good things if you do it for the right reason. I am not a climate alarmist, or Al Gore-led tree hugging people. But I like the idea of technology being used to make things work better and ultimately, better performance high efficiency technology means you don't need to ruin the fun while being environmentally friendly....
Think about it, cars like R18 TDI e-Tron, a race car, has hybrid power, diesel racing engine, with full emission control...its progress....
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
Not a big fan of technology in general - I think there are a lot of drawbacks which are being actively ignored.
I like efficiency - I am basically a proponent of roof gardens on high rises, solar on houses, etc. - but I am really pissed off by anything popular. No I won't go on facebook. No, I won't get a twitter account. No, I don't care to watch Hunger Games or Twilight. I won't take a duckface photo, I don't care much for digital cameras, and I definitely don't cotton to the popular conception of the greenies - or anyone else - telling me what I "should" do. To hell with the republicans telling me who i can marry or take to bed, to hell with the democrats telling me I HAVE to get health insurance or buckle my seat belt. I would ironically be more inclined to do much of it if it weren't the hip thing to do. And if efficiency and low cost is the game, then DPFs and urea wouldn't be top-down imposed on people. They also would use gravel instead of car-rotting salt to get traction on snowy roads...
Last edited by jcp123; 05-01-2013 at 04:55 PM.
An it harm none, do as ye will
Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.
Damn liberals
An it harm none, do as ye will
Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
I'm not saying it's a good thing. Just want they hype on both sides to subside. Both sides on the global warming debate are more focused on demagoguery and politicking than in engaging the public with the truth. It's also really turned me off. In the meantime, I'll pollute as much as I damn well please, while the do-gooders run off jobs to countries where it's legal to pollute instead.
An it harm none, do as ye will
Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.
Surprisingly, I agree with that(well maybe not the polluting part). Which is why I say it has to be for a good reason. People call Bob Lutz Global Warming Denier because he says the science on the contrarian side has not been given the same attention. Which I believe is the case. People latch onto a theory and not giving enough thought of the otherside. Jumping into something unproven, with movement being hijacked by people with other motive and agenda(corn farmer, hokey battery technology, random unproven clean tech) is not the right way of doing things. People gives auto industry flak for not innovating and stuck in the past and not embracing the new world, but the amount of actual tangible progress made in cars, but ACTUALLY doing lab work, continuing improvement, using proven science and investing in new technology properly, and today you have cars that makes more power and using less fuel and often have emission CLEANER than the air they use to burn fuel....There are reasons not to "jump on a bandwagon" so to speak, but there are no reason to deny actual progress....I don't dislike electric car, alternative fuel, or anything. But I will embrace them only when it makes sense to do so. But I won't purposely embracing backward stuff....or drive a smoke spewing brodozer....
Frankly its your freedom, but your freedom is basing on not infringing mine....
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
What really needs to happen to diesels is they need to make leaps and bounds in getting the fuel to atomize. Soot and diesel particulate form for two reasons: The fuel can't be atomized enough, and the fuel burns too slowly. Current direct injection gasoline cars are getting fuel pressures as high as 200 bar, 2800 psi. Diesels have been at that level for decades in industrial applications. Modern diesels are approaching 5000 psi in the injectors. These include racecars like the R18 TDI. We've seen that the R18 still smokes quite a bit, but it leaves out the urea injection system. Higher fuel pressure will enable better atomization and thus better burning and less soot. A side effect of the higher atomization is quicker burn time, which means, a higher rpm can be achieved with the higher fuel pressure. The R18 already spins to 5000rpm, and could spin higher if de limited. Theoretically, if we got fuel pressures to in excess of say, 6000 psi, we wouldn't have to worry about soot.
"Don't think your time on bad things
Just float your little mind around"
Jimi Hendrix
Actually, Since R10, the fuel pressure in not just the racing diesel, but modern TDI are pushing well over 1500 bars(thats 22,000 psi). Racing diesel in Peugeot and Audi are probably close to 2500 - 3000 bars...
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)