backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 89 comment(s) - last by Dr K.. on Sep 7 at 2:03 PM
Working Loremo L1 diesel prototype to debut in Frankfurt

It's been roughly a year and half since we last talked about Loremo AG's lightweight 2+2 coupe. The vehicle generated a lot of interest due to its futuristic shape and incredible fuel efficiency due its diesel engine.

When Loremo first debuted the vehicle, it said that two models would be released: a 992 pound, 157 MPG, $13,000 USD Loremo LS and a 1,032 pound, 87 MPG, $17,800 USD Loremo GT. Loremo noted that the LS would reach 0-60 in 20 seconds and have a top speed of 99MPH whereas the faster GT would hit 60 MPH in 9 seconds and race on up to 137 MPH.

According to AutoblogGreen, Loremo is now ready to display a working prototype of its vehicle -- which is now called the Loremo L1 -- at this year's Frankfurt Motor Show. Loremo has also revised the fuel consumption of the vehicle from 1.5 liter per 100km to 2 liters per 100km -- that works out to roughly 117 MPG putting it squarely between the previous ratings for the LS and GT.

Loremo's L1 is also scheduled to compete in the Automotive X PRIZE (AXP). Contestants in the AXP much achieve at least 100MPG and emit no more than 200g/mile of CO2. There are 31 teams currently signed on to participate in the AXP competition.

"We are thrilled with the wide variety of teams and technologies from around the world that have expressed an interest in joining the competition," remarked Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, CEO and Chairman, X PRIZE Foundation. "We are confident that the Automotive X PRIZE will motivate and bring visibility to a range of non-traditional solutions from both traditional and non-traditional players. The time for incremental change is over. We need radical breakthroughs to stem the consumption of fossil fuels. An X PRIZE can help make this happen."

Another high-profile entry to the AXP contest is the Tesla Roadster. The $100,000 Lotus Elise-based sports car boasts a driving range of 200+ miles while being powered solely by batteries.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
sweet!
By Moishe on 8/14/2007 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
That thing is ugly, but the price is something that finally approaches "affordable" for a hybrid.

I also didn't know about the AXP which is a great thing. Commercial and consumer use is what drives innovation and drives the price down.




RE: sweet!
By helios220 on 8/14/2007 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
The angle in the shot is not the best, the side profile doesn't look as bad in my opinion but to each his own. With a lot of these new high MPG prototypes the shape is also influenced for aerodynamic qualities to reduce resistance and further increase fuel efficiency.

Regardless, I agree it's a tad fugly but the proposed price is reasonable and the efficiency is good so I could get past it.


RE: sweet!
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 1:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think it looks kind of cool, way better than the prius.
Kind of looks like a Porsche 911 on steroids


RE: sweet!
By Hare on 8/14/2007 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 1
It looks nothing like a Porche 911.

Click on the second link and see for your self. I have no idea why you picked the 911 of all the cars.


RE: sweet!
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 3
i google image searched to see the front. And this is why i said 'kind of'
http://images.auto-motor-und-sport.de/hps/img/hxme...
http://www.chrisabraham.com/porsche-911-turbo-thum...

compare for yourself.


RE: sweet!
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
By your standard, all 2-door silver/gray cars look the same, if photographed from the same angle?

Styling is in the details, and there are a ton of differences between those two. Most are also pretty clearly visible in the photos you linked.


RE: sweet!
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
heh I just think it has a few 911 characteristics, i was not trying to imply this is a reworked 911 ;) compared to say an audi tt, s2000, corvette, etc etc.. i personally think it kind of looks like a 911, thats all. I am just glad it does not look like a prius, sports cars are aerodynamic for the same reasons as genuine hybrids(non camry, escape, etc.. models ), why designers can not emulate a sports car design is beyond me.


RE: sweet!
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 4:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
batteries.. oh ya .. nothing like answering your own question..


RE: sweet!
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2007 11:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the fact that the Prius and the Insight have the lowest Cd around isn't it. [/sarcasm]


RE: sweet!
By theapparition on 8/15/2007 7:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if you'd like to get technical, the lowest Cd on any production car was GM's EV1. The Insight also has a better Cd than the Prius.

When talking drag, the its the Cd*Area(cross-section) that matters, for example, you could design a large car with a very low Cd, yet it's size negates some of that advantage, while a very narrow car with higher Cd could perform better.

When it comes to sports cars, drag becomes much less of a factor than downforce and attack angles. No one cares about a Prius' ability to corner at 100mph, where for sports cars, proper design means all the difference between seeing the wall, or crashing into it. So, sports cars, are not technically, the most aerodynamic, because drag is induced to reduce lift.

As an aside, we all know that the biggest advantage of hybrids is city driving, precicely where drag has almost negligable effect. Only for highway driving does drag make a noticalble difference. My point is, if a very aerodynamic car with similar numbers to an Insight was designed with a conventional powertrain, it would be interesting to see the differences in highway mpg.


RE: sweet!
By Hoser McMoose on 8/15/2007 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
sports cars are aerodynamic for the same reasons as genuine hybrids(non camry, escape, etc.. models ),

While the Camry hybrid might not LOOK aerodynamic, it actually is. In fact, it's remarkably aerodynamic for something that looks like your basic sedan. Actually it's not just the Hybrid model of the Camry, all the 2007 Camry's are extremely aerodynamic vehicles.

The co-efficient of drag on the 2007 Camry Hybrid is 0.27, only slightly higher then the 0.26 of the Prius and much better then the 0.34 of the Chevy Corvette Z06. As far as actual drag (or at least CdA), they come out to 0.67m^2 for the Prius, 0.72m^2 for the Camry Hybrid and 0.82m^2 for the Corvette Z06.


RE: sweet!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/14/2007 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 3
AFAIK, it's not a hybrid -- just a VERY lightweight car with a diesel engine.


RE: sweet!
By killerroach on 8/14/2007 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 1
Correct. It's not a hybrid. Short of using lithium-ion batteries (which hybrid makers like Toyota seem loath to do), it would take some serious black magic to get a hybrid up into this level of fuel economy (mainly due to the mass of the batteries, something that this car, obviously, doesn't have to worry about).


RE: sweet!
By Moishe on 8/14/2007 2:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
ahhh... you're right. The acceleration is super bad on the LS version, I was wondering about that... anything electric would probably accelerate faster.

I actually kind of like the cockpit, very clean and uncluttered. Not sure how the door opens up.


RE: sweet!
By Treckin on 8/14/2007 8:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
The whole front facia opens, and you step out the front sides, where the fenders were. Its rear engined.


RE: sweet!
By A5un on 8/14/2007 1:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
I thought this is a diesel?

I'm glad someone's doing something with diesel. Between now and hydrogen being fully commercial, I think diesel is the best alternative.


RE: sweet!
By Oregonian2 on 8/14/2007 2:03:10 PM , Rating: 3
Not just a diesel, but a diesel that has only 20-HP or 50-HP if they've used one of the two turbo engines mentioned in the previous article. Wonder how well it does going uphill with a heavy person driving? Reminds me of a Morris Minor (in terms of power) where that uphill test would be a problem. My late father once had a MM for a few months. :-)


RE: sweet!
By Ringold on 8/14/2007 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
20-50hp? You've got to be kidding me.

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/HO/servl...

24hp, 4 wheel drive, power steering,cruise control, pseudo-automatic transmission, tilt steering column with full instruments and comfy seat.

Plus, it mows the lawn and looks better. :P


RE: sweet!
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/21/2007 11:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
and cost about the same. :)


RE: sweet!
By herrdoktor330 on 8/14/2007 4:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
The 20 HP might be better named a "Rolls Canardly": Rolls down one hill, Can 'ardly roll up the next. ;)

But seriously though, Diesel HP is kind of misleading. Because a low HP diesel actually produces a fair amount of torque, which is what will control hill climbing speeds. Case in point, I was reading on the forums for another popular turbo diesel engine club and they say that a 180hp diesel engine has all the torque of a 5.0 Ford Mustang. Granted this car will never be able to achieve that kind of HP, but if you consider that a Volkswagon Golf TDI has a 90 HP engine in a heavier curb weight car this thing should compare similarly... and for about $5k less.

My main concern with this car though isn't so much the HP, but the diesel fuel delivery system of the vehicle. Diesel has a tendancy to gel in cold climates. I'm hoping that they'll make sure to not skimp on any tank warming mechanisims and insulation for the fuel lines to prevent freeze-up. Fuel additives can be administered to compensate... but it always helps to limit the problem as much as you can.

I guess the bottom line here is that top speed on these cars is going to be less than exciting. But as far as functional driving goes, I'm sure these things will deliver in spades. Even the 20 HP model will be acceptable when you think about the savings. I would be interested in buying one for fuel economy alone. Just make sure my tank doesn't freeze when winter comes.


RE: sweet!
By Haltech on 8/14/2007 5:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
but you gotta look at the fact that the slower version does 0-60 in 20 seconds.


RE: sweet!
By Spuke on 8/14/2007 6:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
20 seconds is slower than a diesel pickup towing a loaded 35 foot toy hauler. No thanks. Besides, how are they going to sell and service them? Are they going to create a dealer network or sell them through current dealers?


RE: sweet!
By herrdoktor330 on 8/14/2007 8:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, sure. I'm not refuting that the 20 HP version is slow. It's only a 2 cylindar turbo diesel engine. There is no way that powerplant is going to be fast. But that is the price you pay for that kind of fuel economy. If I was going to buy one of these things, I'd be getting the 3 cyl, 50 HP model. I can afford the extra diesel... and I'd have enough money left over to set up my own biodiesel still.

As far as dealers go, I wouldn't be suprised to see them sell these through current dealers. Probably the same places you see VWs and other imports sold today. I'd say Volkswagon dealers are most likely because 1) they already sell German cars and 2) they already sell diesel cars.

Servicing shouldn't be an issue either as Diesel engines aren't that complicated. You have no ignition system because the engine works on compression. Turbochargers are simple to understand. The biggest maintenance issues is to religiously change the timing belts, keep the fuel lines warm, and keep your injectors clean. Everything else is just like a regular car. Again, any VW dealer already has some experience (in theory) in servicing diesel cars.

Again... this car isn't a performer. We all know that. It's never going to win a NOPI national this decade or next. But it is a step in the fuel friendly direction, which I believe is important. For the time being it will hold developed countries over untill we all build the next best thing.


RE: sweet!
By herrdoktor330 on 8/14/2007 10:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
One more thing to consider: Advances in turbo technology and if these folks are taking advantage of that.

Variable Flow Turbochargers

http://www.acura.com/index.aspx?initPath=RDX_Learn...

The link above is new turbo technology that Honda is using in their RDX (upscale Honda CRV) line. Executive Summary: It's a turbo that changes profile depending on if your at low RPM to high RPM maximizing boost all through the engine's RPM spectrum. If they used this kind of technology, acceleration could be boosted to respectable levels. I don't know if it's already being applied to this design, but here's a thought:

Honda is already looking at making turbodiesel Accord. What's to stop them from using this style of engine in a redesigned/lightened Fit using VFT technology they already use in other models?

These are meager beginnings... but the idea has legs IMHumbleO.


RE: sweet!
By Hare on 8/14/2007 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm glad someone's doing something with diesel. Between now and hydrogen being fully commercial, I think diesel is the best alternative.

Just because Diesel isn't very popular there at the other side of the pond doesn't mean that no one is doing anything with diesel. Over here in Europe Diesel-powered vehicles account for nearly half of new car registrations, topping out in France at just under 70 percent.

2l / 100km is quite impressive but it's a very lightweight and aerodynamic car. Volkswagen Lupo and Audi A3 eat 3l per 100km. New diesel cars from the PSA group are also very efficient.


RE: sweet!
By therealnickdanger on 8/14/2007 3:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, maybe it's because I'm plugged in to both DT and MT, but I have been captivated by the absense of diesels in the States. My parents once owned a used Mercedes 240D - that was a classic tank of German proportions. It's cars like that which American consumers associate with diesels. I've been preaching diesel to my compatriots for a while, but I still get the typical, "huh?" followed by questions about black smoke and loud engines.

I really knew U.S. consumers were missing out when I saw a Bristish car show that was able to drive a twin-turbo Audi A8 TDI from London to Edinburgh (400 miles) and achieved 40MPG. Since then, I've been foaming at the mouth to get a high-performance, high-efficiency vehicle. Granted, that Audi is well over $100,000, but it's only a matter of time.

Right now I'm looking for a VW Jetta TDI to get as a daily driver. My Dodge Magnum eats gas like I eat Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.


RE: sweet!
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 7:41:51 AM , Rating: 1
Americans put the focus on clean air and fast acceleration, two things that until recently diesel was very poor on. The new Bluetec diesel engines run very clean (cleaner than your average gas engine in fact) but they're still beaten badly by the lowest-emitting gas engines we can build.

Europeans put the focus on fuel economy long ago, just because most couldn't afford to drive anything but diesels after WW2.


RE: sweet!
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2007 7:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but they're still beaten badly by the lowest-emitting gas engines we can build


That's why you chip 'em and give the 'em more boost! :P


RE: sweet!
By Hare on 8/15/2007 8:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Americans put the focus on clean air and fast acceleration, two things that until recently diesel was very poor on.
Not so much diesel engines themselves. Your diesel quality was utter crap with huge amounts of sulfur etc. That's why many americans think about smoke and smell when talking about diesel cars.

Engines have also come a long way but the change in diesel quality needs to be considered aswell.


RE: sweet!
By Hoser McMoose on 8/16/2007 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately the issue with the diesel fuel in North America has been fixed as of about a year ago. All diesel fuel sold in North America now is low in sulfur, more or less matching European diesel.

That being said though, diesel engines aren't without their own set of issues. Even if you can't see them, most diesels out there still produce a lot more pollution than comparable gasoline vehicles. That is why there is only 1 2007 model year diesel that can be sold in North America (Mercedes E320 Bluetec), the rest all fail the tightened emission standards due to excessive oxides of nitrogen (smog-forming gas) and particulate matter (carcinogen).

The European emission standards are being tightened in 2009 to more or less match the North American ones, so needless to say, all car makers are working on improving their diesel vehicles. In the next two or three years we should see diesel engines that only pollute at the same level (kilometre to kilometre) as current gasoline engines, or possibly even a bit better.


0-60 in 20s??
By jaybuffet on 8/14/2007 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
That is one slow turd... Could you image being at a stop light about to get onto a ramp to a highway.. you could only make it to about 30 mph before you got on the highway. Or on a road with stop lights, you would never make it to the speed limit before you would have to stop again. I mean really, count 20 seconds.. thats a long time. Who is that meant for, Grandma?




RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 2:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who is that meant for, Grandma?
essentially yes.. you can take a smart car on the highway, but i do not see many people doing it. Small cars like this are meant for short travel situations only. I.e short distance to work/ the corner store etc.. I can think of many people i know that never go on the highway, but use their car every day.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't fly in the U.S., that's for sure. I think most people here that drive every day, e.g., to-and-from work, use the highway for a portion of their drive.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Spivonious on 8/14/2007 2:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
Most, maybe, but not me. I live about 10 minutes from my workplace and it's all normal roads.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Ringold on 8/14/2007 4:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
For whatever it's worth, I've had to drive 45 minutes one way to school and later college and work ever since my freshman year of High School here in Orlando.

I know some lucky souls living in crappy apartments that can bike to school and drive a very short distance to work, but I know a lot of other people that make a daily trek from the 'burbs across town either on the parking lot death-trap I-4 or speedy but costly 417.

I'm going to go out on a limb.. and generalize. Poor people won't buy this car; it's too techy looking. Due to several generations of "white flight", or perhaps more politically sensitive "white-collar flight" of the upper and upper-middle class to the suburbs, all thats left in *most* central American cities is a rotten crime-ridden core best avoided without police escort after the sun begins to set.

So, those that could use it dont want it (and likely couldn't afford it new anyway), and those that could afford it and may want it have limited use for it, since trying to merge in to highway traffic traveling at 70+ while your tiny tin can could only manage 40 on the short on-ramp is a good way to cause a serious accident.

Which is probably why we'll never see it here, unless tiny numbers get imported and sold at inflated prices. Sad, perhaps, but just how most American cities are laid out after decades of sprawl starting after WW2 when the American Dream became a ranch house with a nice yard and white picket fence.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 6:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
terrible generalization, what about cities like new york, Manhattan is one of the most expensive cities to live in, and although i am not here to dispute 'white flight' it has not happened everywhere. I can think of a handful of other big cities in the united states that could benefit from this, let alone the rest of the world, where this issue does not even exist. 300 million people is only a fraction of 6 billion =P


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Depends, i live in the suburbs of Toronto, and you are correct, everyone i know has to travel on the highway to get to their job. But at the same time, many people i know that live in the city do not, and a compact low millage car would be perfect for the stop and go conditions like that of a big city.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Moishe on 8/14/2007 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
In the "Jennifer Morgue" Charles Stross has a funny chapter about driving a Smart car on the autobahn... hilarious, it's a prety funny book overall.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2007 2:30:10 PM , Rating: 4
20 seconds is plenty for a lot of situations. Granted I don't think this is the kind of car you'd drive onto an LA freeway with all those short ass on ramps. I'd also take it you wouldn't really drive this car in the hills either. Let's not forget that 20 seconds was the old estimate on the 150 MPG car, not this knew L1 prototype they are talking about. I imagine that the acceleration for this car is closer to 12-15 seconds.

I probably take longer than 20 seconds to reach the speed limit, only 45 MPH, and I'm not usually accelerating THAT much slower than everyone else. Sure, the car in front of me might be 200-300 feet in front of me, but I catch up later when they stop at the next red light.

To each his own I guess. Most people don't seem to realize what they NEED and what they WANT. They are two very different and distinct categories.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By OxBow on 8/14/2007 2:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well Said!

Jackrabbit driving and nimby attitudes are a bigger problem here in the states than a prevalence of SUVs and "different" commuter situations. First of all, if you're stomping on the gas to floor it at every intersection, you're wasting a lot of gas and are part of the problem (and not part of the target market for this car).

Secondly, people who say that it might work in Europe because they're different are clueless xenophobes. Granted, Europeans have adopted mass transit much better than we have, but that doesn't mean a fair number of them commute the same as we do. It's not like the built the Autobahn to have no one drive on it.

The cars (and roads) in Germany where this is being built are much more efficient, better maintained and have a higher expectation of performance than we do. The reason for that is they truly consider it a priveledge to drive, not a right. That's an attitude we'd do well to learn from.

Personally, I'd be interested in this car. The mileage/cost factor looks great. We need more of these cars to leap from the prototype phase to the market stage. I'm getting tired of hearing about all this great tech that's been developed, but not available for fear that consumers might reject it. That seems like utter hogwash to me.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 3
First, I'd like to understand from you how German cars and roads are moe efficient.

Second, what is the real innovation with this car? It's a lightweight, aerodynamic, small-diesel. I don't see any great innovation here - I just see a different set of tradeoffs that have been taken. E.g., cost decreased, mpg increased, performance decreased, safety decreased, etc.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 3:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
European cars are historically more efficient, i.e lower hp@higher rpm's, but this aside you are right, there really is no innovation besides the small form factor. I would also like to understand how German roads are more efficient, having no speed limit on some highways is not efficient in my books ;)


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/21/2007 12:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hitler did many bad things in his day, but one good thing was building the autobond with concrete...and 2 or 3 times the thickness ever use in the US, when you can find a concrete road. They need very little repair and cars run better on concrete verse asphalt (which needs on going repair.) Outside of that, I do not know how their roads would be better.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Ringold on 8/14/2007 4:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people don't seem to realize what they NEED and what they WANT. They are two very different and distinct categories.


Also happens to be the very foundation of a modern capitalist economy. ;) Lenin tried that whole "to each according to his need" thing.

This'll probably do okay in different places but can't really fault anybody for enjoying having more power on tap, mass under the seat or more people and cargo capacity.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By blaster5k on 8/15/2007 3:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
If it really takes 20 seconds to do 0-60, it sounds pretty dangerous to drive -- at least in my area since we have a lot of really short on ramps. Having some extra power can be helpful in accident avoidance too. There's not much margin for error with so little power. I wouldn't get a car with worse than an 10 second 0-60 time just for that reason. Not on the US roadways anyhow.


RE: 0-60 in 20s??
By Dr K on 9/7/2007 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't like the acceleration, why would you say that you should only drive it in the city, where you have to accelerate over and over? Why not drive a high MPG car on the highway? Yes, it might be a painful few moments getting onto the highway, but once you're up to speed, you're up to speed. In fact, once you get to highway speeds and lock in your cruise control, there is absolutely no need for acceleration, whether you're driving one of these or a Mustang GT. Highway driving where you cover tens of thousands of miles per year is exactly the application for any super-high MPG vehicle. If you prefer a Mustang GT, buy one, but actually using the higher acceleration or top speed of any such vehicle will increase your fuel consumption dramatically; yes, even worse than the EPA estimates. If that's your preference embrace it, but don't delude yourself that you are really just waiting for a high MPG vehicle with better acceleration and top speed. Buy yourself a hybrid Hummer and brag about how 'green' you are!


Electric or Disiel?
By GhandiInstinct on 8/14/2007 2:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have electric, 100% torque, longer MPG, no fuel to pollute with.

Tesla has it right, except for the price and safety standards.

The cars in 5th Element looked nice.




RE: Electric or Disiel?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 3:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather have electric, 100% torque, longer MPG, no fuel to pollute with.

So how do you plan to produce your non-polluting electricity?


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By GhandiInstinct on 8/14/2007 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power, soon fusion power:
http://www.iter.org/a/n1/introduction.htm

and windmills....


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Etsp on 8/14/2007 3:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Or... Cheap Flexible Solar panels made using carbon nanotubes combined with a plug in system? http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8149

And without all that radioactivity of nuclear reactions.


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 3:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
sounds like a future presidential debate


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Hoser McMoose on 8/15/2007 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And without all that radioactivity of nuclear reactions.

The carbon nanotubes used in those solar panels are radioactive too :)


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 3:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you're planning to run your own personal windmill, most likely the power you would charge your electric car from will come from a mix of nuclear, coal, and natural gas. That might be an improvement in emissions, however, there's no such thing as wide-scale zero-pollution energy sources yet.


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Etsp on 8/14/2007 4:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
however, there's no such thing as wide-scale zero-pollution energy sources yet.
Which begs the question(to me at least) what is the carbon footprint for the average solar panel?


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares - what does CO2 have to do with anything? The environmental problem with solar cells is the pollution that is produced during their manufacture and at their end-of-life disposal. Solar energy is also expensive.


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Etsp on 8/14/2007 4:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
My post wasn't to criticize yours in any way... I just found the question kind of ironic...


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By kmmatney on 8/14/2007 5:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Considering solar cells are made of silicon, one of the most abundant elements on earth, disposing of it shouldn't cause much harm to the environment.


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 6:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
To state the obvious, it's not in its natural form, and it is also combined with other elements, e.g., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, etc. which are pretty toxic.

You may find this interesting: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/02/01470.pdf


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Spuke on 8/14/2007 6:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering solar cells are made of silicon, one of the most abundant elements on earth, disposing of it shouldn't cause much harm to the environment.
Solar cells don't just float in the air over your house. They must be attached to something and that something is NOT one of the "most abundant elements on earth".


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By 9nails on 8/15/2007 11:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Electric cons:
o- Slow recharge time make cross country trips difficult.
o- Batteries are very expensive to replace. (Off-sets any MPG saving that you thought you were getting.)
o- Disposing of batteries is expensive and damaging to environment.
o- The production of batteries is harmful to environment.
o- Batteries + motors weigh more than gas + engine, reducing MPG for electric.

(Don't let Sony make your batteries - 'nuff said!)


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By encia on 8/16/2007 9:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disposing of batteries is expensive and damaging to environment.

Depends on the car’s make e.g. Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program.

quote:
The production of batteries is harmful to environment

Depends on battery's chemistry.

quote:
(Don't let Sony make your batteries - 'nuff said!)

My car’s drive battery is made by Panasonic EV.


RE: Electric or Disiel?
By Hoser McMoose on 8/16/2007 3:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Slow recharge time make cross country trips difficult.

This is a definite problem and is going to limit all-electric vehicles to somewhat niche applications or, at best, to two-car families only. This is why I see more potential is series hybrids.
quote:
Batteries are very expensive to replace. (Off-sets any MPG saving that you thought you were getting.)

That's a bit up in the air at the moment. Certainly batteries aren't cheap, but if they can be made to last most, or all, of the expected lifetime of your vehicle it might not be an issue. When you factor in the reduced maintenance costs of eliminating your transmission (or drastically simplifying it at least) and using either just an electrical motor or an electrical motor and a very simple ICE, it could well work out that these vehicles are cheaper to maintain.
quote:
- Disposing of batteries is expensive and damaging to environment.
- The production of batteries is harmful to environment.

Fortunately battery recycling is one of the best recycling programs out there in general, and Li-Ion batteries are some of the least harmful to the environment of any type of batteries. It's not something to be ignored, but it's a problem that can be greatly minimized with little effort.
quote:
- Batteries + motors weigh more than gas + engine, reducing MPG for electric.

In the case of a parallel hybrid, like the almost all on the road today, yes. However in the case of a series hybrid you can eliminate your heavy transmission in favour of a MUCH simpler two-speed design (or possibly even get rid of it all together) and your ICE can be made MUCH smaller and simpler. The weight savings from these two components should easily offset the weight gain from a relatively small battery pack. Pure-electric vehicles need a much larger battery pack but they completely eliminate the ICE.

The biggest worry in my mind is that I think we still need another generation or two of new battery technology. We're getting REALLY close with the latest Li-Ion designs, but I think there's a tiny bit further to go before we're really set for widespread deployment. We need to keep the charge density and efficiency of charging/discharging of Li-Ion batteries but add in wider temperature performance, increase the number of charges and decrease the capacity loss over time. All of these are being worked on and are being improved, but I think it'll be 5-10 years before we're ready to really start displacing standard gasoline and diesel vehicles with series hybrids.


safety?
By Verran on 8/14/2007 1:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I doubt a car like this could meet today's safety standards with such an incredibly low weight. Normally I wouldn't care, but as American highways fill with H2 Kill-Machines, this car would be little more than a speed-bump against the raised bumpers and 7000lb curb weight.




RE: safety?
By A5un on 8/14/2007 1:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ban the H2's!

Ban the over-sized SUV's!

...or make a high way for light weight cars? lol


RE: safety?
By glenn8 on 8/14/2007 2:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't be any less safe than a motorcycle or one of those Smart cars IMO.


RE: safety?
By GoatMonkey on 8/14/2007 2:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
True, but those are not safe either.


RE: safety?
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 2:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
you are probably right, a smart car weighs in at about 1600lbs, which is probably about as light as you can go.
I've seen a smart car, crash into another smart car in France, and believe me, its not a pretty sight(airbags deployed from every angle and plastic everywhere). Just imagine a smart car getting hit by an H2 haha.


RE: safety?
By RamarC on 8/14/2007 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
at 992lbs, a tractor trailer could probably hit it and the driver not even notice! if you're going to drive a small car, at least drive a quick/nimble small car!


RE: safety?
By Polynikes on 8/14/2007 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I wouldn't be caught dead riding around in one of those.


RE: safety?
By Spuke on 8/14/2007 6:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
H2's are a niche vehicle and there aren't enough around to make much of a difference. And, no, seeing three a day doesn't count as "a lot".


RE: safety?
By Hoser McMoose on 8/15/2007 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

WEIGHT DOES NOT EQUAL SAFETY!!!

Making a vehicle 7000lbs doesn't make it any safer, it just means that there's more metal flying around.

The argument of conservation of energy in an impact is BADLY flawed for two reasons. First, it assumes that vehicles are solid bodies, which is absolutely not true. And second it assumes that all vehicles have an equal probability of being in an accident in the first place, which is also not true. You are MUCH more likely to be involved in an accident in an H2 as compared to a Smart car. Why? Because the H2 is huge (bigger "target"), it handles like a brick making it harder to avoid accidents, and it weighs 7000lbs so stopping the thing takes a LOT more force. So even though your survivability might be better in the H2 that's no guarantee that it will actually be SAFER.

Look around for vehicle fatality statistics, they are available. A lot of people are surprised when they see tiny cars like the Toyota Echo (Yaris) and the MINI Cooper having MUCH lower fatality rates than a Ford Excursion or a Chevy Blazer. Here's a fairly recent link (sorry, neither Hummer or Smart car were included):

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

Long story short, smart design and good engineering make a vehicles safe, NOT 7000lbs of metal.


Not the prettiest
By cenobite9 on 8/14/2007 1:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not the prettiest of cars but it would definitely be great for driving to and from work in... especially if you live 15-20 miles from where you work.




RE: Not the prettiest
By SilthDraeth on 8/14/2007 2:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Try 40 miles for me. I know there are a lot of people that commute further than that in Southern California.

I drive 80 miles a day just to get to work and home. If this gets released and for the price tag they where talking about before, around 15k or below for one, I will be buying one.


RE: Not the prettiest
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 2:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt you'll ever see this car road-legal in the U.S. due to safety standards.


RE: Not the prettiest
By Nighteye2 on 8/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not the prettiest
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
SUVs are legal everywhere, AFAIK, and that's because they meet safety standards. Adding material increases safety, it doesn't decrease it. Handling is a second-order effect, and there's no significant handling problem with today's SUVs, trucks, vans, etc.


RE: Not the prettiest
By theapparition on 8/14/2007 3:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SUVs are legal in the US, aren't they? Those are much more unsafe than this car

SUV's pass US government mandated safety requirements. I doubt this vehicule will, in it's current form. Surely, you can understand the difference.


RE: Not the prettiest
By Spuke on 8/14/2007 6:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
A 1000 lb car won't pass safety regulations in the US. That car won't make it here in its current form. You're not going to get a 100 mpg vehicle that you can take down to the local dealer for repairs and have it be that cheap. It's just not going to happen (at least not anytime soon).


RE: Not the prettiest
By dcollins on 8/15/2007 1:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
You can buy an Ariel Atom in the US now and it's road legal at just south of a thousand pounds. Plus my motorcycle wieghs in at 350lb and has no safety protection at all. I don't see any reason why this car shouldn't be legal.


What has weight to do with safety?
By Dfere on 8/14/2007 4:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
I ride a 750 Vulcan. Similar size engine. Better efficiency. Tremendous (in car terms), acceleration. Terrible weather capabilities. 300 lbs less weight than the smaller version. And two less wheels.

If weight is a factor for safety, why haven't all motorcycles been banned.

Not like most SUV owners wouldn't disagree.....




RE: What has weight to do with safety?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Safety is all relative...it means one thing to have a safe car, and something different to have a safe motorcycle. Cars are intuitively and statistically more safe than motorcycles, but when you just look within one category or the other, the government regulates these industries to make each type of vehicle safer.

The relative safety difference between the two types of vehicles is irrelevant since it cannot be said that motorcycles are categorically "unsafe."


By Hoser McMoose on 8/15/2007 6:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why haven't all motorcycles been banned.

That is an EXTRAORDINARILY good question, though it has little to do with weight. Motorcycles are horribly unsafe! The fatality rates for motorcycles are roughly an order of magnitude worse than cars. It has very little do with with weight though and much more to do with the fact that you can flip the bike, fall off the bike, get thrown off it, etc.

Several small (low weight) cars are actually quite safe. The Toyota Echo/Yaris and the MINI Cooper have reasonably good fatality statistics. On the other hand, some large vehicles are generally NOT safe. Pick-up trucks are a good example, these are often much worse then cars despite being larger and heavier. Also, on average, Toyota, BMW, VW and Honda do MUCH better then same-sized vehicles from Ford, Mitsubishi and GM. You're often twice as likely to be killed in a car from the latter group vs. a comparable car from the former group. Obvious weight is not a factor here.

The safest vehicles you can buy are Minivans and import sedans. The least safe is unquestionably a motorcycle.


Cool ride!
By Misty Dingos on 8/14/2007 1:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
I like the looks of this car. It is so very space age so very sci-fi. Can I have one tomorrow? Make that two.




RE: Cool ride!
By HrilL on 8/14/2007 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah same here and for that price tag it would really be nice. I work as a computer tech and drive around town a lot from job to job. This would save me so much money. I Currently have Bronco II and I get like 18mpg. Yeah yeah I don't need an SUV but I like it =) and It does come in handy for hunting and going on snowboarding trips. But If I could get one of these I could just use the SUV for when its needed.


2+2?
By MattCoz on 8/14/2007 6:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
That must be a joke, where would this "+2" go?




RE: 2+2?
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 7:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
The two rear seats are accessed by lifting the rear hatch. (No, I'm not kidding.)


Need for Speed
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/14/2007 3:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
Typo in the article:
quote:
due its diesel engine


Should be "due to its diesel engine.

Also an update on the current 0-60 speed and top speed for the L1. Does it similarly fall between the GT and the LS??

As to the old speeds:
Man the LS is SLOW! That is slower than an SUV. The price is good, the gas mileage is terrific and given the relative stability of diesel prices, there are only positives there, but the speed is a real bummer. Hopefully they bump it up for the production model, if it actually is made.




I want one
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/14/2007 4:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
I want one, but with a 120 bhp engine.
That would make me certainly happy, being able to see porsches lagging behind me, at least until aerodynamical drag gets those 120 bhp sucked and the porsche drives past me by the power of its brute force :D




Phenominal MPG!
By 9nails on 8/15/2007 11:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
Some quick math:

Loremo (LS and GT) have a 20 Litre tank. (5.28 gallons)
Estimating with LS's 157 MPG average, you would have a per tank distance of:
829 Miles!

Perhaps this makes assumptions such as: you weigh nothing and you carry no load in the trunk, tires are over inflated, and you live in an area with no atmosphere... But 800+ miles on a 5 gallon tank of gas is quite impressive! I'd imagine with submersed fuel pump and all, that you would only want to use 4 gallons of gas before the reserve light comes on. That's still 628 miles driven before you need to spend another $12 for a fill up. (Estimating $3.00 at the pump.)

If they ever bring this car State side, I just might trade in my motorcycle for one!




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki