backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 111 comment(s) - last by kc77.. on Jun 30 at 3:30 PM

VW Twin Drive Golf  (Source: Wired)
VW Twin Drive sounds a lot like the Chevy Volt

While we languish under the ever increasing cost of oil, which in turn drives the price of gasoline up in America and abroad, many are looking to hybrid and electric vehicles to save us from greater oil dependence. Several problems still face hybrid and electric vehicles including cost and poor battery life.

VW has announced its take on the hybrid with a new Twin Drive Golf that has both a 122HP diesel engine and an 82HP electric motor. Living up to its “Twin Drive” name, the new Golf variant relies on its electric motor for around town driving, and the gasoline motor for longer trips according to Motor Authority.

VW’s Martin Winkerton said at the cars unveiling, “While the e-motor on a typical hybrid model just supplements the combustion engine, the exact opposite is true on Twin Drive. Here the diesel or gasoline engine supplements the e-motor.”

The VW Twin Drive is set to hit market in 2010, the same year the Chevy Volt is expected. Bob Lutz and the gaggle of engineers at GM will tell you right away that the Volt isn’t a hybrid. They prefer to call the Volt and extended range electric vehicle. VW comes out and calls the Twin Drive a hybrid, but the two vehicles still share a similar method of propulsion.

According to Wired.com, VW will be partnering with Sanyo to develop the lithium ion batteries for the car and Sanyo says it will spend $769 million developing the batteries. The German government is keen to get vehicles like the Twin Drive on the road to help reduce pollution and to help VW and other car makers launch hybrid and electric cars a program has been set up with $23.5 million in German government backing to fund development.

VW says that it expects to have a fleet of 20 Twin Drive Golf’s on the road by 2010, though whether or not the car will actually see mass production is unknown. According to VW the Twin Drive golf will have an all electric range of 31 miles.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2008 1:55:32 AM , Rating: 3
Does a 31 mile range electrical system honestly justify the extra weight and complexity of this vehicle ? 31 miles wouldn't even get me to work !

With such a small vehicle there is no need for this hybrid system. A fuel efficient turbo diesel is more than enough already. Its lighter, economical, and more reliable.

In my opinion, this is engineering gone wrong. Just because you CAN build something, doesn't mean you should.




RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By oab on 6/28/2008 5:10:33 AM , Rating: 3
31 miles would get me to work, back and a trip to the shops.

Just because there is "no need" for a hybrid system in such a small vehicle doesn't mean that it has no use. Namely, this increases MPG. Diesel hybrids > gasoline hybrids, and there are lots of gasoline hybrids.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Hare on 6/28/2008 7:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would quess that this 31 mile range doesn't include energy recovery with braking, so in practise the range may be higher.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2008 11:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
In practice, the range is most certainly lower. You don't think VW is picking the most optimistic fudged number ? Tell me, how long does that 31 miles go when I'm sitting in traffic with the A/C running ?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty far since it's a hybrid. Meaning if you are at a stop just like the Prius and your AC is running so is the gas engine. Typically AC isn't run off of the battery.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Meaning if you are at a stop just like the Prius and your AC is running so is the gas engine."

Err, the Prius runs the A/C off the battery pack, and has since the 2004 model.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2008 5:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
See ? This is another example of you talking out of your ass ! Either your a complete moron or you are just making stuff up to suit your argument. Wanting it to be true doesn't MAKE it so.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 7:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Complexity..LOL... twin drive propulsion systems have been around for decades maybe not in cars but they have been around in trains and submarines.

Depending on where you live, this car and especially cars like the Volt, not only reduce the need to use oil but they also reduce your general carbon foot print.

An example would be if you lived future up the valley in California where you receive hydroelectric power the overall carbon foot print with something like the Volt when you travel would hardly be anything when traveling.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Last time I checked saving weight wasn't a huge goal in a train."


That's funny since transportation of all of our goods in the world and the United States of America is based on weight..LOL... it would behoove you if you are going to insult my intelligence to not display your low IQ to me on platter and then say "Ha you're an idiot"..LOL...

Get used to hearing "Carbon Footprint" what do you think Cap and Trade is about? Unicorns??...

quote:
There is no way, NONE, to conserve our way out of that stark reality. It can't be done. We need more oil drilling, the sooner the better. If every single person on the PLANET used this car, it wouldn't change a damn thing.


How moronic... if a ship was sinking you would be the one running across the deck saying "Why try and swim ??.. you're bound to get wet anyway" No reasonable person thinks that conservation alone will save us... but the exact opposite ...just drilling for more oil is equally dumb.

Before you retort let me say this.... LIBERAL, NAZI, COMMUNIST, HIPPIE, MARXIST. I just wanted to get your safety words out of the way... they don't scare me, and don't relate to what we are talking about so you'll have to rely on your IQ instead.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and BTW.... in case you thought about discussing the whole weight and train thing let me help you....

Please look up:
Einstein's Theory of Relativity / General Relativity
Isaac Asimov in Understanding Physics

You might have to read a while, but the crux of it is that the desire to move an object at rest takes a certain amount of energy. So when you ship goods you are paying for the amount of energy it takes to move the weight of the object. This is way more important than the size (H or W).


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/29/2008 3:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
You sure about that? I thought that on the highway 70% of your gasoline was going towards air displacement.

Once your car (or train!) is up to speed, your energy used is going towards two types of friction.

If you can reduce friction with whatever is holding your vehicle up (i.e. bearings, and tires meeting the road) then the weight is less of a factor.

We have the technology, we can build it with less friction. Ever hear of nanotechnology? How about magnetic levitation?

What we don't have is a way to completely (or comfortably and safely) get rid of drag and wind resistance in cars.

Now if we could do away with wind resistance and invent a way to open up a vortex in front of our cars, then that would be something because the weight of your car and the friction caused by it would be the limiting factor when it comes to speed.

Believe it or not, when they design desert racers to set world records they focus more on aerodynamics and drag reduction than on the weight of the car, although both are obviously important. Weight matters only because of friction with the road and bearings, but ultimately the wind resistance is more slowing.

Getting up to speed with a small engine and more weight will take longer but it can be done if the transmission/gearbox is not a huge heavy mass.

One thing that so many people overlook when it comes to saving gasoline...is waxing their car. I have read that when on the highway you will save more gas by running the AC then turning it off and having your windows open. Drag.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 8:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
You are still dealing with mass and the effect of gravity. You spend most of your fuel getting up to speed, be it train, car, or whatever means of transportation you choose. You can always reduce the effect of gravity by reducing mass, or creating a counter balance to the effect of gravity but you are still dealing with mass.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 6:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "You spend most of your fuel getting up to speed, be it train, car, or whatever means of transportation you choose"

I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to correct. If it were true, cars would get essentially infinite MPG on the highway.

In reality, at cruising speed, mass is a minor component of vehicle performance; the vast majority of energy is consumed by rolling resistance (tire deformation/road friction), air resistance, and frictional losses within the drivetrain.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 9:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to correct. If it were true, cars would get essentially infinite MPG on the highway.


Really?? LOL LOL First of all I didn't say there wasn't any energy expelled once an object was in motion... did I??? I say that no where... I said that more energy was expelled to move an object at rest then an object already in motion, which is factually correct.

quote:
In reality, at cruising speed, mass is a minor component of vehicle performance; the vast majority of energy is consumed by rolling resistance (tire deformation/road friction), air resistance, and frictional losses within the drivetrain.


<<puts hand on forehead>>

First of all we are talking about about three different forces but they all rely on gravity. Let me end this by saying without gravity on Earth you don't have motion..PERIOD!!! If you have an object that has NO MASS .. I.E NO WEIGHT... is lighter than than any gas or object known to man we wouldn't be talking about cars now would we?? ... if someone made a car that was lighter than air it would float away due to it's mass .. so now that we are talking about air balloons how does air resistance play a bigger role??? .. yeah I thought so...


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "I said that more energy was expelled to move an object at rest then an object already in motion,"

No, you said "you spend most of your fuel getting up to speed", a statement which isn't true, especially for highway driving.

> "First of all we are talking about about three different forces but they all rely on gravity"

Again, no. Air resistance is wholly independent of gravity, and drivetrain losses are essentially so.

Rolling resistance depends on gravity and mass, but even here, the larger factor is the coefficient of friction, which depends on the composition of the tires (and road) more so than the weight of the vehicle.

> "if someone made a car that was lighter than air it would float away due to it's mass"

I think any rational point you were trying to make floated away along with that car.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 1:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, no. Air resistance is wholly independent of gravity, and drivetrain losses are essentially so.
You're an idiot. If you don't have gravity you don't have gravitational force. If you don't have gravitational force you can't determine weight. If you can't determine weight you can't begin to plug in the numbers to determine motion. If you can't determine motion you can't determine resistance. I.E you can't complete Newton's second law of motion without weight or mass ...

These are basic Newton laws.... FOR GOD'S SAKE ...WHAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN NEWTON!??!??! Don't even answer that... you might just say yes...