Honda Chooses “Environment” Instead of “Speed”

[racer98]

Honda Chooses “Environment” Instead of “Speed”
Behind the automaker’s withdrawal from F1 lies 100 years of change
2008-12-15
A strong sense of vexation lingered as Honda Motor Co.'s president spoke. “I still feel strongly about the hope to keep working on it, but the circumstances no longer allow us to do so,” said President Takeo Fukui. “I regret we have to withdraw without making any achievement. I’m really sorry.”

With those statements, Honda is withdrawing from Formula One (F1). Fukui remained grim throughout the press conference held to announce its withdrawal from the races. Fukui loves auto races, and he himself took command of the company’s reentry in the F1 race in 2000, so his sorrow must have been heartbreaking.

The biggest reason for the withdrawal was the rapidly deteriorating economic circumstances surrounding the automobile industry from October through November. “The world turned around 180 degrees from the way it was in spring. We’re faced with so many discouraging factors and we just can’t see into the future,” Vice President Koichi Kondo said.

Honda’s F1 team, consisting of more than 1,000 engineers, has been working on the project, and its annual expenses are considered to top 50 billion yen. Like many other automobile makers, Honda has announced plans not to renew contracts with some of its temporary employees, and has made it clear it will have no sanctuaries in reviewing its business plans.


Reasons for “withdrawal” rather than “temporary suspension”

“I’m really shocked. I thought Honda was going to stay in business even if all other companies withdrew from F1,” said Fumito Akita, a joint owner of Super Aguri F1 Team who had been taking part in the F1 races with engines supplied by Honda until May of this year, “It must have been really heartbreaking.”

Honda took part in the F1 races three times in the past, and announced it planned to “suspend” the activities temporarily” after the first two events. But this time, it was “withdrawing altogether and has no plans for the future,” according to President Fukui.

What is the difference between the past events and the latest one? Fukui said, “The automobile industry has entered into an era of big changes heading for the next 100 years.” In this age of global warming, environmental regulations will be further intensified in the advanced nations. And there is keen competition going on to develop new driving systems to replace gasoline-consuming internal combustion engines.

To override the changes, it will be necessary to exert all-out efforts in developing next-generation technologies, including those to cope with environmental problems. That was the reason why Fukui avoided using the expression “temporarily suspending”, which suggests a possible reentry in the future. He could have chosen a way to keep supplying just the engines for F1, but he felt that such an indecisive attitude would make the engineers feel reluctant.

His idea was to let the nearly 400 F1 engineers turn to developing environment-oriented automobiles instead. The company will strengthen the development of fuel-efficient mini cars even smaller than the “Fit” with an engine capacity of 1300 cc or hybrid cars scheduled to go on sale next spring starting with the new model “Insight.”


F1’s fuel efficiency is 2 km per liter

Concentrating on F1 in itself does not lead to an advancement of environmental technology. The top priority is speed, and whether or not the car can turn corners at high speed decides victory or defeat in any given race. Although it provides the engineers with an excellent opportunity to test the most advanced technologies, “F1’s fuel efficiency of 2 kilometers per liter would seem to be terribly ‘fuel inefficient’ from the standpoint of ordinary drivers,” as an executive member of the car race team put it.

Yet, the F1 existence was big within the company. As it was started by Honda’s Founder Soichiro Honda, the F1 project had a tremendous power to attract engineers.

“F1, known even among children, is a symbol of Honda, and withdrawal from the project leaves us feeling deserted. Some of the engineers may become nervous for a time. But if they can look forward, those who have been aiming at becoming the world’s No. 1 will surely become big powers within the company,” said Sachito Fujimoto who is in charge of the development of Honda’s fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) “FCX Clarity”.

“The judgment will be made depending on how things work out in five years. How much new values can be produced with the power borne out of withdrawal from the F1 development program? I hope it will be regarded as a “good judgment,” Fukui said.
The success or failure of the bitter judgment will depend on how far Honda can go in the area of environmental protection.

(Ryohei Yamazaki, Hideaki Emura, Staff Writers, Nikkei Business)

http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/eng/20081215/180181/

 

[TURBO2GO]

Maybe they will have a 500 HP fuel cell NSX soon. :biggrin:

 

[92 white 0650]

Re: Honda now has a higher calling? Uhhhh........

If Honda is going to lead the way to moving beyond conventional automotive power, then I'm all for it. F-1 racing and profit on the same old Accords can't hold a candle to that challenge.

But if that was the case, why wouldn't this announcement be far more optomistic and forward looking instead of being apologetic for stopping racing. I have recent grads in our office that know how to break news better than that.

 

[burbel]

Hearing some of the press from Toyota as well, there seems to be a very negative vibe going through Japanese automotive manufacturers at the moment. I for one, after watching and reading some more information on the FCX Clarity, am actually looking forward to the future of Honda - their F1 engineers are some talented folks, and having some of them work on the projects that advance the state of the art (what I always felt F1 was for) for alternative vehicles seems very promising.

As much as I miss their not being a true replacement to the NSX, I like the direction that Honda is moving in.

 

[racer98]

The move seems to flow with the economic problems in the market today. Still taking an F1 scientist off a racing team and putting them into a FCX project or other environmental trend setting advancement for future tech projects is more or less of taking a hip hop or rock start off the A list stage and having them work in a library. It will work for so long and then the excellent talent will eventually go out and look for something more exciting.

Aside from the economic problems, this f1 problem is also a cause of the FIA decline and lots of mfg are starting to see the economic benefit of other racing series. Yup , and turning left seems to make a lot more profit then going around a full FIA sanction track.

Way too much good talent is going into other sectors of engineering and getting paid a lot better then any of the Automotive or Motorbike stuff out there.

still intresting to see what will happen.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

The move seems to flow with the economic problems in the market today. Still taking an F1 scientist off a racing team and putting them into a FCX project or other environmental trend setting advancement for future tech projects is more or less of taking a hip hop or rock start off the A list stage and having them work in a library. It will work for so long and then the excellent talent will eventually go out and look for something more exciting.

What could be less exciting than fuel cels and a nearly limitless power supply?

To me the ICU is what is boring. 200+/- year old technology seems like old hat to me. As an engineer, would you rather work on something that has been so developed that massive amounts of money and R&D will yield only micro-level of improvements. Or would you rather work on something that will completely revolutionize the way we look at the enviornment and transportation moving into the future?

 

[H-carWizKid]

What could be less exciting than fuel cels and a nearly limitless power supply?

To me the ICU is what is boring. 200+/- year old technology seems like old hat to me. As an engineer, would you rather work on something that has been so developed that massive amounts of money and R&D will yield only micro-level of improvements. Or would you rather work on something that will completely revolutionize the way we look at the environment and transportation moving into the future?

Viva the revolution! IMO the FCX is the most exciting new car to come out in the past year.
I am glad to see Honda taking point on moving the transportation industry into a sustainable future. I have always been a fan of the innovations they have made to reduce emissions while maintaining performance (my TL is a 280hp ULEV), and if they are focusing their attention on green technologies then I expect we will see great things in the nature of fuel cell tech moving forward.

It is like Jay Leno said on Top Gear- (paraphrasing here) If people use cars like the FCX for commuting, and mundane driving, enthusiasts like ourselves will be able to enjoy our internal combustion driven sports cars further into the future.

F1 was boring anyway. Very little passing (at least to my taste) and team dominance always seemed to make the actual race a foregone conclusion. I have always preferred sports car series like Speed GT, and Touring Car.



P

 

[racer98]

What could be less exciting than fuel cels and a nearly limitless power supply?

To me the ICU is what is boring. 200+/- year old technology seems like old hat to me. As an engineer, would you rather work on something that has been so developed that massive amounts of money and R&D will yield only micro-level of improvements. Or would you rather work on something that will completely revolutionize the way we look at the enviornment and transportation moving into the future?

sure, but its change for the best direction. Old habbits die hard.

 

[racer98]

Viva the revolution! IMO the FCX is the most exciting new car to come out in the past year.
I am glad to see Honda taking point on moving the transportation industry into a sustainable future. I have always been a fan of the innovations they have made to reduce emissions while maintaining performance (my TL is a 280hp ULEV), and if they are focusing their attention on green technologies then I expect we will see great things in the nature of fuel cell tech moving forward.

It is like Jay Leno said on Top Gear- (paraphrasing here) If people use cars like the FCX for commuting, and mundane driving, enthusiasts like ourselves will be able to enjoy our internal combustion driven sports cars further into the future.

F1 was boring anyway. Very little passing (at least to my taste) and team dominance always seemed to make the actual race a foregone conclusion. I have always preferred sports car series like Speed GT, and Touring Car.



P

putting it that way makes it a lot better as you just poined out

 

[H-carWizKid]

putting it that way makes it a lot better as you just poined out

It's all in how you look at it. :wink:

P

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

As an engineer, would you rather work on something that has been so developed that massive amounts of money and R&D will yield only micro-level of improvements. Or would you rather work on something that will completely revolutionize the way we look at the environment and transportation moving into the future?

Hmm... working on an F1 team (200+ mph) .... or building a glorified electric mini-van intended to make tree huggerers in western society with family planning issues.... feel better about being the most ignorant and wasteful specifies on the planet- now historically eclipsing even the early industrial revolution .....

I don't know. That's going to be a hard one for me. :wink:

Maybe they will have a 500 HP fuel cell NSX soon. :biggrin:

Wow, how exciting that would be.

You know decades ago 500hp vehicles were common place in showrooms. It was called a carburetor.

Then the government stepped in with all new stringent environmental mandates and regulations and everything became fuel injected and computerized. New peak performance target: reset to like 115hp but hey it burned clean on start up and got better gas mileage!!!

Decades later, we are now just about back to 500 reliable hp. Manufacturers are at the precipice where many performance cars are no longer going to continue to be feasible as road going vehicles due to the tight-rope balance with current regulations.

Under the new administration- the government will lay-down a crap ton of new regulations, and the cycle with consumer automobiles will repeat as it has before.

Look. The only person that loses playing this cyclic game are speed and performance enthusiasts. You'll get the new fuel cell flex fuel hybrid sham-wow roadster from big auto... but it's going to be relatively SLOW, better for environmental theory than the environment, expensive, and let's just say that you better plan on getting that extended warranty on all your new autos for the next decade.

I would assert that if you want to see the future of street/track performance and club racing out 25 years hence, I would assert that it is already in showrooms now.

 

[sahtt]

The fallacy of global warming has killed F1. It's just the beginning. Good going Al Gore. You better turn off some of the *$*##%'ing lights in your mansion if F1 is deteroriating because of this.

 

[racer98]

suscribed. :smile:

 

[racer98]

Good going Al Gore. .

Good god that guy just needs to go away. There is a name for him.

 

[BD]

Government: Car companies need to build safer cars; therefore, more steel.

Manufacture: We will build safer car to meet the requirements. The car will get bigger because of it.

Government: Car companies need to build even safer cars; therefore, build them higher

Manufactures: We will meet the challenge, while at it, we have to put bigger engines into our cars to meet the additional weight caused by the safety requirements.

Government: Car manufactures need to build more environmentally safe cars.

Manufactures: We will build more environmentally safe cars while adding more weight to the cars.

Government: Car manufactures need to build more more fuel efficient cars.

Manufactures: How do you expect us to deliver that when you force us to build heavy cars?

Al Gore: Now we need to get rid of all Fossil Fuel cars because of Global Warming.

Manufactures: We will have some hybrid/Fuel Cell cars to meet the minimum requirement. Even though every one of those we sell, we loose tens and thousands, but it will make us look good.

Al Gore: Even Hybrids are not good enough...

Manufactures/Oil Companies: WTF!!!

UAW: We don't care what we built as long as our members get big bucks.

Government: We'll gave you the big bucks while you have guys getting paid for doing nothing.

Honda: Just leave us along even though we lost seven percent of the sales last year, we decided to pull out of F1, stop the R & D on the next super car, but we'll brag about our FCX while 99.999999 % of the people can't even buy one.

I can go on and on but it's kinda pointless.

the whole thing is a joke.

 

[H-carWizKid]

Government: Car companies need to build safer cars; therefore, more steel.

Manufacture: We will build safer car to meet the requirements. The car will get bigger because of it.

Government: Car companies need to build even safer cars; therefore, build them higher

Manufactures: We will meet the challenge, while at it, we have to put bigger engines into our cars to meet the additional weight caused by the safety requirements.

Government: Car manufactures need to build more environmentally safe cars.

Manufactures: We will build more environmentally safe cars while adding more weight to the cars.

Government: Car manufactures need to build more more fuel efficient cars.

Manufactures: How do you expect us to deliver that when you force us to build heavy cars?

Al Gore: Now we need to get rid of all Fossil Fuel cars so the earth can be safe.

Manufactures: We will have some hybrid/Fuel Cell cars to meet the minimum requirement. Even though ever one of those we sell, we loose thousands, but it will make us look good.

Al Gore: Even Hybrids are not good enough...

Manufactures/Oil Companies: WTF!!!

UAW: We don't care what we build as long as our members get big bucks.

Government: We'll gave you the big bucks while you have guys getting paid for doing nothing.

Honda: Just leave us along even though we lost seven percent of the sales last year, we decided to pull out of F1, stop the R & D on the next super car, and we'll brag about our FCX while 99.999999 % of the people can't even buy one.

I can go on and on but it's kinda pointless.

the whole thing is a joke.

Nice statement of problem...

And now your ideas for a solution?

anything?

 

[racer98]

UAW = I WANT MY MONEY AND BUILD SHITTY CARS.


Al Gore = fail.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Hmm... working on an F1 team (200+ mph) .... or building a glorified electric mini-van intended to make tree huggerers in western society with family planning issues.... feel better about being the most ignorant and wasteful specifies on the planet- now historically eclipsing even the early industrial revolution .....

I don't know. That's going to be a hard one for me. :wink:

Wow, I'm quite disappointed in you John. For a technical person I wouldn't have expected such a myopic response. You are comparing a 200+ year old technology to a one just being born. If high power and speed is what you crave, look beyond to what is available today and look at the potential. Gasoline as we know it is nearly tapped out in what you can produce with it. Take a look at at compressed hydrogen gas compared to gasoline. It's energy density (143 MJ/kg) is nearly 3 times the energy density of gasoline (46.4 MJ/kg). So if you could create a system that could utilize just even half the energy in hydrogen, you would out power even a 100% efficient internal combustion engine. And I'm not even saying hydrogen is the solution. There are other fuels with much higher energy densities than gasoline and if technology can tap into that potential, you'll have cars that have way better performance than ICU's ever can. Why hold on to your antiquated gasoline which is heavy, has limited energy density, pollutes and requires a heavy and complex mechanical system to extract energy, when there are fuels that are lighter, can generate more energy and potentially can be extracted with a much simpler system. Basically gasoline is nearing it's potential limit. Each advance in technology is yielding a diminishing return on investment. Meanwhile, we have just scratched the surface of the potential of alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Mark my words, the fastest cars of the future will not be powered by gasoline and 200+ mph F1 cars of today won't even be able to hold a candle to the 300, 400, or even 500+ mph alternative fuel cars of the future.

Then again, I'm sure when the very first car came out, some guy scoffed that it was much slower than a horse too.

 

[BD]

Nice statement of problem...

And now your ideas for a solution?

anything?

Leave the car industry alone!!! The competition will create cars people want to buy, not cars the government want us to buy.

The over regulations are making it impossible for them to create cars that make sense.

It is just amazing to see a 2009 Honda fit with bigger interior room and heavier than a 88 Honda Accord. The whole industry is a joke. 4500lbs MB S class? No wonder they need 500 plus HP to make them go.

Let the bad companies die.

Any one have any stats on car accident injuries/Death between the Honda built in the mild 80's to the cars today? Some how I have a feeling the % is similar.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

Wow, I'm quite disappointed in you John. For a technical person I wouldn't have expected such a myopic response.

Skepticism is the proper response in this instance.

Further, as far as engineering challenges I'm not big on re-inventing the wheel. I already have a job where I get to do that now. However, at least with Windows I have a better reason than simply to appease progressive arm-chair environmentalists that think they are really smart/creative and know best how to save the polar bears. That must get annoying.

You are comparing a 200+ year old technology to a one just being born.

Actually, I thought we were comparing a F1 engineering position, to one designing the next eco-box with a laptop battery that can fit two fat baby boomer's and their dog. I simply picked the umbrella girls over decades of real hard work for micro-level improvements.

If high power and speed is what you crave, look beyond to what is available today and look at the potential. Gasoline as we know it is nearly tapped out in what you can produce with it.

If you want to talk about the need for speed- then I can already produce all of the speed I could ever want from fossil fuels. I am sure of this because they have been doing it for thirty years. I don't care about efficiency, and power output is most certainly not the limiting factor of racing speeds. If you are talking about road speeds- well, crap- who needs hydrogen ion propulsion when you can hit the public speed limit on a bicycle.

Take a look at at compressed hydrogen gas compared to gasoline. It's energy density (143 MJ/kg) is nearly 3 times the energy density of gasoline (46.4 MJ/kg). So if you could create a system that could utilize just even half the energy in hydrogen, you would out power even a 100% efficient internal combustion engine.

Let's just compare liquid hydrogen to liquid gasoline.

and... while we are in fairy land:

Basically gasoline is nearing it's potential limit.

Right, so another wards what you are saying is that after a century of development it is a reliable, mature technology. But we should ditch it.

Mark my words, the fastest cars of the future will not be powered by gasoline and 200+ mph F1 cars of today won't even be able to hold a candle to the 300, 400, or even 500+ mph alternative fuel cars of the future.

Then hopefully somewhere in your future is an occupant safety system that can withstand a 3000 G impact.

It sounds to me like you are a little gassed up with Future Car episodes on the Discovery channel. BTW, this might be an inconvienent truth but the current alternative fuel land speed record stands at 328mph using diesel. The hydrogen weenies are only at like 207mph.

Then again, I'm sure when the very first car came out, some guy scoffed that it was much slower than a horse too.

I am not scoffing at new technologies. The only thing certain is change. However, I am also a realist. The natural reaction is people put emotion before logic. The result is you end up with a lot of early adopter propeller heads that just want the next best thing and expect it to be the day after tommorow and be cheap. 700 RWHP 20K RPM Eco-Box that cleans the air, pays your electric bill, and walks the dog. Sure. I am sure GM will release the volt once they get that next loan.

Reality: If you are healthy and lucky; I would like to believe that you might see a human landing on mars before you die. A viable transportation alternative deployed, the end of the fossil fuel era, and happy polar bears?

Yeah... you'll have been dead for some time.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Skepticism is the proper response in this instance.

Further, as far as engineering challenges I'm not big on re-inventing the wheel. I already have a job where I get to do that now. However, at least with Windows I have a better reason than simply to appease progressive arm-chair environmentalists that think they are really smart/creative and know best how to save the polar bears. That must get annoying.

Do you recall when you made the swap over to snide and complacent? I'd like to venture to guess it was somewhere around post 1,000 but I wouldn't really know for sure. You used to have some pretty thorough posts which at least seem to have some merit, but it appears you have long abandoned that long ago to now try to be as sarcastic and condencending as possible in each reply. Oh and you also seem to have an obsession with feeling superior and having superior opinions to just about anyone and making sure everyone realizes it.

Actually, I thought we were comparing a F1 engineering position, to one designing the next eco-box with a laptop battery that can fit two fat baby boomer's and their dog. I simply picked the umbrella girls over decades of real hard work for micro-level improvements.

Perhaps that is what you were talking about. I was talking about a car manufacturer reallocating their focus to developing alternate methods of vehicle propulsion rather than continuing that focus on essentially a technology nearing it's sunset. Note, the article didn't say Honda was only going to make FCX's in lieu of F1 cars.

If you want to talk about the need for speed- then I can already produce all of the speed I could ever want from fossil fuels. I am sure of this because they have been doing it for thirty years. I don't care about efficiency, and power output is most certainly not the limiting factor of racing speeds. If you are talking about road speeds- well, crap- who needs hydrogen ion propulsion when you can hit the public speed limit on a bicycle.

Again as stated above, you used to have very compelling arguments, but even you must admit this is a terrible argument. You are basically saying that you don't need new technology because you've used it for thirty years? That's basically exactly what the XP users were saying in this thread. And you countered with the following:

"Change is difficult."

"Genuine change takes time. My personal opinion is that it's never going to happen inside of a single client release and believe me we have many dedicated employees whom would love to see more of it on the high level. The fact that a release takes three or five years and some users see them as only incremental changes, is frankly because their technical competency is only skin deep. I could draw a technical diagram showing how audio now works and why it is better than before in every way which would be a boon if you were doing pro audio but I doubt your Mother would care."

"Some features aren't sexy. Like say better inter-process communication or more efficient multi processor support or better file system security."

You are basically telling people that change takes time, but under that hood, better things are happening whether they understand it or not. So why can't you see the relative parallel in that as we make the change to alternative fuels, this change will take time, but be for the better. Yet you keep hanging on your fossil fuels like an XP user. Why not embrace the advancement the same way you give advice on Windows software? And just because you don't care about pollution or efficiency, other people do, so the change will take place whether you like it or not. What are you going to do when all the gas stations have changed to hydrogen stations and your still driving around in your fossil fuel dinosaur? Are you still trying to hold on to your analog TV channels too? Because guess what, you're going to be forced to get with the program on that one too.

Let's just compare liquid hydrogen to liquid gasoline.

And you are getting careless and sloppy too? That is very unlike you. I never stated liquid hydrogen relative to liquid gasoline. I clearly stated compressed hydrogen gas has 3 times the energy density of liquid gasoline. Why did I used compressed hydrogen gas as a comparison? Well let's think about what is and would be the most common form of hydrogen we would use as fuel. Well figuring hydrogen is a gas at room temperatures and it would be incredibly difficult to maintain hydrogen in a liquid state in a vehicle, I think it would make more sense to compare hydrogen as a gas rather than a liquid. After all, why would I mention the energy density of vapor gasoline when no vehicle today uses gasoline vapor as an energy source? Obviously if we were to use hydrogen as a fuel source it would be in gas form and obviously it would be compressed when we put it in a storage cell. And again, I said that compressed hydrogen gas had 3 times the fuel density of gasoline. So where your fancy little chart showing the relationship between compressed hydrogen gas and gasoline?

and... while we are in fairy land:

Let's see, hydrogen gas has been used as a fuel source for centuries. Longer than gasoline. So who's in fairy land now?

Right, so another wards what you are saying is that after a century of development it is a reliable, mature technology. But we should ditch it.

And now you are getting delusional as well? I never said we should ditch gasoline. Why do you feel the need to insist I stated something I clearly never said. I'm saying we shoud ween ourselves towards developing alternative fuel sources. Why is that such a controversial statement to you?

Then hopefully somewhere in your future is an occupant safety system that can withstand a 3000 G impact.

It sounds to me like you are a little gassed up with Future Car episodes on the Discovery channel. BTW, this might be an inconvienent truth but the current alternative fuel land speed record stands at 328mph using diesel. The hydrogen weenies are only at like 207mph.

What does this have to do with anything? 2,000 years ago the land speed record was probably held by a chariot. What's your point and what does that have to do with developing alternative fuels.

See this is where it becomes painfully obvious that you are:
1) Condescending for the sake of being condescending
2) Now you are just purely being argumentative

First of all, you just love to paint me as some bleeding heart liberal, tree hugging, Al Gore lover. Well if you knew me at all, instead of just trying to smugly categorize everyone you feel is beneath you, you would know I'm not a fan of Al Gore nor any "green" movement. I don't even know what this Future Car thing you are talking about. All of my thoughts and opinions are based on my experiences in building a couple of alternative fuel vehicles (one purely electric, and one fuel cell vehicle) and several engineer courses I took on energy and land vehicle dynamics. Where are your opinions emanating from, besides your throne atop mount Microsoft from where you look down upon the world. Oh yeah and I forgot, you actually drive a gas powered car. That makes you an expert.

I am not scoffing at new technologies. The only thing certain is change. However, I am also a realist. The natural reaction is people put emotion before logic. The result is you end up with a lot of early adopter propeller heads that just want the next best thing and expect it to be the day after tommorow and be cheap. 700 RWHP 20K RPM Eco-Box that cleans the air, pays your electric bill, and walks the dog. Sure. I am sure GM will release the volt once they get that next loan.

Reality: If you are healthy and lucky; I would like to believe that you might see a human landing on mars before you die. A viable transportation alternative deployed, the end of the fossil fuel era, and happy polar bears?

Yeah... you'll have been dead for some time.

First off, I'm not ringing the bells of elation because our salvation has arrived in the form of alternative fuels. I'm not even sure where you even got that impression in the 15 or so lines I typed. I'm assuming you just swept it all under one big stereotype rug you just give all people who differ from your viewpoints. I'll give you the same reasoning that I voted Libertarian this past election. Am I die hard Libertarian? No. Do I know much about the Libertarian party? Not much. Did I expect the Libertarian candidate to even come close this year. Nope. So why did I vote Libertarian? Because I do not like the Republicans nor Democrats. So if I ever even wanted to have a chance to have a viable third party candidate some time in the future, I had to vote Libertarian today. Otherwise, the same excuse that is used by most people, "they are not a viable party, they will never win" will always be the case for the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that. Somewhere you have to make the step, take that leap of faith; at least make the attempt to head in the right direction. Will it take time? Of course, but the start of any journey begins with a single step. The same applies for alternative fuels. Remember when we had the oil crisis in the 70's. We all said we were going to make that step towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels but we never followed through. And right when we had our most recent oil crisis, there were a lot of people wishing we had made more of an attempt in the 70's. So now that we've had our second wake up call, I'm glad that someone is willing to answer the call and at least give us the chance that in another 30 years when we go through another oil crisis, that it may not be such a "crisis" because we have taken steps today to alleviate that.

Secondly, I don't know about you, but I plan on being around for at least the next 40 years. Of all the people, you should know better than anyone how fast technology advances. Do you think anyone could fathom where computers would be today 40 years ago?

'While a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 10000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers of the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons.'
Popular mechanics, 1949

'I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year'
Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

'But what... is it good for?'
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems division of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968

'There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in the home'
Ken Olson, Present, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

'640K should be enough for anybody'
Bill Gates, 1981

That last one should really hit home for you. The point is, what seems absolutely unfathomable today, could in fact be a lot closer than you think. Just look at the state of the following 40 years ago:
Genetics
Cloning
Computers
Internet
Space travel
Electronics

When you look back 40 years and how much has developed and changed, it doesn't seem all that reasonable that we will have an alternative fueled car that will have twice as much performance at half or even none of the pollution a car today has.

 

[racer98]

No one has even made mention what about LNG for commercial use for Semi's for the USA or even alternative power for those things. That is how all of our products get to market, that is what needs to be changed as soon as possibile. What about our roads, highways and masstransit systems when have they gotten a bail out to get people out of thier cars and use masstransit etc ?

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

Do you recall when you made the swap over to snide and complacent? I'd like to venture to guess it was somewhere around post 1,000 but I wouldn't really know for sure.

Hard to pin that one down. I think it was around 1200. That's when I got really bored reading such enlightening material as the targa vs coupe chassis rigidity threads and got relegated to the off-topic area. :biggrin:

You used to have some pretty thorough posts which at least seem to have some merit, but it appears you have long abandoned that long ago to now try to be as sarcastic and condencending as possible in each reply. Oh and you also seem to have an obsession with feeling superior and having superior opinions to just about anyone and making sure everyone realizes it.

Excellent. It sounds like I am on the right track. Maybe work on your game and just try being right for a change. I think you'll feel better. :biggrin:

You are basically telling people that change takes time, but under that hood, better things are happening whether they understand it or not. So why can't you see the relative parallel in that as we make the change to alternative fuels, this change will take time, but be for the better.

My post on XP was relevant in its context. My opinion was that while that specific operating system release was a fundamental incremental improvement for users across the board, that simply improving the underlying technologies was not marketable toward your average home consumer. Ultimately, the real result for many was compatibility issues and headaches.

Either way, the keyword is always improvement. Anyone that knows anything about software knows that upgrades are not always 'upgrades'. I just upgraded my Zune yesterday to 3.1 (which has no new features) and all I got out of the deal was the power suspends... forever.

If you want to draw a comparison to software, then do you really think that the first few stabs in the next decade at a new generation power plant (electric or fuel cell) in these new eco wanna-be green cars will be any real "improvement" for your average performance enthusiast of all people?

!@#$ No.

Look at the last five years. Did the Honda Insight out do the civic? No. The early adopters paid the highest price for what was essentially a downgrade. Further, it failed to accomplish any of its business, environmental, or social objectives. By *any* business measure it was a disaster.

I would not under-estimate the engineering challenges to deploying alternative fuel vehicles and the infrastructure (service, fueling, etc...) on a massive scale. Further, I believe the time table many seem to be assuming shows many to be naive.

What I think you are going to see is more attempts to make things look more eco friendly than they really are. That is going to be the case until various technologies cross a significant threshold and actually deliver on all the promises and hype.

The bottom line for "performance enthusiasts" - all things considered - is that nothing in the pipeline will be likely be much of a "performance improvement" in the near future. Sports compact is a niche market segment and logically would be the lowest priority for any manufacturer in the midst of a crisis. They will have everything (tooling, etc...) riding on the success of their R&D in the passenger car segment. Mind you, all while facing increasing competition from China and increasing regulation in a globalized economy. They didn't have to contend with these challenges in the 70's.

This is going to be an industrial fight to the death, and their won't be anything happening under the hood to care about from a performance enthusiast point of view.

And you are getting careless and sloppy too? That is very unlike you. I never stated liquid hydrogen relative to liquid gasoline. I clearly stated compressed hydrogen gas has 3 times the energy density of liquid gasoline.

You were comparing apples to oranges. What do you think happens to energy density if I compress natural gas to 700 bar?

The fact is that non-withstanding environmental storage conditions- hydrogen has a higher energy density per unit mass than does gasoline, but a much lower energy density per unit volume.

Let's see, hydrogen gas has been used as a fuel source for centuries. Longer than gasoline. So who's in fairy land now?

The point was relevant. Their is no economically viable way to produce hydrogen today. While it is the most common element in the universe, it tends to be attached to something like oxygen. It takes power to break the molecular bond, which can't come from fossil fuels without destroying the sustainable objective.

The bottom line is that I could build an anti-matter powered car tomorrow. What would I do with it?

I'm saying we shoud ween ourselves towards developing alternative fuel sources. Why is that such a controversial statement to you?

I think we are going in cicles. For road going cars that is great. We should pursue cleaner transportation. I have no doubt that public roads will be filled with clean cars. The skies with clean airliners. About a hundred and fifty years from now the vision could be a reality.

No controversy. Just don't care... don't care.

During the interim, and during my lifetime (which is all I care about).... and for performance enthusiasts (I hope this hasn't become the Prius forums)... again, I think the next ten years is going to give you a bunch of crap in showrooms you probably won't want. They are going to be expensive, slow, unreliable, and worse un-maintainable.

What does this have to do with anything? 2,000 years ago the land speed record was probably held by a chariot. What's your point and what does that have to do with developing alternative fuels.

I have no idea. Your claim was that we would have 500mph alternative fuel cars that would blow the doors off anything we have today. I countered with the current facts as I knew them to be. I am not clear why you would not see the relevance of what has occurred at the proving grounds like Bonneville - which is at the center of the alternative fuel revolution.

I would think that technologies such as the electromagnetic brakes developed by teams would be an essential component to your 500mph road car vision.

See this is where it becomes painfully obvious that you are:
1) Condescending for the sake of being condescending
2) Now you are just purely being argumentative

First of all, you just love to paint me as some bleeding heart liberal, tree hugging, Al Gore lover. Well if you knew me at all, instead of just trying to smugly categorize everyone you feel is beneath you, you would know I'm not a fan of Al Gore nor any "green" movement. I don't even know what this Future Car thing you are talking about.
First off, I'm not ringing the bells of elation because our salvation has arrived in the form of alternative fuels. I'm not even sure where you even got that impression in the 15 or so lines I typed. I'm assuming you just swept it all under one big stereotype rug you just give all people who differ from your viewpoints. I'll give you the same reasoning that I voted Libertarian this past election. Am I die hard Libertarian? No. Do I know much about the Libertarian party? Not much. Did I expect the Libertarian candidate to even come close this year. Nope. So why did I vote Libertarian? Because I do not like the Republicans nor Democrats. So if I ever even wanted to have a chance to have a viable third party candidate some time in the future, I had to vote Libertarian today. Otherwise, the same excuse that is used by most people, "they are not a viable party, they will never win" will always be the case for the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that. Somewhere you have to make the step, take that leap of faith; at least make the attempt to head in the right direction. Will it take time? Of course, but the start of any journey begins with a single step. The same applies for alternative fuels. Remember when we had the oil crisis in the 70's. We all said we were going to make that step towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels but we never followed through. And right when we had our most recent oil crisis, there were a lot of people wishing we had made more of an attempt in the 70's. So now that we've had our second wake up call, I'm glad that someone is willing to answer the call and at least give us the chance that in another 30 years when we go through another oil crisis, that it may not be such a "crisis" because we have taken steps today to alleviate that.

Secondly, I don't know about you, but I plan on being around for at least the next 40 years. Of all the people, you should know better than anyone how fast technology advances. Do you think anyone could fathom where computers would be today 40 years ago?

'While a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 10000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers of the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons.'
Popular mechanics, 1949

'I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year'
Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

'But what... is it good for?'
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems division of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968

'There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in the home'
Ken Olson, Present, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

'640K should be enough for anybody'
Bill Gates, 1981

That last one should really hit home for you. The point is, what seems absolutely unfathomable today, could in fact be a lot closer than you think. Just look at the state of the following 40 years ago:
Genetics
Cloning
Computers
Internet
Space travel
Electronics

I think you are meandering. I am not clear what your core points were but predicting the future is difficult for anyone. It is an off-topic area. You might not agree with others. I think you just need to relax.

When you look back 40 years and how much has developed and changed, it doesn't seem all that reasonable that we will have an alternative fueled car that will have twice as much performance at half or even none of the pollution a car today has.

Look. The next generation of sports compact road cars could have 10X the performance.

From what I can tell, you'll probably be sitting in so much traffic 40 years from now you probably won't care.... and that's assuming you are still aloud to drive without auto-pilot engaged.

 

[racer98]

From what I can tell, you'll probably be sitting in so much traffic 40 years from now you probably won't care.... and that's assuming you are still aloud to drive without auto-pilot engaged by then.

Mandatory auto pilot engaged with manual transmission decleard Illegal and yoar new futrue car will have the "Gore-o-matic' transmission with is picture on it.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Excellent. It sounds like I am on the right track. Maybe work on your game and just try being right for a change. I think you'll feel better. :biggrin:

First of all, you are poop and all your arguments are poopy. With little chunks of corn in it.

Secondly, to everything you said with the exception of "the", "with" and "Bonneville".

Thirdly, every single point you make is wrong and I can prove it in a full, lucid and rational explanation. Let me first begin by addressing {/%%))))))

WINDOWS​

An exception 06 has occured at 0028:C11B3ADC in VxD DiskTSD(03) +
00001660. This was called from 0028: C11B40C8 in VxD voltrack (04) +
00000000. It may be possible to continue normally.

* Press any key to attempt to continue.
* Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to restart your computer. You will lose any unsaved information in all application

Press any key to continue​