What's a smart wrapper?

[dillon]

The legal weight of an 18 wheeler (US highway truck) is 80,000 lbs. Running over a Smart Car is about like running over a beer can.

[crfriend]

The legal weight of an 18 wheeler (US highway truck) is 80,000 lbs. Running over a Smart Car is about like running over a beer can.

That's the stated maximum legal weight, which, as anybody that has spent any time on major motorways in the USA knows is a convenient fiction.

That said, I'm vastly more worried about the distracted soccer-mom in her hulking SUV than I am about a professional over-the-road driver. A 6,000 pound testosterone-truck is more than capable of demolishing much in its path whilst the soccer-mom supposedly piloting loses track of the text she was trying to send to little Ignatz that she'll be a few moments late because of the fact that somebody else did something stupid up ahead (which likely involved a cell' 'phone).

It's not the relative masses involved, it's the relative competence of the drivers involved.

The demo of the Smart Car was quite interesting in just how solid the passenger compartment is -- very impressive. Another one that's said to be in the same class is the "new" Volkswagen 'Beetle' -- and, like the Smart Car is mainly down to its shape.

[stevelous]

The legal maximum here in the UK is 44,000Kg or 96,800 pounds, our lorries also have 6 axles. Limited to 56 MPH on motorways. I would hate to try to overtake in somting as small and lightvas a Smart or other small car, the air being pushed out of the way of said lorry makes for quite an interesting time.

I am also at a loss as how electric cars produce no emissions. The electricity they use has to be generated somewhere and that often means burning fossil fuel. The lithium ion batteries also need to be produced and that process is one of the least 'green' processes on the planet.

So for now, at least, I will stick to my well maintained 97 V70 and my 99 Subaru Forester. Both burn petrol and pass emissions testing with ease so produce little or no pollutants but produce CO2. Would love the actual CO2 footprint of the electrical generation needed for electric to be made public, but I suspect thrre is bad news that the manufacturers do not want public.

[Judah14]

I am also at a loss as how electric cars produce no emissions. The electricity they use has to be generated somewhere and that often means burning fossil fuel. The lithium ion batteries also need to be produced and that process is one of the least 'green' processes on the planet.

Some countries generate electricity primarily without burning fossil fuels, using nuclear or hydroelectric power. And not all electric cars use lithium ion batteries, for example BYD electric cars and buses use iron-phosphate batteries.

[crfriend]

I am also at a loss as how electric cars produce no emissions. The electricity they use has to be generated somewhere and that often means burning fossil fuel.

I have a propensity for getting into trouble by refusing the refer to EVs as "zero-emissions" preferring, instead, to use the more accurate moniker of "relocated-emissions". It's one thing if the power to charge the thing comes from a nuclear generation facility in the area, or a reasonably-nearby hydropower-generated source; it's something completely different when it's coming from a coal-fired plant with power wheeled over "the grid" that's 500 miles distant.

I like the idea of electric vehicles, but where I live there are energy demands that require more than just what it costs to move the vehicle at speed. In the six-month winters we need brilliant illumination and heat; in the two-month summers we need cooling. One horsepower amounts to 746 watts -- that's fixed -- and one needs at least around 85 or so (with some room for overdraught) in order to be able to have acceleration as a useful tool. The demands add up pretty quickly.

Hybrids are a nice idea -- as a bridge to get us over the fossil-fuel hump -- and offer some advantages at a very high cost in complexity.

The final win will come when we get into an era of fuel-cells fed with straight hydrogen fuel or some way to crack hydrocarbons (what little we may have left) chemically into carbon and hydrogen, sequester somehow the "waste" carbon (use it for other things), and distribute the hydrogen as fuel. Given the possibilities that the latter hypothetical option has, I'm astonished that the big extraction cartels aren't looking at that very closely instead of merely objecting to the notion of anything but burning (very, very, profitable) hydrocarbons.

[trainspotter48]

I have to agree with Carl that at present electric vehicles are emission location shifters. As someone who has worked in the electricity supply industry in the UK, largely on a 'first generation' nuclear station, I have been amazed at the 'dash for gas' that is now the fuel of choice here - all those nasty coal burning plants had to go (oil went some time ago on a price basis). What people seem to forget (and certainly aren't reminded) is that burning natural gas produces water and carbon dioxide!!

[pelmut]

The electrical losses of rechargeable batteries are often neglected, about 20 to 25% of the energy is wasted as heat during the charge/discharge cycle.

[crfriend]

The electrical losses of rechargeable batteries are often neglected, about 20 to 25% of the energy is wasted as heat during the charge/discharge cycle.

The principle of TANSTAAFL [0] applies fully here, as it does in all matters chemical, physical, and nuclear. Any time you do anything with energy, some of it is inevitably lost. There's a reason why perpetual-motion machines don't work. The complexities that man throws at the matter only muddy the water more, but at least in predictable ways.

Many moons ago I scraped a hilarious bit of text from USENET on the nature and operation of diesel-electric locomotives, which I shall quote the opening paragraph here for effect, as it shows how the piling on of conversions of energy compound and lose at ever step of the way:

A Diesel engine is an amazing assortment of bolts, nuts, valves, heaters, coolers, expanders, contractors, and other gadgets too numerous to mention here. All of these are screwed and welded together to form a single unit. This resulting unit is expected to start out with below the usual grade of fuel oil and change it into BTU - then the BTU into MEP - the MEP into RPM - the RPM into BHP - the BHP into KWH. Then the electrical gear takes over and makes a BHP out of KWH and RPM out of BHP, and then, if everything is in working order, you finally get MPH. All of this takes place in a fraction of a second in the confines of an all-too-small engine room. This gives you a rough idea of the confusion characteristic to all Diesel Freight Units.

If that doesn't leave one scratching his head (or laughing uncontrollably) then it's likely one wasn't completely paying attention in grammar school.

The rest of the thing is hilarious as well -- especially for railroaders -- and if anybody wants a copy shoot me a PM with your e-mail addy. It's too long to quote fully here. It's on one of my elder machines at the moment.

[0] "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" -- Robert Heinlein.

[dillon]

Our county now generates more electricity than we use, mostly by photovoltaic installations, a little by an a small former coal plant that was converted to wood chips. We send out the surplus, about 25%, to the grid. It bothers me in some ways that farmland is now growing solar panels, but the money is right. Even though NC killed the tax credits, panels are so cheap now that it doesn't make any difference. The issues I have are that the galvanized posts that hold up the panels can contaminate the soil with zinc, and the panels have rare-earth elements in them. Since there is no place in the US to recycle these things, they have to be shipped back to China upon decommissioning, and I am afraid that the decommissioning bonds posted under the contracts will not cover the cleanup costs when the installers inevitably disappear.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that one of the anticipated uses of electric cars is as storage during the day so that they can meet spikes in demand farther than power plants. In addition, they can act as the storage for windfarms and solar cells.

That application won't require any different batteries, necessarily, just a smarter grid and more electric cars.

Once that and the truly smart grid gets into the mix something like a third of the current generation can be taken off line, permanently. So in that way, electric cars would become truly zero emissions.

[Ray]

Smart cars are pretty safe. As any engineer knows, small compact packages are more rigid than large floppy packages - so in the USA, where most large cars are floppy, I'd rather be in a Smart car than a Ford F-150 if a crash were a possibility.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

It's true that the IIHS found that the last few years' Toyotas are more crash-resistant than F-150's because Toyota made a concerted effort to re-engineer their cars to be that crash-resistant because being smaller and lighter than larger vehicles they weren't as crash-resistant.

In particular, Smart Cars, at least the American versions, are very vulnerable.

[Gregg1100]

From crash tests done on Smart cars show them being as tough as old boots

[Disaffected.citizen]

From crash tests done on Smart cars show them being as tough as old boots

For anybody who thinks small cars cannot possibly stand up to impact from a larger vehicle, have a look at these: Smart and Modus

I think you'll find that the technological advances in safety made in motorsports filter down to our common or garden workadays.

I'll just add that I wouldn't wish to be a crash test dummy in any event.

[stevelous]

I have seen crash tests involving the Modus and an old Volvo 900 series. To my, admittedly untrained eye, the Modus was using the other cars crumple zones not its own.

We used to have a Renault Clio which uses the same chassis as the Modus and I never felt totally safe. The things get blown around by side winds, lorry bow waves and frontal winds lift the front end. Give me my '97 Volvo V70 in those conditions.

Interestingly on the same program (different day) they crashed a number of small cars into a concrete barrier at 70mph and experts gave their opinions on survivability while all crumpled the Smart was deemed to have killed its occupants by the fact that the internal injuries were to severe due to the sudden stop of the car. The others, with crumple zone, were deemed to have a small chance of survival.

Mind you the best defence against collisions is to drive in a defensive manner, reading the road front, back and to the side.

Interestingly the thought that speed is/was not a factor in a collision makes me wonder. I have never seen two stationary cars collide, never heard of a tree jumping in front of a car or that lamppost running across the road. It is inappropriate speed for the condition of road, weather and driver.