Hybrid Technologies L1X-75: Zero-60 in 3.1 Seconds, Batteries Included

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 10 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]420760[/snapback]</div>

I imagine the intent is to show that battery powered cars don't have to be golf carts but geez I wish designers of ALL vehicles would stay away from "0 - 60" in 4-5 seconds, tops speed 150+. All it does in compound the ingrained "GOTTA HAVE POWER" mentality. There is no public road in the U.S. where you can legally drive over 75, no place where you need to get to 60 MPH in 4 seconds (or even 7) to be safe. Merge behind that car instead of trying to push in front. You want to drive a vehicle to limits like this? Join NASCAR.
We have a serious energy use problem that we need to fix. Why design vehicles that will (or should) never be driven close to these numbers?

 

Well, that may all be true, but sometimes you do need the power and acceleration to get out of an accident. I will also say that sometimes the power and acceleration will cause the accident since those are the people that like to run lights and such.

 

First order of business is to get everybody's attention. Then commuter cars can be built. Slowly but surely, we're getting there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000 @ Apr 10 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]421048[/snapback]</div>

I'm sympathetic to your point that people put too much importance on very high performance, but I think you're going too far the other way to entirely disregard it. There are plenty of places near where I live where having the ability to accelerate to 60 MPH in 4 seconds would make driving safer. The ramp from northbound US 101 to CA 237 west here in Sunnyvale, CA is a good example. The ramp makes a more than 270 degree loop, and near the end is the sharpest bend, forcing everyone to slow down. Right after the sharpest bend, the ramp goes into 237 with only a short distance for acceleration. 237 often has more or less constant traffic in both lanes moving at 55-65 MPH. The short distance from the sharp bend to the merge into traffic means that with an ordinary car, you can't get up to 65 MPH by the time you are merged into traffic.

Cars come around the sharp bend before they can really see the traffic they're merging into, and then have to look back and make a quick decision. If there are cars filling up the right lane going 55-65, the merging vehicle has to either cut someone off at much less than highway speeds or come to a sudden stop and hope the other cars behind it on the ramp come to a stop too. Then that car has to accelerate from zero up to highway speeds at the right moment after waiting perhaps several minutes with cars piling up behind. Merging in below highway speeds can cause an accident from the other cars having to slow down suddenly or from the other cars trying to change lanes quickly to avoid having to slow down. Sometimes the merging car accelerates and can't find a hole and drives along on the shoulder to get up to speed before merging in.

In some parts of the country, highways are designed with nice long ramps and big loops so acceleration doesn't have to be so sudden. But in other places, like here in the San Francisco Bay Area, highways and ramps are often squeezed into already crowded areas, and the traffic is dense enough that there aren't big holes to merge into.

The 101-237 interchange isn't even the worst, it's just one very nearby that I happen to drive through often. There's one ramp from Treasure Island onto I-80 that forces a merge into the fast lane in a very short distance, in the middle of the Bay Bridge, where drivers aren't expecting a car to suddenly merge in from the left.

 

@Sunnyvale Prius: I agree at some points. Have you ever merged onto 680S from 580E? I have to say thats the worst merge I've ever been on. Some roads just need to be redesigned, not make the cars faster.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nark @ Apr 10 2007, 11:41 PM) [snapback]421355[/snapback]</div>

I don't know the 580E to 680S merge, but I don't doubt it's bad. There are a lot of them around here.

You're probably right that fixing the interchanges that are bad is a more efficient use of resources than getting all those cars to haul around heavier engines just for the relatively small portion of the time they need to accelerate quickly. It would be interesting to see a detailed study of the costs of redesigning those interchanges versus giving cars better acceleration versus the benefits in safety from either action.

 

Is this 237 "merge" marked with a stop sign, a yield sign, or
is it just a free-for-all?
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Apr 11 2007, 12:39 AM) [snapback]421369[/snapback]</div>

There's no stop sign. I don't remember if there's an explicit yield sign, but since it's a ramp from one freeway to another freeway, there's an implicit rule that the traffic merging on has to yield to the traffic already on 237.

You can see it on Google Maps by typing in "Moffett Field NAS station, United States". Then switch to a satellite view. You're now looking at the middle of a couple of runways of an old Naval Air Station. Scroll down to the highway just south of the airfield. Then follow that highway to the right a bit to where there are a couple of ovals and another highway crossing it. That's 237. The top oval is the ramp. If you zoom in on the ramp, the Google photo even shows two cars apparently stopped on the oval just before the merge onto 237, while a third car is in the process of merging. There aren't too many cars on 237 in this shot, so not too many cars are backed up here.

 

A couple of observations...

You folks aren't forgetting there are different speed limits outside the US, are you? Like say, the German AutoBahn...

Also, I think most folks think of electric as either golf carts or Prius type things. Having high performance technology demonstrators is great.

Keep in mind the first use of most 'new' technology is this way. Something like jet engines, they were on high performance fighters long before they were on your average passenger jet. And the passenger jets got a huge advantage from what was learned...

My previous (non-Prius) car was a MB E-55, with a zero to 60 in 4 secs or so. Don't really miss it, but it was fun sometimes....mileage sucked in a big way....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pviebey @ Apr 12 2007, 08:06 PM) [snapback]422300[/snapback]</div>

The main prob;em with merging is that many of the mergers are unaware of thier actions: They either don't look, have thier side mirrors misadjusted ( most drivers do not know there is a "correct adjustment" or don't seem to care. I have had to blast my horn at one car per week on my weekly SF trips on I 80. The other choice is to use #3 lane instead of #4. If more congestion is encounted, switch to #2 lane. All this congestion and switching of lanes causes the Morons doing 85 and looking for holes, to get very frustrated. Horse Power alone, will not solve the merging problem as too many people refuse to tromp on it when necessary. Better lane design is a good solution. PLUS driver education.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nark @ Apr 10 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]421355[/snapback]</div>

At roughly $1.0 billion per mile for highway construction cost in the S.F. Bay Area (total cost after everything is said and done), there won't be too many re-designs happening any time soon. 0-60 in 3.1 seconds while trying to reduce your CO2 foot-print sounds like a really fun thing to do. If fun is not your thing, then don't buy the car.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Apr 10 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]421369[/snapback]</div>

There is a Yield sign; but effectively, it is a free-for-all. The only time drivers are going to yield is when they have a certainty of getting a ticket for failing to yield (when the CHP is present).