So yeah, burning things may not be necessarily bad. Unfortunately no one seems to be investing in similar technologies to apply to other sectors of transportation such as aviation and shipping. It would seem to me to be much more realistic to design an engine for a airliner that burns a biofuel than to design a battery electric version.
The people who have embraced biofuel (e85) the most are car guys looking for more power. E85 has good knock resistance (high octane rating) like race fuel, but is far cheaper. It also has a greater cooling effect upon injection (because you need to inject more, as it is lower energy density).
If moving from gasoline to ethanol ultimately reduces pollution, it's going to be faster to achieve. We don't have to swap out everything at the consumer level, especially since many cars can run on E85 already.
Continuing to push electric cars is great, but it'll take a lot longer and require a high infrastructure investment to make it truly practical.
As I've stated elsewhere, the main problem is the supply constraint, and it's always a trade-off with food production. It means E85 is still expensive, and hasn't shown promise to scale to become cheaper. And the only way it can scale is to use more land, which must come from somewhere. Even if you don't care for the loss of biodiversity, the destruction of carbon sinks may nullify the purported carbon reduction of switching fuels.
Hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking don't require infrastructure changes and reduce carbon output, all while the consumer spends less on fuel.
I'm a huge fan of forests, wetlands, bushlands, heathlands, prairies, and other wild landscapes. If land use in agriculture dropped, my preference would be to see that land go back to the trees, wild-flowers, and the many creatures that live with them.
We've not forgotten that the impetus for this thread is a 600-hp engine designed for the next Koenigsegg supercar, right?
The Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model 3 are here today and are already practical cars, and are down-right affordable compared to a Koenigsegg. If you take purchase price out of the equation, the other Tesla cars are also practical in terms of range and electricity costs.
I hope those buying a new ICE car in 2020 who could afford otherwise have taken a credible look at buying an electric car instead.
There are serious challenges to recycling or repurposing lithium batteries:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5
Granted there might be another battery breakthrough that could resolve this:
https://www.androidauthority.com/graphene-batteries-explaine...
At this stage, we should be exploring all options as some are likely not to pan out as expected.
Hybrid vehicles are still an economical option, preferably paired with high-efficiency ICEs, and could tide us over until better energy storage options become available.
Making oil a non-fossil fuel could be the best of both worlds.
It's a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogasoline
> Biogasoline/Biopetrol is gasoline produced from biomass such as algae
>> Companies such as Diversified Energy Corporation are developing approaches to take triglyceride inputs and through a process of deoxygenation and reforming (cracking, isomerizing, aromatizing, and producing cyclic molecules) producing biogasoline. This biogasoline is intended to match the chemical, kinetic, and combustion characteristics of its petroleum counterpart, but with much higher octane levels. Others are pursuing similar approaches based on hydrotreating
You have to weigh it against the benefits to judge it.
A simple truth, yet so very often ignored.
It doesn't have to, biogas/syngas and by extension ethanol can be synthesized from just about anything (with various levels of input energy depending on cellulose levels), all you need is basic bioreactors/fermentation from organic material to yield CH3CH2OH (Ethanol) [1}. I met a guy with a syngas company from Germany that was doing that and he told me things like switch-grass in Brazil were a boon for them.
I could easily see this being a viable use of compost material, I'm thinking of low hanging fruit like grass trimmings, and food waste found in local communities that's created and requires additional energy to transport afterward, and yield ethanol from when energy usage is low from local power stations/renewable energy sources. Also, eco-centric places like Boulder County compost bins are readily accessible and are separated (and fined if not) this includes the restaurant Industry, which have to use biodegradable bags, making separation relatively easy to other counties in the US.
In CO there is a startup/company that takes composted material, and creates rich potting soil to gardeners and the MJ industry:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2017/04/10/on-a...
When I was doing my farming apprenticeship in Switzerland, it was common for every Dorf/Community to have a distiller in some capacity; in my case it was the apple and pear orchid owner who would create schnapps for anyone who brought sufficient material for a fee.
I got to know him, and he brought me on his farm/orchid for a few jobs when he found out I had spent some time on a Vineyard in Croatia and had a background in Biology--I helped make wine and Rakija in Croatia, as it was a simple reaction, at scale to sell to support the farm as horticulture was only 15% of profit that season and a 'better use of my time.'
The language barrier with the Swiss farmer was intense at times, (Mundarts are hard) but I realized that this was all sanctioned with the local canton: such that if he collected a tax on their behalf on the yielded amount of alcohol everything/anything he charged per hour of labour was his to keep. He would then report that to the canton come tax time.
It's really a viable method to reduce (perceived) waste and turn into a Value Added Product--local farmers/residents brought batches of fermented cherries/apricots/apples/pears to this distiller that were unfit for Market or just local waste in their yard to make family schnapps. Rather than like the US where, as I found out during my undergrad, the State requires you taint the Ethanol synthesized in a lab to ensure its not consumable and deter 'bootleggers.'
Personally, at the time I thought it would be a viable alternative to using dirty diesel on the various amounts of farm equipment: tractors, combines, haulers etc... as MPG is not really a big concern as much as cost of operation/job is. But if E85 could be produced locally to run cars then all the better. I do love the sound E85 inline 6 engines make (JZ and RB series) at the track.
1: https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/foodengineer/231/notes/bio...
Noise pollution from sports cars and motorcycles is real.
Live in a dense city and the noise from construction and service vehicles is 100x worse than the occasional sports car.
Okay, if this is how it is, then why are they allowed on the road? Obviously I don't have a problem with people driving this in tracks or shows, only in public roads.
Besides, if the speed limit is, at most, 130kph, why do we allow (again, on public roads) machines that go to 250, 300, or above? Or that speed from a stop to that aforementioned speed limit in 5 or 6 seconds? Again, by all means enjoy them on the tracks (still, within reason with more relaxed emission standards).
Vehicle capabilities are separate from driver responsibility. Nothing would be possible if we banned things just because they have the potential for harm.
Why is it such a bad idea to just fit in speed limiters and be done with it?
And that last part? It's pretty much an empty argument, as if we don't already regulate/restrict/ban many things with the potential to cause harm (cars included).
Beyond that it's not necessary because most people follow the law. The same irresponsible people who speed like crazy would also remove the speed limiter. Also there are general driving conditions, emergencies, private roads, and other situations where people use the full capability of their vehicles. And police are still need to patrol the roads for more than just speeding.
Overall a built-in speed limiter just limits freedom, costs more resources and enforcement, punishes responsible owners, and prevents them from enjoying their vehicles because of a tiny percentage of bad drivers. In fact Germany's autobahn with completely unrestricted speeds has a better safety record than other freeways which shows that fast cars at high speed are not the issue at all for safety.
do you also want to ban usain bolt from the sidewalk because he could run too fast if he wanted to?
And how do you plan to get up to that speed? If you’re going to use something with motorised assistance, it will almost certainly be a device that the State will class as a road vehicle. Driving on the sidewalk is illegal.
Any "limit in practice" is not a prescribed limit. The whole point of posted, visible speed limits is that everyone knows what they are ahead of time. They're not a substitute for using your brain.
(Also in practice if you go too fast you'll run up against physics and literally burn up due to atmospheric drag.)
> And how do you plan to get up to that speed?
OP's example is a world-class track sprinter. Usain Bolt just runs fast (for 100-400m).
In my state, non-motorized bicycles may use the sidewalk freely. When riding on the sidewalk, cyclists are considered pedestrians. They (like all other pedestrians) must be courteous to other pedestrians, but there is no speed limit.
In theory, on a long enough sidewalk without ramps, alleys, obstructions, etc, a cyclist could plausibly exceed 30 mph without being discourteous to anyone or endangering others. There are some sidewalks like this in the industrial parts of my town, although I'm certainly not suggesting anyone try it.
I don't understand the point of stating the blindingly obvious as though it could serve as a useful retort. Obviously there isn't a prescribed limit. That doesn't elide the point—a limit doesn't need to be a bright line in order to exist in practice.
My argument is wrong because it is silly. Gotcha.
>do you also want to ban usain bolt from the sidewalk
When Usain Bolt can delete a family from existence with one wrong flick of the wrist, I'll support banning Usain Bolt from running in the sidewalk.
Alternatively, when Usain Bolts running in sidewalks are one of the leading worldwide causes of death.
And I'm pretty sure that if Usain Bolt were running at 30kph on a crowded sidewalk somebody would stop him, which is actually a pretty nice analogy to the obviously beneficial measure of placing a speed limiter on cars.
No, it's so wrong that it is silly. That wasn't supposed to be the reason why.
Stop looking for cheap gotchas.
Because they meet all of the legal requirements to be operated on public roads.
FYI, I think this new car is estimated at over 500kph max speed.
My neighbor owns a couple of Porches with modified mufflers and a very loud motorcycle. I've argued with him at length about how his choice of noise intrudes on our peace, especially late at night. The bass vibrations travel further and will seem louder in different parts of the house, loud enough that two people conversing need to speak up. It's very bothersome.
These days a lot of manufacturers homologate to meet multiple standards, so we get euro4ish stuff in north america too, stock at least.
After market exhausts that aren’t engineered to be deliberately louder are stupid and annoying to other people.
Excluding intentionally loud exhausts, the intake on a lot of bikes generates more sound than the pipes, at least at speed.
The bike is less loud than an old car. Just don’t rev like a maniac in the evening when streets are empty and you’ll barely notice it above the normal noise.
Now the parrot ... that little dude is something else. We’ve tried everything and you can still hear him a block away if he wants you to.
The more pressing thing is that if you keep asking for a big brother, don’t be surprised when you get one.
I think ford mustangs are becoming a contender for this honor. :)
joking but its very frustrating dealing with neighbours like that, but at the same time they do sort of have the right to their own hobbies.
Maybe take up a loud hobby yourself. Cathartic leisure jackhammering. Good for grip strength.
Haven’t given that much thought until now, but I guess you are completely right. One person driving a loud motorcycle or car through a dense city at night, can potentially disturb/wake up hundreds of people or more.
Here too, except in winter. I'm out in the country, in the northeastern US, in hilly country. Late at night, with the windows open, I can hear bikes for maybe 5-10 km. I can even tell which roads they're on.
Edit: In the winter, there are the snowmobiles, but our windows are closed.
I discovered this after making the now-regrettable choice of living very near a busy major road. I hear a lot of vehicles. (Sometimes so loud that I can't understand the TV in my own living room.)
At first I assumed it obviously must be motorcycles. But one day I gazed out the window and watched traffic for a while, and to my surprise, I learned there really are a whole lot of cars which have been modified to be super loud. I didn't exactly collect stats, but it's not obviously more one than the other.
The biggest offenders here in the PNW are actually pickup trucks. Having worked in the automotive industry recently, I know that pickup trucks are one of the only profitable classes of vehicles left for dealerships. It's really an unfortunate situation. People are willing to overpay for gargantuan vehicles that make too much noise, use too much fuel, and pose a severe risk to pedestrians, so they can build some kind of macho identity. This really seems like an area where governments should step in and put upper limits on vehicle size and noise generation.
The expense and hassle are both significant, but being away from that noise would be pretty nice. It's interesting to hear the perspective of someone with firsthand knowledge of the situation.
One thing I realized in this process is that you can find quiet and you can find walkability, but if you want both, that's way more difficult.
Also, in my experience, the loudest vehicles are all that way due to aftermarket modifications. And they're probably breaking noise laws that already exist but just aren't enforced.
Most US municipalities have noise ordinances for a reason. If you feel someones vehicle violates that, file a complaint with the local non-emergency police line.
Surely people can just shut tf up?
Because law enforcement will tell you they have bigger things to deal with, so while nuisance makers are learning to shut tf up, people triggered by noise can learn to chill tf out.
Do you live in a dense urban populace? There is no room for excessive noise-makers here. Go bother the countryside if noise is your thing.
Excessive is the ear of the beholder. If you feel that it's excessive, call the non-emergency line.
There are ordinances.
> Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports car justify being a nuisance to other people?
Seems like a good solution for everyone...
I read elsewhere that they can run the engine on a wide range of fuels, so I think they mean it's CO2-neutral if you run on biofuels.
I'm not a big fan of biofuels, but I think they can have some role in a transition period if you have a mostly battery-electric drivetrain with an engine as range extender... and this car is a pretty good model for that. Remember that the production of batteries is limited, so it might be better to build 2 million cars that use a range extender once in a while, rather than 1 million cars that runs only on batteries (I say this as someone owning a pure battery electric vehicle btw).
But I think the key for this kind of transition vehicle is an ultra-simple and compact generator. Maybe something that is modular and can be swapped with a battery pack later. I think free-piston engines is what we need (I'm guessing they need something like Freevalve though, so maybe Koenigsegg's research contributes there)
It's still a stretch. We need to try to be carbon negative, not just carbon neutral.
Although there is of course very obnoxious drivers out there, I believe a healthy level of sound from motorcycles can save lives; a lot of drivers complain they can’t see them. One of the reasons i was initially scared of ebikes
Laws are designed with a balance for freedoms. Any large city already has plenty of noise pollution beyond the occasional sports car going by. It's more about irresponsible behaviors like people revving at midnight than the car itself.
Loud vehicles are a nuisance to society, and an unnecessary one.
I'll ignore the ad hom, it's already addressed by my previous comment.
People can start up lawn mowers and chainsaws to annoy you too, but we don't ban them either. Instead there are rules around when it's acceptable to use them so you don't do yard work at midnight.
Popular areas of London and NYC are loud, yes. Don't live in loud areas if you want a quiet place. No different than living next to an airport or freeway.
I'm not a rich guy, and I don't find it to be a nuisance in most circumstances; I appreciate the sound of high performance engines, and so do many other people.
can imagine non car people getting at least as mad, at louder cars.
That said, no car is really loud sub ~3000 rpm, at least not in the way I imagine you're implying. That is all this (or most any) car would need to muster for driving down the streets of London or any city.
The problem is that some owners get really aggressive with the throttle in places they really shouldn't. I'm with you, that is annoying, but that is by no means an isolated "super fancy car" problem. Motorbikes, modified scooters, tuner cars, trucks tuned for show instead of work.
This whole thing is about how some folks can't help but flaunt their opulence/excess. Talking it out on the car is like talking down to Tesla for including autopilot knowing that some drunk drivers will simply use the feature to take themselves home.
As someone who loves cars, I wildly disagree. There are modded cars that idle across the street that wake me up through my double-paned windows. A very popular mod is to add a downpipe to some cars, which is illegal in California (for emissions reasons), but people still do it and holy fuck it is just so god damn loud. It's great at the race track, not so great when you want to sleep. Sometimes cars are just loud and obnoxious.
In a past life, I had a '69 Ford 250 with a big-block 390 that would beg to differ... but it got between 4 and 6 mpg so even in 2001 that was too expensive to keep...
outside of hn, I've never really encountered anyone who was more than mildly annoyed by loud exhausts.
And this "nuisance" is overstated. The amount of harm that enthusiasts do in terms of noise and air pollution are absolutely negligible - don't clutch pearls.
Edit: why is it important to understand car enthusiasts? I don't understand people who are enthusiastic about fucking children either. I don't need to understand everyone's enthusiasm, especially if it's actively harmful.
Why are you comparing car enthusiasts to child abusers? In the same post as "poisonous attitude" even?
Because auto modification teaches discipline and determination and is practice for other general skills. This is nothing like fucking children and the fact that you'd equate the two is evidence of your [un]righteous indignation. Your rage is misplaced.
Edit: imagine being this pissed off at computer enthusiasts for buying multiple GPUs and overclocking their machines. It's about the same level of absurdity.
If the noise was a unwanted side effect, I'd find this a lot less offensive. Anyone who does anything with the main purpose of harassing others is an ass and should be punished accordingly.
Again, you don't understand enthusiasts. You have a single stereotype based on the most obnoxious motorcyclists. This is pearl clutching.
Also most people live outside of high-rises.
My car makes cool sounds, and they’re for me.
Just like people who say sports car owners just want to impress others.
My car brings me joy, when I’m driving it everyone else might as well not exist outside of their occasional attempts to merge into me.
If someone truly wants their car to sound a certain way for others, then the car isn’t the problem, the person is.
They’d find some other way to get under you skin if it wasn’t noises...
One of the loudest exhausts commonly encountered is unaffectionately referred to as a “fart can”
It’s nice in the way dog shit brown is a nice color
In that technically it is opinion that that defines if it’s nice, and if you ask enough people you’ll find some who like it, but most people (including car people) do not find it nice and insult their owners.
If anything car enthusiasts trying to get a better sound go to great lengths to cut some of the loudest resonant frequencies an engine produces (referred to as drone)
-
My car is not exceptionally loud and won’t wake up even a suburban neighbor (I live in a city now so it’s parked in an underground garage). If I take it to a race track and wring it by it’s neck, shifting as close to redline as possible, it’s certainly not as quiet but not many cars are in that setting...
The Koenigsegg would probably not be loud puttering around, these cars are designed for refinement. If it’s waking up a neighborhood, it’s because the driver is treating said neighborhood as a raceway, and at that point sound is very low on the consequences that can have.
I should mention that a lot of motorcyclists feel that loud exhausts are a way of protecting themselves from distracted drivers.
If generating incessant noise is your only way of staying safe on the road, maybe consider getting something not as risky. Drive a car or take the bus. It works for the vast majority of people, maybe they’re on to something eh?
...Because they don't care about that crap. They are way ahead of your efficiency, often even ahead of the efficiency of a bus. A bike can get 70mpg without very much trouble and some more than 100mpg, and they don't cause traffic congestion in the first place because they occupy little additional space beyond the rider.
Gee, Maybe they're on to something, eh?
Edit: just did some research on electric vs. gas vehicles and their total environmental impact. Nothing specifically on motorcycles, but some of the data would apply.
"Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel economy." https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles...
"In a 2015 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that gas-powered cars emitted almost double the emissions that contribute to global warming as electric vehicles, which can make up the difference from the manufacturing stage in six to 18 months of driving, depending on the size of the battery." https://www.businessinsider.com/building-electric-cars-how-m...
Most vehicles are not electric yet.
No motorcycle causes hearing damage beyond the rider, and this is caused by wind noise not the engine.
The "weaving in and out of crowded lanes" is easily solved: don't be a selfish prick, give them some room..
Not a motorcyclist, but I’ve heard this from many places. Can say that as a bicyclist, my best pieces of biggest safety equipment were in roughly descending order of importance: having my head in a swivel (vigilance), perfecting a barking shout, really good brakes, and in last place, a helmet. If the helmet comes into play you’re already at least a little fucked.
If I could make bikes louder I probably would.
The one time I’m aware I cut off a motorcyclist, it was his engine that kept me out of his lane (to be fair, he was nearly in my blind spot, which is partly on him)
Car safety for occupants and pedestrians has improved dramatically over the last few decades. The same cannot be said for motorcycles.
The simple fact that my own life is at stake, makes me much more aware of my surroundings. This is a well researched neurological fact. Also, a 450lbs projectile has a lot less impact then a 2 ton one at the same speed. It is also significantly harder to hit a child with a 3' wide vehicle then with a 7' wide one..
Car safety for occupants has increased and due to a side effect of aerodynamic design survivability of a pedestrian crash has marginally increased. Due to gigantic A pillars and a false sense of security, the amount of accidents has significantly increased and the safety of other road users is at an all time low.
(450lbs motorcyle + 160lb rider) vs 60lb child = death.
Riding a motorcycle while impaired, is one of the leading causes of motorcycle fatalities. Failing to wear PPE accounts for a significant number of potentially non-fatal accidents becoming fatal. Distracted riding is also on the rise. This doesn't seem to imply motorcyclists are inherently more aware of their surroundings or making better decisions due to the increased danger.
I am very aware of all the leading causes of death for motorcyclists. Your conclusion doesn't make sense though, there is a ridiculous amount of selection bias in there: they only looked at people who died... By and far motorcyclists are very safety concious people, they have to be: those who aren't tend to quit quickly, one way or another. Personally, I have ridden a motorcycle as my primary form of transportation for over 30 years without any meaningful incidents
Your comment was, literally, "what about noisy motorbikes".
Impressive tech, but I'd by lying if I said this doesn't rub me the wrong way. How do you mean combustion being CO2 neutral? And cool sound, this is one of my pet peeves. Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports car justify being a nuisance to other people? Motorbikes are the worst offender here. Sound limitations should be a lot stricter than they are.