Toyota Prius LOL [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Pwalo

21st March 2007, 14:00

Yep, I've already had that argument with my sons. Like a lot supposedly enviroment friendly ideas you need to have a look at the whole picture.

We have regulations that mandate that we have less CO2 emmissions (and others) from vehicles, but to do this you lose fuel efficiency. Waste vs stopping a gas that probably has nothing to do with global warming.

Unfortunately good old petroleum/diesel seems to still be the most efficient way to store energy for a car, bike, etc. Enough of this heresy!!!

Still you do have to admit that the Pious has been a big success for Toyota.

bugjuice

21st March 2007, 14:10

lol.. what a joke..

JC on TG already said long ago that the diesel Polo he drove was a half again better at efficiency than the Prius

k14

21st March 2007, 14:32

Doesn't surprise me. Sounds exactly like wind power.

fjones

21st March 2007, 14:38

Haha there is one other major flaw with the prius as well.

It's farking ugly.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 14:50

Not only is it inefficient and ugly, it's also dangerous. It runs "low rolling resistance" tyres. In other words skinny tyres with no grip. Good thing it makes practically no power.

The Lexus hybrid is even worse.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 14:52

Doesn't surprise me. Sounds exactly like wind power.

Crikey. Ugly and inefficient. I'm seeing a trend.

bistard

21st March 2007, 14:59

Crikey. Ugly and inefficient. I'm seeing a trend.

Christ Jim,that sounds like some people we know!!

Ixion

21st March 2007, 15:03

Old , ugly and inefficient? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ME BEHIND MY BACK AGAIN!

Delphinus

21st March 2007, 15:06

Yep, I've already had that argument with my sons. Like a lot supposedly enviroment friendly ideas you need to have a look at the whole picture.

Unfortunately good old petroleum/diesel seems to still be the most efficient way to store energy for a car, bike, etc. Enough of this heresy!!!

Agreed, petroleum products are currently the most efficient way to store energy... but it is a finite resource... and the sooner we seriously look at alternatives (which in turn leaves time for improvement) thats surely better than just saying "petrol is the best, screw the rest" ?

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 15:15

Begone Hippy!

MisterD

21st March 2007, 16:01

Sounds exactly like wind power.

What? Whoosh-whoosh-whoosh, rather than brum-brum-brum? :confused:

Pwalo

21st March 2007, 16:09

Agreed, petroleum products are currently the most efficient way to store energy... but it is a finite resource... and the sooner we seriously look at alternatives (which in turn leaves time for improvement) thats surely better than just saying "petrol is the best, screw the rest" ?

Is it a finite resource? How is oil 'made', and how do you measure how much there was, how much we've used, and how much there is left?

Logically it appears to be a finite resource, and it will be nice when we have the technology available to replace oil derivatives as a viable fuel source for our internal combustion engines, but NOW it's the best we have.

Sorry not really supposed to be a rant, but I have a sneaky suspicion that it's a wee while off before we do see a viable alternative, and that effeciency is the number one priority.

Motu

21st March 2007, 16:25

Oil is not even from this planet! As Immanuel Velikovsky finds in Worlds in Collision - the planet Venus was actually a comet which collided with earth,it's seas poured onto earth as the planets hit.Oil is extraterestrial - we''ll have to go to Venus to find anymore.

Mr Merde

21st March 2007, 16:28

davereid

21st March 2007, 16:39

Same as "biofuels".

The politicians claim they are "Carbon Neutral", the idea being that the plant spent the time it was growing absorbing carbon, and that as that is the carbon released when you burn it for fuel, you are all square.

It would be true if the plants in question were grown where there had only been desert. But they arent. They displace crops which werent going to be burnt at all. Like trees which were going to be used for building.

So they contribute exactly the same carbon as a fossil fuel.

Run out of fuel ?

Not likely in my life time.

Even if all the worlds known resources ran out tomorrow (not likely !) NZ uses about 25000 cubic metres of oil a day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand) or about 20,000 tonnes.

But solid energy is sitting on known reserves of 600,000,000 tonnes of coal in southland, ignoring our reserves of other fossil fuels.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0009E715-66E9-15E1-A90E83027AF1010E)

Even at 30% conversion efficiency thats enough to see me out !

So I'll keep running the V8 thank you.

Ixion

21st March 2007, 16:42

Take no notice of Mr Motu. He's rambling again. Colliding planets , indeed. Psshh.

Needless to say, oil does NOT derive from a collision with a comet. Let us stick to up to date simple scientific facts, not the outdated ramblings of crackpots like Mr Velikovsky

As every intelligent person knows ,it derives from the collision of the fifth elephant with the planet (there were originally five elephants supporting the universe on the Transcedental Turtle, not four. The fifth crashed)

Pumba

21st March 2007, 17:03

Haha there is one other major flaw with the prius as well.

It's farking ugly.

Ive never drivin the Prius but I have had the pleasure of driving its little brother the Yarius.

Bar the electric crap, which the Yarius doesnt have, these cars should not be aloud out of the urben 70kmph limit areas. It is a bad car and a joke, however as these are our new company cars I guess I have to grim and bear it.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 17:20

Edbear

21st March 2007, 17:28

The Earth has plenty of oil yet, but it is becoming more difficult to get at as the easily extracted supplies dwindle. It means it will become gradually more expensive and therefore less cost-effective against the alternatives. The Internal Combustion engine can be made much more efficient yet, again it is a question of cost-effectiveness.

Coal is an exciting prospect, if they can figure out how to use it without so much pollution it promises thousands of years of relatively cheap energy!

Even the Corolla is more efficient than the Prius!

TonyB

21st March 2007, 18:02

Well, based on that it would appear that we are a doomed species. In order to fix the problems created by one type of vehicle, some of the best engineering minds we have, have ingeniously created another type of vehicle that creates even bigger problems. Great.

Of course, the person who wrote that article wasn't exactly unbiased...

xwhatsit

21st March 2007, 18:02

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 18:26

That MAY be true Xerxes, but it isn't a hybrid, so you're cool.

Delphinus

21st March 2007, 18:43

Coal is an exciting prospect, if they can figure out how to use it without so much pollution it promises thousands of years of relatively cheap energy!

But is this really the best way to be thinking? Seems everything at the moment is just quick-fix stop gap measures... What about a total overhaul of the way we think? Beginning with people that drive to work with just them in the car....

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 18:46

You've been warned hippy.

The Pastor

21st March 2007, 18:52

I'd like to bag on greenies, but I don't know if that "report" is accurate or truthful.

All these effiency and carbon netural tests sound like a load of bullshit to me. Who cares about low powerd/city cars anyways?

Edbear

21st March 2007, 18:55

But is this really the best way to be thinking? Seems everything at the moment is just quick-fix stop gap measures... What about a total overhaul of the way we think? Beginning with people that drive to work with just them in the car....

No, I think genuinely that there must be a way to utilise these natural and plentiful resources in an environmentally sound way. Technology excites me and I like exploring all options. Solar power must hold great potential as with water-hydrogen.

Logic says that Electric Power Stations are completely uneccessary, each home could be fully self-sufficient on power, why is this not the case?

Popular Mechanics about 35 years ago, showed a small boat that moved under wave power using fins. Could achieve 6 knots in ideal conditions.

Smokey Yunick in the US was exploring high temp compound turbo motors that were achieving amazing economy! I believe the technology is there, but cost-effectiveness is the driving force unfortunately, not the desire for the best technology regardless. Progress, while determined by cost, will always be too slow.

twinkle

21st March 2007, 19:12

Logic says that Electric Power Stations are completely uneccessary, each home could be fully self-sufficient on power, why is this not the case?

how does that work at night time though? you'd still have to have batteries and associated problems wouldn't you?
It would work pretty well with existing power stations though, crank up the power station when the sun goes down :yes:

Edbear

21st March 2007, 19:20

how does that work at night time though? you'd still have to have batteries and associated problems wouldn't you?
It would work pretty well with existing power stations though, crank up the power station when the sun goes down :yes:

Yeah, battery technology needs to progress a lot further, or some other way of storing electricity. But even now, as you say, if solar panels were compulsory for new buildings, the cost-effectiveness would be very quickly advanced and the over all power use from the stations would be dramatically cut.

My Son-in-Law is involved with two companies, a big housing builder using lightweight concrete panel building technology, very energy efficient both to build and own and a plumbing firm. Both are going to be very focussed on efficient buildings using a combination of electricity, gas and solar systems.

imdying

21st March 2007, 19:42

Wind power ugly?? Hell no! Wind farms look awesome! I'd have a wind generator on top of my house if it would pay for itself in a reasonable period. I'm sure the neighbours would have a moan about the noise... they'll have a bigger moan when petrol hits $2 though I'm sure.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 19:45

Petrol could hit $10 a litre. I'd still use petrochemical powered machines to push down, blow up, smash and dig over wind farms. Visual pollution of the worst kind.

MOTOXXX

21st March 2007, 20:50

ill die before i use an electric car or bike.

xwhatsit

21st March 2007, 21:03

To be fair to the hippy, I think it's better to at least attempt things like the Prius. If you cancel each half-arsed project/experiment before it reaches maturity, you might just crush the next big technology before it properly began. Sure, according to this article (have to agree with Renegade for once here), this hybrid isn't all it's cracked up to be, but I'm sure there's potential in the technology, and as more cars and manufacturers experiment the technology will mature.

Diversity can't be a bad thing. Sure, I love petrol engines, and internal combustion of most kinds (not really keen on the internal spontaneous combustion sort), but somebody probably a long time ago, talking to his mates in the pub, pissed on internal combustion engines and said steam power is the shiznizzle. I know that's a clichéd argument, but there's no point in labelling a whole technology shit just because one implementation appears to have missed the mark.

imdying

21st March 2007, 21:08

Petrol could hit $10 a litre. I'd still use petrochemical powered machines to push down, blow up, smash and dig over wind farms. Visual pollution of the worst kind.
Eye of the beholder I guess... wind farms are beautiful to me.

ill die before i use an electric car or bike.
Yeah, all the torque all the time, who'd want that..

luddites:lol:

avgas

21st March 2007, 21:10

Agreed, petroleum products are currently the most efficient way to store energy
Thats a very single minded idea. Read a book - Petrol is only 20% (max) efficent in 99% of combustion engines.
Just because its easy doesnt mean its efficient. Unlike what BP would tell you.

The fact of the matter was that the prius (with all of its downfalls) did something, even the most energy efficient vehicles did not.
It sold.
The problem that existed on the Prius design was the fact it was built for Americans - who only like big shiny, heavy, fancy cars. It was bound to have failures - comparing it to the golf is just silly as its nearly twice a big.
It is more comparable to the Caddy - which has the same motor, but unfortunately lacks all the luxury items. Both are ugly.
While i do not think it is the greatest car in the world - I still think that the concept was a good 1, as it got americans out of 3L+ family vans/wagons; and changed the mindsets of many (like multiple nz's) people.

Daffyd

21st March 2007, 21:12

No, I think genuinely that there must be a way to utilise these natural and plentiful resources in an environmentally sound way. Technology excites me and I like exploring all options. Solar power must hold great potential as with water-hydrogen.

Logic says that Electric Power Stations are completely uneccessary, each home could be fully self-sufficient on power, why is this not the case?

Popular Mechanics about 35 years ago, showed a small boat that moved under wave power using fins. Could achieve 6 knots in ideal conditions.

Smokey Yunick in the US was exploring high temp compound turbo motors that were achieving amazing economy! I believe the technology is there, but cost-effectiveness is the driving force unfortunately, not the desire for the best technology regardless. Progress, while determined by cost, will always be too slow.

Honda have shown a car at the Paris? motorshow, which uses a fuel cell. That in itself is not newsworthy, others have done it, buuuut, the fuel cell can also be used to power a house....Drive into the garage, plug in and power the house.

pzkpfw

21st March 2007, 21:17

At last, another Velikovsky fan!

Oh crap.

Do I have to downgrade you from "amusing guru" to "nutter"?!

(And windfarms look fine to me. Are you one of those who wrote to the paper to complain abut the Hikitia [floating crane near Te papa]).

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 22:40

I'm not that concerned about the Hikitia as it will most likely sink in the next couple of years due to the weight of the barnacles accreting on its hull.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 22:49

Thats a very single minded idea. Read a book - Petrol is only 20% (max) efficent in 99% of combustion engines.
Just because its easy doesnt mean its efficient. Unlike what BP would tell you.
.

Yeah, but the petrol internal combustion engine was only 6-8% efficient in a thermal sense a mere decade and a half ago. There are two stroke engines approaching 40% thermal efficiency due to the use of exhaust gas to ignite the next intake stroke, amongst other clever ideas. Honda who HATE two strokes raced one in the Paris-Dakar (EXP-2 (http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mchonda/exp2_tech.html) I think it was called) about a decade ago and it was pumping out emissions that would easily pass Euro 3 in race mode.

The oil company response will be to foster the implementation of increasingly efficient IC engines, because it will help them cling on for longer. The hybrids are a blind alley, and are incredibly expensive to build and dispose of.

Ixion

21st March 2007, 23:09

Any consideration of global fuel efficiency and resource conservation must come to a dead bone juddering stop when you consider that things like the Prius move half a ton of steel and plastic around to take one 100kg (roughly) person from A to B

The private motor car by definition is a conservation dodo.

If Prius owners really cared about the things the claim to they woudn't be driving a car full stop. Small motorcycle or public transport. Or walk.

James Deuce

21st March 2007, 23:15

The private motor car by definition is a conservation dodo.

That's BRILLIANT.

I'm voting Communist next election, just as a reward for that comment.

avgas

22nd March 2007, 07:23

Bingo Ixion - hit the nail on the head.
The prius wasnt about how much it would save the planet - it was about teaching those USA'ns about what a hybrid is.
Previous to its release it wasnt 'cool' when you tried to be green.
Hopefully the next step is they start building real economy vehicles.

Edbear

22nd March 2007, 07:34

The private motor car by definition is a conservation dodo.

Of course it is! It's just that so much of life is about doing what we enjoy rather than teutonic efficiency.

If efficiency was the absolute, we would have very boring and restricted lives indeed, so the balance is finding the way of doing what we want without killing the planet and thereby ourselves while we do it.

The Earth has amazing powers of recovery and can cope with incredible waste, however greed and avarice have ensured we have constantly worked against nature to the point where it is now too late according to many Earth scientists to reverse the environmental damage we have caused. Now that the Permafrost has begun to melt, it will release a snowball-effect of increasing greenhouse gasses which cannot be halted on a scale never imagined. The extinction of species is increasing and this includes the bottom of the foodchain organisms which will inevitably work its way up.

It's incredible to think that so much damage can be caused in so short a time by a world population that despite numbering over 6 Billion, could comfortably fit in the State of Texas with room to spare. How can the Earth be overpopulated? It's also currently producing enough food to feed double its population.

Slightly off-topic, I know, but we have the technology and the means to have a far more efficient and better place to live. What we seem to lack is the incentive and collective purpose to do so. The Prius may be a smart marketing ploy or a genuine attempt to make something better, but it sums up "progress" in that it is actually worse for the environment and the consumer than it purports to be. Kinda like Thalidomide. "Hey, this is great! It will mean this benefit for users!" Not mentioning the downside, of course...

James Deuce

22nd March 2007, 08:09

The Earth has amazing powers of recovery and can cope with incredible waste, however greed and avarice have ensured we have constantly worked against nature to the point where it is now too late according to many Earth scientists to reverse the environmental damage we have caused. Now that the Permafrost has begun to melt, it will release a snowball-effect of increasing greenhouse gasses which cannot be halted on a scale never imagined. The extinction of species is increasing and this includes the bottom of the foodchain organisms which will inevitably work its way up.

So "THEY" say.

The permafrost has melted before and it will do it again. The CO2 pumped out by the planet vastly outweighs anything we do, and we're just beginning to realise what a massive effect things like a lack of sunspot activity for 22 years do to the upper atmosphere and plankton regeneration cycles, as well as weather cycles.

"They" would like us to believe that there are absolutes and we MUST do "x" to survive. Usually "x" involves making a of of money for someone. Just because "they" say something doesn't mean"they" are right.

As much as this will piss some people off, the US consumes 80% of what is produced, either directly or indirectly. The US have to make massive changes or the efforts the rest of us make are just pissing in the wind.

Delphinus

22nd March 2007, 08:35

So "THEY" say.

The permafrost has melted before and it will do it again. The CO2 pumped out by the planet vastly outweighs anything we do, and we're just beginning to realise what a massive effect things like a lack of sunspot activity for 22 years do to the upper atmosphere and plankton regeneration cycles, as well as weather cycles.

"They" would like us to believe that there are absolutes and we MUST do "x" to survive. Usually "x" involves making a of of money for someone. Just because "they" say something doesn't mean"they" are right.

As much as this will piss some people off, the US consumes 80% of what is produced, either directly or indirectly. The US have to make massive changes or the efforts the rest of us make are just pissing in the wind.

Ok they may be wrong... but they may be right as well... and if they are right then there may be some disastrous consequences round the corner... It pays to keep an open mind...

James Deuce

22nd March 2007, 08:58

You're not listening Hippy. ;)

The mid-Atlantic trench pumps out more Co2 in a year than we do in a century.

Mt Pinatubo had disastrous consequences for global warming because of aerosols that are STILL circling the globe. That was a baby eruption compared to Krakatoa.

"They" are presenting a picture that is distinctly lacking in the open mind approach, and ignoring the fact the the natural world creates much bigger problems than we do.

Super Volcanoes like Yellowstone and Taupo have created Ice Ages in the past, all by themselves.

The biggest challenge we have in the "Humans adding to Global Warming" stakes is preventing the Chinese from burning every skerrick of coal left on the planet, and the one of the biggest toxicity challenges is not letting Car Manufacturers make Hybrids full of heavy metals that leech into ground water.

Delphinus

22nd March 2007, 09:20

You're not listening Hippy. ;)
OK, lets try and keep this mature. You can call me Delph if you wish.

The mid-Atlantic trench pumps out more Co2 in a year than we do in a century.

Mt Pinatubo had disastrous consequences for global warming because of aerosols that are STILL circling the globe. That was a baby eruption compared to Krakatoa.

"They" are presenting a picture that is distinctly lacking in the open mind approach, and ignoring the fact the the natural world creates much bigger problems than we do.

Super Volcanoes like Yellowstone and Taupo have created Ice Ages in the past, all by themselves.

The biggest challenge we have in the "Humans adding to Global Warming" stakes is preventing the Chinese from burning every skerrick of coal left on the planet, and the one of the biggest toxicity challenges is not letting Car Manufacturers make Hybrids full of heavy metals that leech into ground water.

Sure thing, there is alot going on in the world. And yes there is more going into the atmosphere than you can just blame on humans. But the fact of the matter is, we are pumping a hell of a lot of crap into the air, as well as the toxicity of car manufacturers etc.
I'm just saying dont put it in the "too hard basket" or blame the americans for everything and just expect them to fix it by themselves... they are going to need prodding (tasering?) Many hands make light work is a very true saying. If we all do a bit, the collective effect is great. Even if that is just making people aware....

Just curious, have you seen The Inconvenient Truth?

James Deuce

22nd March 2007, 09:31

OK, lets try and keep this mature. You can call me Delph if you wish.

Sure thing, there is alot going on in the world. And yes there is more going into the atmosphere than you can just blame on humans. But the fact of the matter is, we are pumping a hell of a lot of crap into the air, as well as the toxicity of car manufacturers etc.
I'm just saying dont put it in the "too hard basket" or blame the americans for everything and just expect them to fix it by themselves... they are going to need prodding (tasering?) Many hands make light work is a very true saying. If we all do a bit, the collective effect is great. Even if that is just making people aware....

Just curious, have you seen The Inconvenient Truth?

I prefer Hippy - you have whales in your avatar. Whales make good pet food.

I've seen an Inconvenient Truth. It inconveniently ignores the fact that Al Gore is trying to build a platform to run for President, and he can leverage off what used to be fringe issue when he started getting involved becoming a central part a media beat up designed to make money, not change attitudes.

We AREN'T pumping a hell of a lot of stuff into the air. We ARE pumping enough to make a difference to the composition of the upper atmosphere which is already stressed thanks to many things like no sunspot activity to ionise it and create Ozone, and particulates form really dirty jets from the '50s and upper atmosphere nuclear testing. CFC's can't reach the upper atmosphere in their molecular form btw. There's no ozone because the Sun didn't bother to ionise any oxygen up there for the better part of three decades.

I'm not suggesting a too hard basket, I'm suggesting that we direct the very minimal resources being pointed at improving the composition of emissions created by humans using energy at technologies that give proven benefits, not making cars that only rock stars and movie stars can afford so they can "look" green.

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)

Pixie

22nd March 2007, 13:08

As every intelligent person knows ,it derives from the collision of the fifth elephant with the planet (there were originally five elephants supporting the universe on the Transcedental Turtle, not four. The fifth crashed)

It wasn't a crash at all.The mechanic failed to lock wire the 5th Elephant's sump plug.

PS the 5th Elephant was a great movie.I particularly enjoyed Milla Jovovich playing the part of the 5th Elephant.