Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

We are not talking latest advances mate we are talking average fuel consumtion for short light vehicles, like cars estates and the like, maybe those small vans. 1960 it was 14.6 gallons per mile, the latest average was about 23.something. Around 8-9 miles. New vehicles have hit 24.1 mpg but said gains are slowing, as in they are reaching max obtainable combustion per whatever of fuel.
Average New Vehicle Fuel Economy Hits Record 24.1 Miles Per Gallon, Says EPA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/average-fuel-economy-record_n_5953968.html

That is still even with all othe improvements only 10 miles per gallon in 55 years

I actually agree on the improvements though on average they have not inceased miles per gallon average much at all. More efficient yes but there is a max energy you can get from combustion that cannot be exceeded, it's related to the energy density of the fuel not the engine tech, improving engine tech helps you get maximum possible conversion but it is always limited by the fuel. Fuel has improved in quality. That certainly added mpg.

Relating to fuel efficiency. Cars are lighter. Roads are better fuel is improved and as you said engines have improved, to try claim that only the engine improvements are the only reason for better fuel efficiency and the other stuff doesn't have an effect.. c'mon, weight is the biggest factor, you simply need x amount of energy to move x amount of weight via friction motion so roads and tyres\wheels definetely matter.

It would not be unfair to say, though it is a guess than at least half of the fuel saved is from the other aspects of advances and the rest from engine\fuel advances over 55 years.. 5mpg. Not a lot and it's now approached its limit really in terms of the engines we use.

 

Sure, weight, aerodynamics and tyres are vitally important in reducing fuel consumption, and ultimately as I've said throughout the ICE is not sustainable in the long term. However, while you've got the worlds largest manufacturer putting a concept car into production that can deliver over 300mpg - a diesel electric hybrid the VW XL1 - then the industry thinks there's still plenty of life left in the old dog yet.......

 

Audi A1 1.0 litre does 68mpg, 96bhp and 127mph top speed. I had a 950cc Fiesta 20 years ago that did 45mpg, 78bhp and 90 mph top speed (yeah, downhill on M62, maybe). And that's a petrol engine, not diesel.

 

UK gallon is 1,2 US gallons. So you get more per gallon because there is more fuel.

Hybrids may be an option for small vehicles at least

EPA themselves, 24.1 average from new cars. Average of all cars not specific models. I am sure there are models that were great on the gas. That isn't really helpful to the issue.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...87acb71855bed86585257d6b0052c584!OpenDocument


Also a good point by le Dong about the speed and how you drive.

Just saying, we are pretty much at a limit from combustion engines, adding electric doesn't change that. You mght as well go all electric instead of a hybrid tbh, a wasted step

 

Hybrids, quite cheap at 14k compared to a tesla car 100k, electric not really an option atm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...he-10-cheapest-hybrid-cars.html?frame=2310217

the smallest 80mpg. With this global warming cack going on 20 years you'd think there's be more hybrids given the ****s cost you less to run on gas

 

This is what these climatology religion nuts are doing.
DHS Environmental Justice Unit Will Protect the Climate Against Terrorism
http://occupycorporatism.com/dhs-en...t-will-protect-the-climate-against-terrorism/

 

A gist of what they are thinking, this is a UN map of a desired outcome in the US through policy. I **** you not

please log in to view this image

The climatards want to control every little thing, look at how much land is no human use and highly regulated use

 

More Guardian alarmist fraud. This is pure alarmist propaganda.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
"Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show."


Patently false lies from the Guardian.

Harvard received the funding not Willie Soon.
Harvard divided it up between three scientists of which Soon was one.
Soon received it spread over 10 years which worked out at about $40.000 a year funding for his science, about the same as you get working McDonalds.
Soon legally could not disclose who was funding the money, only the University could because they procured it.
Soon is a solar physicist not a climate scientist or anything to do with fossil fuel so his research is not a conflict of interest, and besides harvard gave him the funding not Exxon directly.

You just cannot trust anything the media tell you

Soon's big crime, disagreeing with a paper the IPCC rely on re solar irradiance.

 

In the 90s Al Gore asked Ted Koppel to dig up dirt on anyone who disagreed with his climate alarmism
Koppel devoted half of a Nightline show to excoriating then Vice-President Gore for asking him to dig up dirt on opponents of global warming alarm.

#science

 

A brief look at the just gone head of the IPCC Dr Pachauri, not as green as you might think

The following is a list of Dr Pachauri's business interests (it kind of nullifies any argument that so-called 'deniers' are being funded by big business)

Director General of The Energy Research Institute formerly known as the Tata Energy Research Institute.

TERI was established by the Tata Group, India's largest privately owned company with very powerful political connections. Since being appointed as Vice Chairman of the IPCC his company, TERI, has made massive investments in sustainable technology projects along with various divisions of the Tata Group. TERI and Tata are looking to invest over £900 billions in huge wind farms. TERI has offices around the world by most notably in the London/EU and North America. TERI-London has received funding to the EU for projects and together with DEFRA (tax-payer's money) and a German company Munich Re were conducting research to see how the effects of climate change will have on the profits of Indian Insurance Companies. The reason why British taxpayer's money was used has never been explained. TERI-NA, Washington DC, received funding from 4 UN agencies, 4 US government agencies, Amoco (oil company), 2 of America largest defence contractors, Monsanto, the WWF and 2 leading carbon trading companies. These last 2 combined control over £600 billion worth of assets.

Until 2003 Pachauri was a Director of India Oil (India's largest commercial enterprise)
Until 2009 he was a Director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation (India's largest electricity provider)
In 2005 he set up GloriOil in Texas its speciality is to develop technology to maximise the potential of oil fields
In 2007 he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, who are a venture capital firm specialising in sustainable technology
In 2008 he became an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to Credit Suisse and the Rockerfeller Foundation
Board member of the Nordic Glitnir Bank when it launched it Sustainable Futures Fund (est £4 billion)
Chairman of Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund (est £100 billion)
A director of the International Governance Risk Council established by EDF and E.On to promote bioenergy
In 2009 he became a stragetic adviser to the Pegasus an investment fund in New York
Chairman of the Advisory Board at the Asian Development Bank
Head of Yale's Climate and Energy Institute (the YCEI receives millions of Dollars from the US Gov.)
Adviser to the SNCF. Former adviser to Toyota Motors
Advisor to Deutsche Bank
Director for the Japanese for Global Environmental Strategies
In India he sits on various influential government boards including the Economic Advisory Committee to the PM as as holding various academical posts. He has even managed to publish 22 books.


Hands up who can spot the link between big business and climate change?
Its impossible to figure out how much he gets paid by big business as TERI won't publish its own accounts and the UN (our money again!) refuses to tell us how much they pay him and none of the organisations he is linked to will reveal what they pay him either. However it is thought that it could runs into millions of Dollars.

What I've never figured out is how did this man, with a Ph.D. in Economic and absolutely no qualification in science/climate science, with varied interests in oil extraction and energy production become the head of the most influential body on Climate Change (the IPCC)?


Add this to Mann 75 million, Gore 200 million.

The idea that the big money is in "denial" is a ****ing joke

 

So the 24.1mpg is a 65% increase on that 1960 figure, not bad going. The article also says mazda have an average of 28.1mpg so there is more efficiency out there the others just need to catch up.

Just out of interest does the 1960 figure include pick up trucks and SUVs as the latest figures do.

 

65% 9 is miles per gallon, I already said 8 which is close enough, and most of that is down to weight difference tyres roads, fuel improvement and engine improvement.

So it is not actually good going when the question was combustion engines. The extra 9mpg is not just from engine efficiency.
So what does a Mazda weigh? Weight is the biggest factor in mpg.

5mpg average increase due engine improvements for the last 55 years is not really good going at all

 

Couple of interesting bits from 2nd article you linked

"Model year 2013 vehicles achieved an average of 24.1 miles per gallon (mpg) --- a 0.5 mpg increase over the previous year and an increase of nearly 5 mpg since 2004."

"The recent fuel economy improvement is a result of automakers’ rapid adoption of more efficient technologies such as gasoline direct injection engines, turbochargers, and advanced transmissions."

However as you say weight is of huge importance so considering this is USA's top selling vehicle,

please log in to view this image

Just maybe those figures you quote are more of a comment on what americans choose to drive rather than engine/vehicle efficiency.

 

You're right he's wrong, I couldn't be arsed labouring the point any further, it's not like I spent 10 years working for the Worlds largest motor manufacturer or anything

 

Meh, maybe you're right guys but it's still an average of 9mgp in 55 years. ALl of which is not down to engine improvements. Maybe most of it is I dunno.

9mpg average in 55 years in terms of the advancement of technology is ****ing slow. In the context of the actual subject, sustainability which is what this is about, 9mpg in 55 years for passenger cars on average doesn't look good at all. Get it into your heads that combustion is what makes advancement difficult. Injection is the biggest gainer.

When everyone on the planet is driving your most efficient mpg car then the average will increase.
Fuel injection advances is why the increase in gain is slowing down, they atomize fuel allowing less fuel to offer more power, it's how I take it anyway is that correct?

You can't really do better than atomize fuel into anything smaller. In the 80s injection replaced suction carburetors that had been used since the 60s. This brought much of the mpg gain. That and weight reduction, better car construction.

In the context of cars and the future, it doesn't matter there will not be fuel for them, bio or petrolium.

As Tobes suggested Hybrids, and they offer great mileage, but they will only prolong the problem. Plus by the time everyone drove a hybrid the population would have added another billion people. Emissions still will go up and up

A mileage of a specific car is not only dependent on fuel efficiency, its dependent on car weight too. No point comparing a mini to a hummer for mileage.

 

Agreeing with each other doesn't make you right chaps.
#consensus

 

The figures are the current average and the 1960s average.
We are talking an average of 9 miles improvement.

This is what people are driving and this is in the context of emissions and sustainability.

it was also in the context of "if global warming is such a dire threat since the 1980s and the governments are willing to do this and that" then how come everyone is driving gas gusslers still and why has engine tech not got to the point where the average car does about 100 mpg.

If as we are told emissions spell doom and all the governments of the UN are serious.. why doe we have to have doubled electricity bills for wind farms while people can drive gas guzzlers which utterly mitigates any effect of wind farms, it mitigates solar, biofuel and other attempts at lowering emissions like car taxes.

I do agree, there are models that are very fuel efficient. As you say americans are driving all manner of guzzlers but Obama is whinging abut CO2 and thre are no policies on car emissions that matter.

Also good that you made your points and didn't seek validation as Tobes just did

 

No mate, the facts make us right.

 

ahh the usual game, Tobes you are a funny man.

I disagree with some of what you say, I agree with some of what you say.

I don't think that's gonna change mate.

 

I was looking up how the Oil companies bought out the compressed air industry in the 1930s. Came across this.

Compressed air can do a range of **** like refridgeration (specific without gases) just air, and run power4 tools and you could dive a car for a few hundred miles.

The trompe. 0 emissions 0 pollution, extremely low operation costs and anyone can do this ****, you only need to adapt tech to actually use air instead of electricity or fuel. This is a pretty sustainable option in a 0 oil world for what seem to be many applications

please log in to view this image

Excellent explanation of the Trompe