GM Unveils Photos of 'Skateboard' Fuel Cell Vehicle

boston.com ^ | 08/14/2002 | Ed Garsten A.P. and other...

[CollegeRepublican]

They'd be forced to go live in huts again and throwing rocks at the British and American bombers flying overhead with another load of napalm.

I am laughing my a$$ of at this picture right now.

[MadIvan]

But the cost of producing Middle East oil is alot lower compared to Russia, Canada, the Gulf, or the North Slope in Alaska. If anyone could survive the lower price of oil it would be the Saudis.

Not if the West takes over Iraq and their oil wells. He said with a malicious twinkle in his eye. ;)

Regards, Ivan

[jae471]

But..I don't think I saw the article explain what happens if you lose all your electrical power...and suddenly, you know, you can't steer or brake....

The braking problem can be overcome by a very simple mechanical brake, just like the emergency brake of today's vehicles. It would probably add 40 pounds to the car, but it is absolutely necessary, and 40 pounds is not that much. (I pulled that number out of the air, assuming the currently braking system is 100% electrical, and it would necessary to add drums and brakeshoes to all the wheels.)

As for steering -- that's more difficult -- maybe make the said emergency brake a differential braking system, similar to how some aircraft have rudder pedals tied to wheel brakes. The biggest problem is switching over in an emergency. It would take alot of practice to correctly use such a system, and alot of skill to change over. I have a pretty good mental picture of how to build such a system, though.

[EODGUY]

I'm an advocate of severing the ties we have with foreign companies based on oil dependency.

I commend your R&D and commented only on the article posted and pictoral rendition shown.

I agree that looking to the future is important, but I'd like to see movement of a more immediate nature, such as initiating the infrastructure necessary to tap the oil deposits in Anwar.

I haven't owned a vehicle that got less than 23 MPG since I was sixteen and that was light years ago. :)

Keep up the good work, but also support a more immediate approach to energy sovereignty.

[Thommas]

Some of the things I noticed in the articles on this technology do seem to pose a few problems for the public:

1. Without Gov't subsidy, its still expensive for what you are getting.
2. Its payload seems very low, at most 2 adults.
3. Cargo would likewise be sparse.
4. Even the Industry spokespeople admit that comfort is compromised.
5. They are still working on a range problem.
6. No mention is proffered on maintenance cost or frequency.
7. Speed and acceleration tables are sparse...are we returning to 55mph/80kph and no chance to pass on the freeway? Can it climb a grade (like we have in California) without expiring or creeping?

I'm not sure the public would refuse a replacement for the internal combustion engine, if it were a true replacement and not merely a step better than total removal.

[WyldKard]

Unfortunately, like all new technology, the first generation is going to be lacking. Look at any first generation technology that has come out recently: Palm Pilots, MP3 players, DVD players, computers, etc etc.

If the idea has free market merit, it will catch on enough so that much more robust and well developed successive generations occur. If not...oh well...

[WyldKard]

I agree that looking to the future is important, but I'd like to see movement of a more immediate nature, such as initiating the infrastructure necessary to tap the oil deposits in Anwar.

Even if Anwar was approved today, it would be the better part of a decade before we even saw any oil coming out of it. Technologies that improve fuel efficency, even something not nearly as radical as this car, could have much more of an immediate impact. We can't just depend on local oil exploitation alone to be the answer to liberation from Saudi Arabia's grip.

[WyldKard]

Thanks for the reply! It seems this is a huge issue that the car companies need to address. I suppose fly-by-wire works better, because unlike a car, you have multiple power redundancies. How is the safety record of an Airbus FbW plane versus the old "Cable and drum" style systems in Boeings?

[CollegeRepublican]

I work that I do for the Department of Energy covers the spectrum from diesel engines to fuel cell cars. In the short term I think that diesel hybrids are the way to go to reduce oil consumption.

In regards to ANWR. I am all for drilling there. It is absurd for the Democrats to block drilling exploration there. However, you must understand, and you probably do, that ANWR, will not solve our problems of dependance on foriegn oil. If we drill in ANWR it will take several years to bring the fields on line and at that point the North Slope fields output will be decreasing. ANWR would only take up the slack. Currently the US consumes 26% of the worlds oil that is produced, but only produces 9% (Source DOE/EIA, April 2001). ANWR would not change these ratios much, but I support drilling because the oil is there, it is ours, and we have a strategic need to have the ability to recover that oil if necessary. Plus, the deer and caribu seem to like pipelines for rearing babies. Good hunting :)

[Thommas]

I agree. I just hope the enviros and government don't cram expensive and incomplete innovation down our throats and then force the market to take over, saddling us with a product significantly inferior to what is in place now. And, then wait for the 3rd generation of vehicle to be equivalent to today's transporation - just in time for the great grankids to use.

[Vermont Lt]

I would try an electric car if it did a couple of things:

If I could look at it an imagine it surviving a collision with anything larger than a real skateboarder.

If I could get to and from a once a week commute 300 miles away to another work location in a reasonable time frame.

I am not necessarily a "greenie"; but I like new technology and I love to see folks press the envelope. The key will be the practical applications of the new technology.

The idea part of it is nice...but the problem is they will put a "premium price" on it just because they think greenie weenies will pay for it to help the ecology. They really have to get past that.

[EODGUY]

I know the time lapse from approval to drill to actually seeing refined oil in our gas stations is great.

I'm interested that you are enamored with a diesel hybrid.

I was one of the crazy folks in 1979 who bought a Volkswagen diesel. I got 54 mpg on the highway and the vehicle was responsive enough for me. I never understood why the smaller diesel engine was not pursued by US car manufacturers. Perhaps it was a fear that self-proclaimed environmentalists would attempt to destroy any corporation involved in such an endeavor.

In any event, it is comforting to know we have folks in DOE actively pursuing solutions, both long term and short term.

Stay the course.

[CollegeRepublican]

Yeah, diesels get a bad rap. They can be made to run as clean as a modern car and they are more efficient, about 29% to 22%, compared to gas engines. Environmentalists go beserks over them and will not listen to reason. The only reason that were not as clean as a gas car is that there was not an effort to clean the diesel engine.

In two weeks I am attending the DEER conferenct (Diesel Engine Emission Reduction). They have invited several environmental wackos to sit in on a panel discussion. It should be fun :)

[EODGUY]

In two weeks I am attending the DEER conferenct (Diesel Engine Emission Reduction). They have invited several environmental wackos to sit in on a panel discussion. It should be fun :)

I'm sure they won't let your documented, factual data stand in the way of their psychotic diatribes. :)))

Have fun with them.

[TC Rider]

They are. They are keeping in mind the practical understanding that if they don't throw money at stuff like this, the politicians will scapegoat and villify them..

Keep in mind that the money that GM has been 'throwing' at this has been our tax dollars. Gore, via clinton, threw about 5 billion of DOE money at GM and the rest to develop these vehicles.

But, the Clinton administration never set any goals, milestones or demand for solutions. While Detroit had license to piss away our money, Toyota and Honda came out with their own hybrids, developed on their own R&D budgets. So long as clinton/gore kept the handouts coming, GM had every reason not to produce a solution.

Now that Bush has closed the tap on this particular corporate welfare scheme, GM seems to be motivated to produce something.

[Old Professer]

This is the future dream car of the internal-combustion-hating, immasculated, tree-hugger set.

Or perhaps the immaculately emasculated arborealophiles.

[Old Professer]

Electromotive Division of General Motors (EMD) has a slew of patents on two-piece connecting rods for its locomotive engines; what's new here?

[nightdriver]

".....As they tried to design cars that would run on plentiful hydrogen fuel and produce only water vapor as exhaust...."

Really? Where do you get this plentiful hydrogen fuel?

Yeah, there is a lot of hydrogen around, but it's already taken. You have to yank it away from some other atom or molecule first, which will be a larger expenditure of energy than you will ever get back even with a fuel cell.

All this hysteria over a fuel source that doesen't even exist, and very few seem to even care.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[SoCal Pubbie]

I am an industrial designer. I'm not an engineer, but I've been around enough product development to have a little clue how these things go, and I have to laugh at the fairly substantial faction at Free Republic who can't stand anything new. Comments like "..GM just needs to get off this goofy, stupid looking concept idea..." are heard about almost any new car around here unless it looks exactly like a 1968 GTO. Does anyone stop to think what people in 1934 would say about the styling of a 2002 Corvette? Heck, is anyone aware of what they DID say about the old Airflow models from Chrysler?

In the early days of the automobile the internal combustion engine was only one of the choices available to power a car, and perhaps not even the most attractive at the time. It wasn't until sometime later that that system won out. Let's not kill any new idea as soon as it's presented, okay? This is a concept car, it's not ready for mass production. Does anyone understand that?

I'm glad some of you weren't around when the Wright brothers were working on their crazy inventions. I can hear it now. "These boys need to forget their nutty ideas. I mean, you can get there faster by train. Do you have any idea how much a flying machine is going to cost? And where's the infrastructure for take offs and landings going to come from? It will destroy too much valuable farm land. Who's going to keep two people flying around from crashing into each other?

"Dagnabbit, I do declare these new fangled Tin Lizzies and flying contraptions are all just a government plot to force us off our horses!"