Delete the individual vehicle?

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 20/01/10, 18:18

CITRO wrote:For me, the individual vehicle is essential!
In fact I use several in interoperability and multimodality (I am a logistician).
These range from shoes to the LPG sedan, going through rollerblades, bikes, electric scooters, electric cars, trams, carpooling ...

But, how many means of transport do you have?
CLDT
Last edited by pb2488 the 20 / 01 / 10, 20: 18, 1 edited once.
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
User avatar
Former Oceano
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1571
Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
Location: Lorraine - France
x 1




by Former Oceano » 20/01/10, 19:54

Well, many of us have multiple means of transport:
Personal:
Shoes, skis, fins, canoe, rollerblade, scooter, mountain bike, VAE, mécaboite 50cc 2T, 500cc 4T motorcycle, 1,3L petrol car.

In common :
And access in the city to the bus, metro, tram, train (TER, Corail, TGV), boats (Ferryboat, cruise ships).
And 35 km by plane.
0 x
[MODO Mode = ON]
Zieuter but do not think less ...
Peugeot Ion (VE), KIA Optime PHEV, VAE, no electric motorcycle yet...
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 20/01/10, 20:26

oiseautempete wrote:380 tonnes empty anyway for a TGV duplex train ...


I was thinking of really small vehicles: the structure of a smart on rails, with electric wheel motors. Power supply by catenaries without batteries, lightness, we could not do more economical.

And for the vehicle, we can imagine 10 passengers, a real minibus on rail.

The smart is made of resin, right?

Has anyone seen such small rail vehicles? It would be very effective ...
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 20/01/10, 22:11

bernardd wrote:Has anyone seen such small rail vehicles? It would be very effective ...


Maybe it will be a little more difficult to overtake, we will have to ask Schumarer how to do it? : Mrgreen:

Yes, why not more "mini trains", but I don't really see what to do without major improvements (doubling the tracks for example) for a "local" desert.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 20/01/10, 23:24

bernardd wrote:The smart is made of resin, right?



No the structure is in steel, only removable panels are in molded and recyclable polypropylene (no composite)
A smart fortwo gasoline weighs 720kg empty ...
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 21/01/10, 08:23

So not as a low mass example, like all current fossil cars ;-)

There remains the mehari then :-)

For the chassis, we can use aluminum, it will be profitable given the number of km that a public transport vehicle will cover.

On rails, we can afford low profile vehicles, because the rails are regular, not like the roads, which decreases the losses by friction in the air.

With wheel motors and catenaries, the volume and mass of the propulsion part are reduced to a minimum: the 2CV of the rails finally.

The same goes for a suspended monorail, protected by a solar panel roof: I don't see any major difficulty with current technologies ...
0 x
See you soon !
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 21/01/10, 10:21

bernardd wrote:So not as a low mass example, like all current fossil cars ;-)

There remains the mehari then :-)

For the chassis, we can use aluminum, it will be profitable given the number of km that a public transport vehicle will cover.



The Méhari had an ABS body (on a steel frame), those currently remanufactured are another plastic a little more resistant to UV, but no composites there either, but at least it was light (~ 500kg). .
The aluminum frame, yes, but the problem is that it cannot be straightened: the slightest deformation (accident) = scrapping (straightening prohibited because cracking and weakening of the material), and the cost of construction of an aluminum chassis is much higher (rather particular welding technique, more expensive and much slower than spot welding of steel bodies) the problem is well known with Audi A8s, but people who buy this have other means , and in general do not care about consumption ...
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 21/01/10, 11:31

For materials, I do not prejudge whether it is composite or not, the important thing is that it is non-metallic for lightness.

For the chassis, we may need less rigidity on the rails. To have...

Shocks are rather rare on trains, and modular shock absorbers must be provided around the chassis.

This is not mass production compared to cars. Given the increase in the mileage traveled in a public transport frame, the weight gain of aluminum compared to the additional cost of production would be more profitable, if a welded metal is absolutely necessary for the frame ...
0 x
See you soon !
Ptilu
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 196
Registration: 15/01/10, 14:23




by Ptilu » 21/01/10, 12:56

It does not matter if you are looking forward to it.

Uh if the individual habitat is obviously more consuming, and for two reasons:

-As you said, big bill in terms of transport, which makes it a model to avoid for the reduction of our trips

-To house a household, you will have much more waste area than for collective housing, in fact, there is no loss towards our Vosins nor the corridors in collective housing! The figure of 3 times more wastage is excessive, but for this reason it must be between 2 and 3;)

I am obviously aware of the possibilities of bio-climatic construction. This is the consumption \ household I was talking about, and equivalent technology, this finding is fatal. Moreover, who can afford an HQE shack (including the label)?

-I too am campaigning for a human face of urbanization, and I was outraged to discover that Marseille's parks accommodate 10 kids per m². I have always traveled by public transport, and I can tell you that taking the metro during rush hour should not be as trying as traffic jams ... Population densification is indeed a problem, but solutions have been tested with a certain success in eco-districts (omnipressenc of greenery, good acoustic solation). Urban development as it was thought before is obviously not the model to follow.

In Bbernard:

It's funny your idea;). But she suffers from a defect. Why favor public transport? Because the ratio of power consumed / person transported is the lowest there, and the reduction in passengers is not linear with the power consumed (comparison of coach / bus, with equivalent technology). Moreover for a very long time the only sector which was profitable for the SNCF, it was the TGV! Trains with a capacity of transporting twenty people have existed, and have called them railcar. Today this model has been abandoned in favor of our TER.
I think your idea, for its friendly and practical side, deserves reflection.

To all :
Today, it is in Paris that public transport is used the most, ie 50% of journeys. I think that an objective of this order of magnitude is achievable throughout the territory in ten years. By applying a restriction on individual cars in the city, and especially in the city center, while promoting parking outside the city (as in Nantes) and investing to expand the public transport offer.
The real question, and you raised it: How do we get it accepted by our adorable 4x4 drivers?

I think the obstacle is obviously not technical ...
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 21/01/10, 13:37

Ptilu wrote:It does not matter if you are looking forward to it.

I am obviously aware of the possibilities of bio-climatic construction. This is the consumption \ household I was talking about, and equivalent technology, this finding is fatal. Moreover, who can afford an HQE shack (including the label)?
all those who have the means to build ... It does not cost more, there are networks which are being organized.
from the project manager, from the architect to the banker.
Because passive housing costs less in use, will be easier to repay and some bankers already take this into account and grant additional facilities.
The additional cost (of the order of 10% in France) of such a construction is essentially SPECULATIVE on the part of certain builders and sometimes poorly organized material supply networks ...

Recently, a Leroy Merlin store manager had HIS passive house built only with materials from his store ...

A well designed and organized project takes much less time in passive construction than in "traditional". Some houses are assembled in 2 or 3 days, imagine the resulting savings ...
Times are changing, find out. : Mrgreen:
0 x

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 145 guests