electric car and transport, the point 2010 start

[metomol45]

If we take everything into consideration we return to the good old cart drawn by a good old horse.
I think of it more and more elsewhere.

Hey you who seeks to take stock, are you sure it is interesting canasson?

Because if you do as many km with your horse a day as with your petrol car, it will be worse ... because animal (muscular) energy has a rather bad yield (20%) and that this yield is based on food production that consumes petroleum ... and I'm not talking about the maintenance time, premises ... etc etc necessary for a horse.

Do not forget that a small car of 50 hp is equivalent to 50 real horses in terms of average power on a working day! Look at a highway and imagine the area needed?

Nah, the fundamental problem is that we have become (we have been given back?) Too MOBILE ... under a pseudo ideological discourse to the con started during the glorious 30s of my 2 of the style "The car c ' is freedom "and" Freedom for all "...

Here are some figures on the pollution (at least on CO2) of the electric car: https://www.econologie.com/forums/voiture-el ... t7716.html
et https://www.econologie.com/forums/mitsubishi ... t6280.html

[Christophe]

Yes metomol45?

Obviously you only made a quote without writing anything?

[metomol45]

Yes the message left before I had time to write it. I meant a horse, CV, has nothing to do with equines and is not equivalent to the strength of an animal horse!
1 hp is an old power unit which is worth = 736 watts and a tax horse is even different: it is a tax unit for the gray card with complicated calculation, which is a function of the real power, engine speed and the gearbox.
metomol45

Yes metomol45?

Obviously you only made a quote without writing anything?

[Forhorse]

In fact, the horse (CV) equivalent to 736W is indeed the average power that provided a horse (the animal) on a working day.
If I remember correctly, it was originally the tram companies that did these comparative studies when they started motorizing their trains to replace horses.
Before putting an engine (electric at the time) it was necessary to know what power was going to be necessary to ensure at least the same work as with a horse.
Hence this equivalence ...
And also the fact that the French (European) horsepower (CV) does not have quite the same value as the American Horse Power (HP).

EDIT: go to do my dedication, a little wikipedia links!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval-vapeur

[dedeleco]

The excited dedé, mentions to be precise, (read in English this site and the life of Watt too) that it dates from 1782, a century long before the trams, and even before, in the English coal mines and the steam engines of Watt, who made his fortune by taking a third of the savings, which his steam engine allowed and which blocked any further progress steam engines, until his death with his patents !!! !!

Watt to convince customers to use his machines has taken as a benchmark the actual work of a horse pulling up the miners or the flood water in the wells over hours, about 3 times more than maximum human power in endurance (in short sprint is much more), and a slightly cheating client had taken a very strong muscular horse as a reference !!!

And there is 233 we knew almost nothing about electricity, only that of cat skins, and therefore no tram !!




"
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to compare the output of horses with that of the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend:

So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work…

The idea was later used by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine. He had previously agreed to take royalties of one third of the savings in coal from the older Newcomen steam engines. [8] This royalty scheme did not work with customers who did not have existing steam engines but used horses instead.

Watt determined that a horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times in an hour (or 2.4 times a minute). [9] The wheel was 12 feet (3.6576 meters) in radius; therefore, the horse traveled 2.4 · 2π · 12 feet in one minute. Watt judged that the horse could pull with a force of 180 pounds. So:

Watt defined and calculated the horsepower as 32,572 ft · lbf / min, which was rounded to an even 33,000 ft · lbf / min. [10]

Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. [11] Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft lbf / min figure. [12] [better source needed] Engineering in History recounts that John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916 foot -pounds per minute. [citation needed] John Desaguliers had previously suggested 44,000 foot-pounds per minute and Tredgold 27,500 foot-pounds per minute. "Watt found by experiment in 1782 that a 'brewery horse' could produce 32,400 foot-pounds per minute." James Watt and Matthew Boulton standardized that figure at 33,000 the next year.

Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to underpromise and overdeliver; few horses can sustain that effort for long. Regardless, comparison with a horse proved to be an enduring marketing tool.

A common legend states that the unit was created when one of Watt's first customers, a brewer, specifically demanded an engine that would match a horse, but tried to cheat by taking the strongest horse he had and driving it to the limit. Watt, while aware of the trick, accepted the challenge and built a machine which was actually even stronger than the figure achieved by the brewer, and it was the output of that machine which became the horsepower."

Useful to know !!

[metomol45]

Shame on me and my flatest apologies to Forhorse: the original definition is indeed the power of a horse which pulls a vertical load of 75 kg on 1m in 1 s. I was left with the definition of 1901 which is 75kg.m./s, that is to say P = W / t = F .V; W the work in Joule and V in m / s therefore P = 75. 9, 807/1 = approx. 735,5 Watts by recalling that a mass of 75 kg corresponds to a force of 75 xg (acceleration of gravity which is worth 9. 80655 m / s / s) or 735,5 Newton.
Here I made amends. I remain available for other less historical calculations!

In fact, the horse (CV) equivalent to 736W is indeed the average power that provided a horse (the animal) on a working day.
If I remember correctly, it was originally the tram companies that did these comparative studies when they started motorizing their trains to replace horses.
Before putting an engine (electric at the time) it was necessary to know what power was going to be necessary to ensure at least the same work as with a horse.
Hence this equivalence ...
And also the fact that the French (European) horsepower (CV) does not have quite the same value as the American Horse Power (HP).

EDIT: go to do my dedication, a little wikipedia links!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval-vapeur

[jean.caissepas]

Specs of the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt: 60 kWh 1,6t 320km $ 37000

Link : http://www.automobile-propre.com/breves/chevrolet-bolt-fiche-technique-salon-detroit/

Maybe my future car ...

[Gaston]

Specs of the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt: 60 kWh 1,6t 320km $ 37000

The technical specifications are attractive; it's "just" the $ 37000 that scares me.

At first sight, that puts us at € 40 in Europe or € 000 in France if the bonus on electric cars is kept until then

[Christophe]

Roooh 2010 in the title ... a little outdated this subject right?
Well, I’m still putting a layer on!

It is true that electric propulsion (except at Tesla) has not changed much since ... in my humble opinion ...

On the other hand, we are starting to make "beautiful" hybrids: I recently saw a documentary on the Porsche 918 ...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918

The numbers are to die for! I am more impressed by the weight / power ratio of the engine than by everything else: 600 hp / 135 kg! Or 4.4 hp / kg ... Strongly an aeronautical version!

Gaston I paraphrase you:

The technical specifications are attractive; it's "just" the € 775 that scares me.

(I like the 404 at the end know how to count at Porsche lol)

[Gaston]

(I like the 404 at the end know how to count at Porsche lol)

404 ... not found