|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> Anyone else heard about the new VW? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1289843558 Message started by Midnightrider on 11/15/10 at 09:52:38 |
|
Title: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Midnightrider on 11/15/10 at 09:52:38 http://www.examiner.com/trendy-living-in-national/volkswagen-s-600-car-gets-258-mpg |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Paladin. on 11/15/10 at 10:20:12 0F2B262C2B252A36302B262730420 wrote:
Assume 58-mpg for the LS650, 15,000 miles a yearly would take 258 gallons for the bike versus 58 gallons for the VW. Figure $5/gallon and you save $1000 a year. If the car is only $15K gasoline costs break even in 10 years. More likely they will cost $30K and the break even point is 25 years. A rich toy for a 'green' person such as Al Gore. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Midnightrider on 11/15/10 at 10:27:35 Paladin read it again. The car is supposed to cost $600 in China. I'm wondering if its real. Its on several websites. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by bill67 on 11/15/10 at 10:28:06 I looked it up,One place said $26000 if they produce it. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by verslagen1 on 11/15/10 at 10:38:27 The news article is date july 2009. If it were real it would've hit the streets already. And let's get real... $600 for a carbon fiber skateboard? Maybe, but the materials alone for this car will send it well above $600 even in china. Then 258 mpg will only be for freeway travel. But I hope they do build it, burny needs a diesel thumper for his bike. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by splash07 on 11/15/10 at 10:39:00 I am a V-dub enthusiast, as well as a suzuki savage enthusiast. I currently have a 2010 CR TDI Jetta and have long believed in the power and longevity of diesel. Can this be real? I dont think so. First of all if it were possible why have we not seen the natural progression of events which would start with the most up to date technology and then slowly improve over time. The current VW diesels get, at best, 50-60 MPG and it is a big jump to 258 mpg. Realistically shouldnt there be a gradual climb to 258 mpg barring some unknown miracle technology (no mention of new technology in the article). Also the price of $600 cant be right. That much carbon fiber would cost more by itself let alone with all the components that make it a car. Hell I cant even get a couple of oil changes at my local VW dealer for less than $600. If this is for real (I will be surprised) then the price id definitely a typo. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Phelonius on 11/15/10 at 10:39:10 AYE WANT ONE! Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/15/10 at 10:43:33 I sincerely doubt the car can retail for a mere $600, even if you have it assembled in a jailhouse with inmates working for free. The mere cost of the parts to assemble is much beyond $600. I also believe the car will actually be sold as a three-wheeler (it's a single seater, so why bother with automobile legislation?) hence, a motorcycle. Last, the title says "1 liter for 100 kilos" which to me is weight, not distance. Even if it were distance, I do not see it happening yet. Italy is riddled with four wheelers (quads/ automobile wannabees) powered by 450cc diesel singles, but they get 50-60km/liter diesel, if they're lucky. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cVrVc4qHbe0/SNdg6a3HH8I/AAAAAAAAAZc/UxrkgU2DeRY/s400/t_aixam_city_sl.jpg Incidentally, that VW's taillights look right out of a 1970's Citroen GS. http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh7-Ukl98Wv9-WDbpntv-ABE8ZVD7yvu8ABsXZj_j-XXqBWvsi9ghttp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTH_UrRmKjlAi_uflxQtkzzTw9mvVct2wqldfw2IsP_BJh79mweYGSuR-hqbghttp://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/vw258mpg2(1).jpg |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by youzguyz on 11/15/10 at 10:45:09 023A373E3D3C3B2721520 wrote:
You gonna strap it on to the Webley Vickers to replace your hack? :D |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Serowbot on 11/15/10 at 10:50:22 They need to make it a 2 seater that gets 120mpg... 1 seat is just too claustrophobic... |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/15/10 at 11:08:18 I don’t see significant numbers of people buying a car that looks like this. Plus, it’s a two seater which means it's potential market is reduced which instantly increases purchase price. High MPG, light weight, alternative powered cars are the Holy Grail of automotive engineers….. There are dozens and dozens of companies (if not hundreds) who have also been working for a decade or more to make an electric or fuel cell powered car and have nothing to show for it except what amounts to expensive toys for rich guys to play with. The combination of a powerful battery (or fuel cell) with satisfactory driving range coupled with a lightweight carbon fiber vehicle is beyond the price range of the average consumer. BMW has started to regularly use carbon fiber in their production cars and until several other manufactures go that route and drive down raw material and production cost, carbon fiber is out. Fuel cells have been ‘under development’ for 25+ years with little market share to show for it. The bottom line is internal combustion engines, as messy as they may be, have the most economical energy density cost today. Hybrids of gas/battery give car companies the option to make a car using these powerplants that at least look and act like normal cars. The Toyota Prius is a decent little car (if you like small cars) that has carved out a piece of the automotive market. There are dozens of other similar smaller cars now like the Insight or MiniCooper. I wouldn’t put The Smart car into the same category, but it sells a few units. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/15/10 at 12:23:25 Hafta watch the diet. Get too fat or too gassy & that thing could get real unpleasant to be in. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by buttgoat1 on 11/15/10 at 12:45:14 yeah, that too I farted while riding with my daughter on back I could hear her say "nice one dad"...... |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Phelonius on 11/15/10 at 15:14:57 32243E312C3E32314B0 wrote:
You gonna strap it on to the Webley Vickers to replace your hack? :D[/quote] I will modify it for hand controls for when My legs give out completely maybe a year or two from now. Phelonius BTW the Webley Vickers got sold last March. Here is the replacement. http://p1.bikepics.com/pics/2010/04/01/bikepics-1940621-800.jpg http://p1.bikepics.com/pics/2010/04/04/bikepics-1943475-800.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by buttgoat1 on 11/15/10 at 16:51:02 nice! |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Phelonius on 11/15/10 at 17:03:40 And 100 more cc without having to hog out a cylinder. Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/15/10 at 18:50:30 684C414B4C424D51574C414057250 wrote:
Mike, it reminds me of the old Mescherschmitt 3 wheeler, just 2 seats as I recall. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by verslagen1 on 11/15/10 at 22:24:44 Well, I don't think we'll see this car either... http://www.gizmag.com/vw-shows-170-mpg-tandem-diesel-hybrid-two-seater/12833/ |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/16/10 at 10:08:35 I saw one in town yestarday ,only it was one third the size ,completly covered ,looked a bit like a fish , he pulled into the market parking lot I pulled in next to him,when he opened the top to get out ,I noticed the bycycle peddal arangment, it was very nicely done ,the guy said 25 / 30 mph was no problem, and he got 25 miles per gallon of gaterade, As usual I didn't have my camera with me. I got to remember to carry thay thing. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by JohnBoy on 11/16/10 at 20:27:12 If a 1800 flat six Goldwing gets 45MPG, what would the same engine get in this two seater? 80MPG? And all the power you could use!!! |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/16/10 at 22:34:51 072225230F22344D0 wrote:
woulden't that depend on over all weight ? or does streamlining make a bigger difference ? It would be interesting to find out. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/17/10 at 05:06:11 22262C243B272A2326222A364F0 wrote:
woulden't that depend on over all weight ? or does streamlining make a bigger difference ? It would be interesting to find out.[/quote] Weight is important when you have a standing start; friction is also important - which makes me wonder why on earth the manufacturers insist on ultra-low fat tires, rather than "ordinary" tires like we had 20/30 years ago. Aerodynamics are important when the car must "cleave" through the air at speed; I'm sure we've all noticed that it's much more comfortable to sit up straight and enjoy the scenery on our Savages at 40mph than it is at 70+mph... Hyper-economy cars will highlight skinny tires and aerodynamic contours; too bad all this research is good when you're motoring on a motorway at constant speed, but is useless when you're dragging your feet through commuter traffic. "Start & Stop" is a killer to any vehicle. Ideally, a commuter car should have an electric motor (possibly one per wheel, so as to do away with differentials and half axles) and the battery pack should be powered by a "constant regime" small turbodiesel. A 1300cc TDi will easily deliver 70+bhp at 500rpm, so it could be redesigned to deliver some 30bhp at steady revs with low noise and exhaust emissions. This would allow to plan for ideal performance at a set standard engine speed (i.e. 1800 or 2400rpm) and Such is the philosophy of marine and aeronautical piston engines. All the engine would need to do is turn the alternator. Big thick cables would do the rest. No gearbox, no drivetrain, just alternator, cables, batteries and electric motors. The vehicle's range would only be a matter of battery life and fuel tank capacity; however, think about it: if you had the opportunity to drive a 100hp car with a gasoline engine, or a hybrid with a 30bhp diesel and two 30-Kwatt motors, which would you choose? The hybrid would be not only quieter and more economical to drive, it could prove to be cheaper to maintain, too. :) |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/17/10 at 11:01:33 Col. Pescatori - I am certainly no expert on trains, but isn't your idea exactly how modern diesel electric locomotives operate? Diesel engine powers the alternators that supply current to the electric motors that actually drive each truck of wheels on the locomotive? Someone out there has got to know a whole lot more about this than I do, but I think I'm right. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/17/10 at 17:10:18 232C202A212C272B2C3B2E2C3B490 wrote:
Jerry you might want to look to Asia and Europe,they know how to run trains, like health care we are years behind. Sometimes a slower pace is nice. That being said bullet trains might be worth looking into,because air travel is becoming a voyeur's paradise , my Daughters who are coming to see me in April ,have decided to come by car. the terrorist are winning. One day the USA will realize what a perfect country this is for high speed rail. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by verslagen1 on 11/17/10 at 18:03:54 The efficiency of trains is due to their low friction wheels and long distance travel at constant speed. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/17/10 at 23:52:48 584B5C5D424F494B401F2E0 wrote:
I think those high speed bullet trains have magnetic wheels that repel the rail itself causing it to float,and have way less friction,the faster it goes the less the friction. Seems to me I watched a show about these trains on PBS. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/18/10 at 02:41:56 2F2B2129362A272E2B2F273B420 wrote:
I think those high speed bullet trains have magnetic wheels that repel the rail itself causing it to float,and have way less friction,the faster it goes the less the friction. Seems to me I watched a show about these trains on PBS.[/quote] Close, but too much V (or, not enough research by PBS producers). Bullet trains are specially built to cruise fast non-stop on medium to long haul routes. http://www.bachecaannunci.it/adpics/pescatore283.jpg STREAMLINED CRUISER FROM THE 1960'S http://webstorage.mediaon.it/media/2005/12/treno_etr_medium.jpg STREAMLINED CRUISER FROM THE 1970'S http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/80813BR612PendolinoNorimberga01rrr.jpg/250px-80813BR612PendolinoNorimberga01rrr.jpg STREAMLINED CRUISER FROM THE 1980'S http://www.vivalowcost.com/images/stories/tgv.jpg T G V France inaugurated the bullet train era inEurope with the TGV (literally, the "High Speed Train") which would cruise at 300Kmh (yep, 200mph!) and get you from Paris to Marseilles faster than you could say "are we there yet?" Soon thereafter came the TGV connections from Paris to London and Bruxelles, then the Germans and Spanish and Italians followed suit. It is now official that you will travel faster and more conveniently from Madrid to Barcelona, or from Munich to Berlin, or from Rmoe to Milan by bullet train than by plane. Most international routes throughout Europe are now served by bullet trains known as "Eurostar". http://www.europeword.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/eurostar.jpg EUROSTAR And now, on a lighter note... ... the Spice Girls reunion for the 2012 Olympic games ... THEN http://thebosh.com/upload/2007/06/10/spice-girls-photo-spice-girls-6221138.jpg 15 years later http://www.mymarketing.it/public/Eurostar_Spice.jpg :D |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/18/10 at 06:53:51 High speed trains work in Europe because of the relatively short distances between major cities. Here is a different story. Wanna go from New York to Dallas at 200 mph, making several stops along the way, when an airliner can do it in under 3 hours total? I don't. There are locations where they would work here - the northeast corridor is the first to mind, then Florida from Jacksonville down to Miami, and perhaps in Texas from Dallas to San Antonio, and last in California from Los Angelese to San Franciso. But for cross continent travel, you won't replace the jet airliner. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/18/10 at 07:14:04 6A65696368656E626572676572000 wrote:
True. I never mentioned the "Lisbon to Istanbul" bullet trainm, nor the "Madrid to Moscow", they simply don't exist. But, picture this: You're downtown in a major metropolis, have to fly somewhere 300-400 miles away. NYC - Detroit is a good example, or Boston to Washington D.C. Get a taxi / subway to the airport, wait as you check in, wait as you line up for TSA scans, wait for boarding... hopefully, you won't have to wait in line on the runway... FLY... Arrive, disembark and make your way to collect your bags... wait to collect your bags... go to the taxi terminal/subway station, ride downtown to your destinaiton... OR Taxi / subway ride to the station downtown, walk to your platform, board and find your reserved seat. Depart on time, dine at the restaurant car, arrive and you're already downtown... 8-) Sure, you can't ride a bulelt train NYC to L.A., but for any destination within the 500 mile range a TGV is probably a better option. :) |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by babyhog on 11/18/10 at 07:29:05 I took one of those fast trains from Brussels to Paris. I loved it! |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/18/10 at 07:37:39 Col. Pescatori - I agree 100% with you. That's why the distances between the cities I mentioned are about 500 miles, or less on the east coast. Another question comes to mind. For a 300 mile trip, going 200 mph obviously makes the trip 1.5 hours. What is the marginal cost differential to go that fast on a train, versus going, say 100 mph on a train? I would presume that the cost increase is significant, not only for the train itself, but also for maintenance of the track bed and rails. Is the cost differential worth it to save 1.5 hours over making that same 300 mile trip at 100 mph, which I think many trains, and rail beds, can do right now. Even taking 3 hours to go 300 miles, without the hassles of dealing with the airport might be worth it. Of course, trains have been terrorist targets too (Madrid and London), so security at a train station would probably be about the same as at an airport. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/18/10 at 09:44:35 I took the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaki in Japan one time. Took couple hours (350 miles maybe?) and it was a nice break from air travel. But I don’t see high speed trains ever taking market share in the US. Air travel is just too economical and the infrastructure needed for highspeed trains would cost billions to put in place. The payback would be measured in centuries… |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/18/10 at 10:12:25 1. COSTS: TGV tickets cost more than "ornery" tickets, because you get a different kind of service. 2. Quite often TGV trains have dedicated tracks, even dedicated routes, because you can't speed on a route designed in the 1930s for a 50mph steam train 3. SECURITY: The security you need is the security required to keep yourself out of trouble. Those nations which are more or less regularly "targets of terrorists" are, if you look carefully, those same nations which: - have a rich and thick history of colonialism, - colonized with an overdose of "Gung Ho! Me White Man, you garbage!" attitude, - use "private security" (=Mercenaries by the Geneva Convention) to push their own industrial interests, - all of the above. It's a matter of attitude. A little respect helps, too. Remember that anecdote of mine regarding the "Latte" in the airport? Attitude and respect. :) |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/18/10 at 11:30:14 SECURITY: The security you need is the security required to keep yourself out of trouble. Those nations which are more or less regularly "targets of terrorists" are, if you look carefully, those same nations which: - have a rich and thick history of colonialism, - colonized with an overdose of "Gung Ho! Me White Man, you garbage!" attitude, - use "private security" (=Mercenaries by the Geneva Convention) to push their own industrial interests, - all of the above. It's a matter of attitude. A little respect helps, too. Remember that anecdote of mine regarding the "Latte" in the airport? Attitude and respect. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit........ |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by verslagen1 on 11/18/10 at 11:40:26 435E4B5D4D4F5A415C472E0 wrote:
You mean like Spain in 2004? |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/18/10 at 12:15:49 1D2F28393E2F38072B38214A0 wrote:
that's alot better than throwing up a little bit in your shorts. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/18/10 at 15:03:50 its a rare occasion when I agree with you Mick, but in this case, you're spot on..... |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/19/10 at 05:15:47 Funny how this thread swayed from VW to bullet trains to politics... ...now everybody's a Minuteman... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/10 at 05:27:54 a timely 'high speed' rail article........... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/19/trains_of_the_future_politics_of_the_kennel_108006.html |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/19/10 at 06:02:39 WM - Living in Ohio, I've followed this insanity since it began. There has always been a dream to connect Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Before the interstate highway system, we had old U.S. Rt. 3, called the "3 C Highway" that ran that route. Now, Interstate Rt. 71 does the same, and therein lies the root of the reason that the train is such a silly idea. I live in Columbus, almost 1/2 way between Cincinnati and Cleveland. From here, it's about 115 miles southwest to Cinci, and about 125 miles northeast to Cleveland. I can drive from my office in suburban Columbus to downtown Cinci in about 2 hours, and to downtown Cleveland in 2.5 hours. Rt. 71 is in good repair, and traffic flows smoothly along it, except for those few days in the depth of winter when the northern 1/3 of Ohio is battered by snowfall, since that part of our state lies within the region known as the Lake Erie snowbelt. To make either trip by train would take longer. I would have to drive to a train station, obviously arriving there at least 1/2 hour before departure time to park the car, get my ticket, clear some level of security, and board the train. Then, the train, at 68 mph, would go exactly as fast as I drive on Rt. 71. When arriving at some station at the destination, I would then have to get off of the train, get in a cab line with all of the other passengers, and get a cab to wherever I would go in the downtown. But if my final destination isn't downtown, but in some outlying area of either city, then the whole trip becomes absolute nonsense if by train. These distances are just too short to make public rail transportation reasonable. Even those who need to go from Cinci to Cleveland, or the reverse, can drive the trip in just a little over 4 hours. Again, that's far less time then if they go by this proposed train. Now, a train would make sense from Columbus to Chicago, New York, St. Louis, etc. - trips of 300 miles or more. But train travel is nonsense for a 125 mile trip when that same route is served by a very good Interstate highway. Everyone forgets that train stations are like airports - never your final destination - you have to spend time somehow getting from the station to and from where you're actually going in the destination area. In Europe, things are much different - gasoline is so much more expensive that travel by private car isn't nearly as cheap as it is here. Old European cities are more densely populated and the cities don't sprawl as much as ours do, hence, getting from your home or office to the train station isn't as big a hassle as it is here. Sure, Paris and London are huge and spread out, but the more common, smaller cities are much more dense. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by bill67 on 11/19/10 at 06:08:38 When they had the trains in my town,2 men worked year around taking care of 10 miles of tracks to the next town,So there is a lot of maintenance just keeping the tracks in shape.Then you had the ticket guy.Thats 3 wages for 10 miles of rail. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/19/10 at 09:10:37 Then there is one more problem,air travel is uncomfortable,crowded, the seats are worse than the seat on a savage. using the bathroom is a nusence. My trip from LA to NY and back was great, Steak dinner every night , full breakfast,both in comfort,stroll down to the bar have a few cocktails, go watch a movie,game of cards with fellow travelers,I was at first reluctent to go that rought but my wife will not fly, So that's what we did.Very enjoyable. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/19/10 at 09:23:29 Mick - What did it cost, compared to airline fare? Of course, you were on a leisure trip, not a business trip. Time was not critical. My typical trip is for a business engagement; a court hearing or meeting. Hence, time is of the essence. For instance, I go to Chicago a lot, at least once a month. If I have court before noon, I leave the day before in the late afternoon on a 4 PM flight. With the time change, I get in Chicago at 4:30, and am downtown in my hotel room by 5:30. Freshen up, go have a drink, go to dinner, come back by 9 and retire for the night. If court in Chicago is after noon, I take a morning flight, go to court, come home on the 8 PM flight, and don't stay overnight at all. Try doing that by train. It's 300+ miles form here to Chicago. Trains have their place, but I haven't found it yet for what I do from where I am. People in the northeast corridor have the best opportunity to use trains efficiently, but I don't live there. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mick on 11/19/10 at 11:58:34 616E6268636E65696E796C6E790B0 wrote:
train tickets were $2,800 a piece that included a cabin and all meals. As for your 300 miles ,get yourself a 600cc ninja,door to door 5 hours. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by mpescatori on 11/21/10 at 08:59:04 Jerry's analysis on the "3 C" corridor is correct, because of two factors: 1) Trains are obviously slow (68mph is sissy talk in Europe) 2) fuel is cheaper than bottled water Add the "security controls" issue (you guys think somebody is gong to hijack a train?) and taking a train for such relatively short distances is obviously a no-go. Now consider having to travel from downtown NYC to downtown Washington DC, or up&down the California coast: 1) taxi to the station (or subway, why not?) 2) 150-200mph bullet train to destination 3) option of a "business lounge" compartment seating 4 or 6, and you can have your rehearse your presentation or a business debrief while you travel. Do that on a plane... ;) As I said, bullet trains are excellent competition when the flight is 60-120 minutes long, when distances are within the 250-500 mile range. |
|
Title: Re: Anyone else heard about the new VW? Post by WebsterMark on 11/21/10 at 12:17:33 If you could dig up I dream of Jeanie and wink a system of high speed rail into being, , I'd take the train. At billions of dollars to build however, it ain't gonna happen. The US will skip over the high speed train bandwagon and wait for George Jettson's world to arrive.......... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |