Silent, spacious and... well, insipid: Citroën's electric C-Zero car French car manufacturer Citroën's logo represents the pioneering gear system designed by André Citroën. The company has a long history of innovation from the Traction Avant to the amazing DS – so is Citroën's C-Zero electric car similarly pioneering? A smart Hoxton cafe, not really an electricity showroom All that …
Yes, it's the exact same car.
I recently drove the in-laws from London to Windsor and back in an '11-plate rented i-Miev (Hertz 24/7 have a couple of them). The silence is golden at low speed, but there's a considerable amount of road noise above 35mph. Contrary to the article, I found the handling to be fairly poor. For my own money I'd rather have a hybrid: you get the same silence at low speed, the same handy automatic gearbox for town driving, and of course the reassuring backup of a petrol engine.
I'd say petrol costs are vastly more concerning. It only takes a whiff of regional instability (e.g. what's happening in Iraq right now) for the price to be hiked up. And over the long term the price always goes up.
I think it's crazy for electric cars to have so many batteries in them. It would be better for a hybrid that can do an average commute but can kick over to something else if the battery runs down - hydrogen, ethanol and diesel are all potentially renewable.
Or even an aluminium / air battery which can't be recharged but does provide a large range so someone won't be stranded if they exceed their conventional range.
This post has been deleted by its author
Especially the one that uses a small petrol to charge the battery for an all electric drive (the vauxhall ampera/Chevy volt?). Seems like the best idea so far, as it has no need for a gearbox, and the petrol runs at a constant (efficient) speed. Electric motors make a lot more sense for cars than petrol engines.
Yeah but when they're really small they're not that efficient, in thermal terms. They're also expensive to build and maintain, require expensive materials as the average temp at the back is soooo much higher and are still very thirsty. Not to mention it'll easily drown out the noisiest boy racer Corsa driver who has drilled a hole in his exhaust.
GTs are extremely power dense, and therefore fine for when you want an insane amount of power from something that doesn't take up much space or weigh very much - thus for land based vehicles they really don't make sense - you're much better off with a diesel running at it's optimum driving a generator, if you're after maximum efficiency with minimal losses... Unless of course you're trying for land speed records.
But don't let me stop you wanting a jet car. I do too!
Gas turbines tend to be not so quiet. So no.
Vehicles that use them are helicopters and airplanes. Even a helicopter, before turning their blades at reasonably speed, can be heard for miles, due to the gas turbines. Search videos of the Bell Huey H1 taking off (the Vietnam chopper, for reference) and see what I mean. Modern choppers are not too far behind either. And you don't want that high-pitched whine of something rotating at god knows how much rpm, that would need severe gear reduction, pretty much like what choppers must do today anyway. That jet bike uses an helicopter turbine too, and sounds like a F-16 on takeoff.
Efficiency? Neither. They present power-to-weight ratio instead, which mean they can deliver outstanding performance in a tiny, light package. Like a soda can sized turbine can propel a scooter at an idiotic 100mph. That kind of performance is great on something that should fly, but it tends to be a gas guzzler. Apparently choppers burn 35 liters of Jet A fuel per hour. They are not efficient, so much in fact that high-bypass turbines were invented to improve fuel efficiency.
But Wankel engines, on the other hand, can reach up to 7000 rpm easily (I'm not sure, ask Mazda, please?), so do electric motors/generators, and I believe both would work nice together.
Gas turbines (turboshafts) aren't particularly efficient. What they do achieve is to pack a lot of output into a small package and on an aircraft that's more important than overall efficiency.
A single-speed fixed output reciprocating engine runs very efficiently and doesn't need most of the mountains of gubbins attached to automotive engines (which are all there to ensure the thing can work at a huge range of speeds and pwer outputs).
Turbines and piston engines both only work at maximum efficency at very close full power/full load.
Toyota's just blueskied a crankshaftless engine which outputs about 10kW and is tiny. If you need more output, just add more modules - the advantage is that you only need to start each cylkinder when it's actually needed.
Turbine engines are very clean burning, though!
Wrightbus looked into diesel turbines for city-based buses that don't have to go fast. They said the emissions were great, but the fuel efficiency was about the same as a normal diesel engine and with crap torque/power (can't remember which).
I agree, they're not, but we have to get through this phase so they do get there. Digital cameras "weren't there" for years and for a while, people paid 2 million yen for a 1.3 megapixel Canon digital SLR. Compared to a film SLR, it was rubbish and massively expensive, but it had to happen to get us to where we are now, where most people own a digital camera.
This post has been deleted by its author
While i agree that VED is the correct term for it "Road Tax" can also be correctly applied as it is a "Tax to be able to use the road" - i.e. without it you are not allowed to use the roads...
MOT and insurance could also be called "Road Taxes" as you have to pay them to go in the road and they are just another way to get money to use something - Why are there so many "taxes" on driving? Petrol, MOT, VED, Insurance, Fuel Duty, VAT... Maybe they should scrap the lot and have one simple "Road Tax" that is "the charge for using roads"...
(looks like this turned into a bit of a rant at the powers that be - sorry about that!)
The MoT has a (government mandated) maximum cost of about £50 for an 'average' car and many test centres will do it for less than this. That is cheap for what they do and the government doesn't get a penny of this money, so it's not a tax. Insurance .... meh.
I'd prefer it if all the tax was on petrol/diesel and nothing else (i.e. no 'road tax'). If you own a Hummer but only drive it 100 miles a year, you are doing less damage to the roads and environment than a diesel/electric doing 10,000 miles a year. So the amount of fuel you use is directly proportional to the amount of tax you should pay. Until we all drive electrics, then they'll have to tax something else (they'll still want the tax, after all).
Go crash both into a wall or telegraph pole (or cow) at 40mph and see which one you walk away from.
Then try that again at 70mph and see which one you *still* walk away from, and which one requires several refuse sacks to collect you.
If the risk is worth it, all power to you though, nice to see there are still some people who give a toss about good cars, no matter how old they are.
That said, 1160kg is not awfully bad for a small car full stop these days (try to find anything under a ton these days?), never mind an electric one. I'll stick with my fourteen year old 1050kg*, 115lb/ft**, 125bhp** snot-hatch for now though; I think late 90s cars danced the line of weight/safey pretty well. That, and I'm skint.
Incidentally, the torque comparator between the Elise/exige and the C-Zero is a bit of a misnomer - the VVTi lump may make the same amount of torque, but it makes triple the horsepower too; if you had said it had the torque of a 1.8 petrol Focus or similar, that'd have been more apt a comparison as that's a perfectly nippy car in terms of torque, and a good benchmark for about-town nippiness. If you get into a C-zero expecting overt peppiness, I think you'll be disappointed once you get beyond 30mph.
Steven R
*less now thanks to Fords unique, weight saving measures. You know, rust.
**Less now thanks to 125,000 miles, the last 20,000 of which have been done hard...still headbutts the revlimiter with aplomb and crackles on the overrun though!
Go crash both into a wall or telegraph pole (or cow) at 40mph and see which one you walk away from.
Then try that again at 70mph and see which one you *still* walk away from, and which one requires several refuse sacks to collect you.
Or, y'know, don't crash into things.
The safest driver in the world can't stop a pissed up moron crossing the centre line on a blind corner...
No, but strict adherence to the Roadcraft rule will prevent you trying to occupy the same spot at the same time.
Go buy the book - it *will* save you at least one accident.
Vic.
" My Mini Cooper S (original type) weighs 715 kg kerbside, now that's small."
It will also crunch up like wet cardboard if hit from behind and like slightly stronger cardboard in a head-on/side on crash.
There's a reason for the extra weight in modenr cars and ain the case of this car at least 400kg of the mass is battery.
1) Legislation is coming in to stipulate that electric cars must make a car-like noise, which is a huge shame as a lot of the appeal is their quietness. No. People should learn to look where they are going.
2) Why do they have to make them so ugly? Without an engine, small motors could be placed at each wheel, so then the entire front could be glass*. They could actually look cooler than 'normal' cars if they tried.
3) Standards. The batteries need to be standardised so you can buy them from 3rd parties in 10 years time. That way, you can take advantage of each improvement in battery technology as it comes along. Just need a standard shape, size, working voltage, and charging voltage. Current and capacity should improve as the tech gets better. Just make it modular enough that small cars have 1 or 2, large/sports cars have 3 or 4, and lorries can have 18 or whatever.
*May not be a good idea in the event of an impact (or a stone chip), but they could make them look a lot better than they do now. If they are heart decisions and not head ones, then looking cooler than normal cars is a must, surely.
Brilliant. But what happens when you are walking ALONG the road? Plenty (most) of the roads around here have no pavements and I rely on being able to hear traffic coming to protect myself from it (there's bugger all point relying on them avoiding me!). The same thing, of course, applies to cyclists and other road users who aren't motorised.
Maybe you should read the highway code:
==== QUOTE =====
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and
be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
================
"but they can't look behind at the same time - that's why ears were invented."
So we'd better make push bikes noiser, then?
The unpleasant and pervasive noise of traffic is on the threshold of becoming an avoidable evil, and clowns who like the status quo are working hard to keep cars noisy. Maybe they could have a pedestrian with a red flag walk in front of each electric car, to ensure that the car sticks to a responsible speed and doesn't knock anybody over?
I have plenty of negative things to say about electric cars. Their silence, however, is not something I would complain about.
Besides, an IC car travelling under 30 is virtually silent from the front until it gets quite close. You'll hear the road noise before the engine. Maybe all cars should have some sort of artificial noise-maker fitted to them? Perhaps something that can be activated by the driver...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
