- Original Message -
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cost per mile of CAT vs EV (was Re: Doubly disruptive?)
>> So I am still far from convinced that that tiny van can't possib
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:12:17 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>You may be right for gas cars, but the sweet spot will be much lower for cars
>that don't have to consume power at zero speed. See:
>
>http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
>
><<...But the bottom line is,
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cost per mile of CAT vs EV (was Re: Doubly disruptive?)
> Well, it is generally assumed by automotive engineers
> in the USA at least, that the most efficient speed i
ion on Negre and his company, I
> think the technology is very nice actually.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cost per mile of CAT vs EV
> (was Re: Doubly
. I am not particularly negative and have no special information on Negre
and his company, I think the technology is very nice actually.
- Original Message -
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cost per
--- Michel Jullian wrote:
> Note they say "200 to 300 km or 10 hours of
> driving", which indicates a range test speed of only
> 20 or 30 km/h, which is about 4 times less than the
> 100 km/h you have assumed, i.e. assuming friction
> losses going with the square of the velocity the COP
> could be
Note they say "200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving", which indicates a range
test speed of only 20 or 30 km/h, which is about 4 times less than the 100 km/h
you have assumed, i.e. assuming friction losses going with the square of the
velocity the COP could be as much as 4^2 = 16 times lower tha
7 matches
Mail list logo
