[Vertiformed]

A safety expert was saying part of the problem was the fact that people "felt" safer in these big cars and, as a result, drove much less safely.
I think the interviewer asked him about safety features, like airbags and such. And he said something like:
"Those are terrible, because people feel safer and drive worse as a result. If you want to make people drive more safely, you should replace that steering wheel airbag with a giant SPIKE in the middle of the wheel. That would get people to be more cautious."

FWIW, for a while I was driving a car that had an airbag recall. There was some chance that if the airbag deployed, it'd be like being blasted by a shotgun at close range. It helped me drive more cautiously—at least for a few days until I habituated to the situation became as blasé about that risk as I am to the other various risks of owning and operating an automobile.

I believe that, out of an abundance of caution, the advice was not to drive the car faster than 5 mph, or, if driving faster, only do so in reverse while sitting in the back seat. But I may be misremembering some of those details.

 

[GJETSON]

I totally agree. As a railroad and steam engine enthusiast, I cannot avoid the parallels with steam engines, which died so many decades ago in the face of more efficient technologies. The ICE is going the way of the steam engine, which had so many maintenance requirements, and required so much fuel that it became untenable. Its just a matter of time that ICE will go the way of the steam engine, except for the enthusiastic nostalgia that will remain for decades to come.

I used to go to an antique, gas and steam, engine show at a farm not far from here. It is a big regional event with people from all over the country showing up. I got a pretty good reception riding my electric assist cargo bike. The last time I attended, before COVID, there were huge Trump banners everywhere.

 

[Dimitrij]

I used to go to an antique, gas and steam, engine show at a farm not far from here. It is a big regional event with people from all over the country showing up. I got a pretty good reception riding my electric assist cargo bike. The last time I attended, before COVID, there were huge Trump banners everywhere.

There is positively no such thing as an EV-related discussion without the word TRUMP in it .

BTW, I love the PHEV bikes we have.

 

[MisterJJ]

LOL at people hypermiling while billionaire's take trips up to space using about a billion times more energy than the hypermilers' entire lifetime usage will be.

 

[msavides]

I have found in my 32 mile commute each way that my total energy usage is $1.97 per day if I drive like I stole it, compared to $1.71 per day driving 65 max in the slow lane the entire way home.

Mind you I have not tried hypermiling it yet. But I did with my cruise diesel and was able to get 700 mile out of a tank of diesel.

The amounts listed above are off my charge point charger, and I have found it to me spot on with my utility bill, so there is some loss getting into the Bolt.

My cost to get to work in my ICE vehicle was $200 per month. so I am saving $160 per month driving the bolt

 

[redpoint5]

I'm surprised I didn't mention it before, but many of the suggested "hypermiling" practices in the OP either don't apply to EVs, or are simply wrong. Accelerating slowly won't make a measurable difference in your efficiency, for instance, and isn't more efficient in an ICE.

By far the biggest factor will be simply driving at a slower speed, or being efficient with the HVAC. One could slightly over inflate tires to decrease rolling resistance. After these things, avoiding the need to brake as much as possible, which means looking ahead and allowing space.

LOL at people hypermiling while billionaire's take trips up to space using about a billion times more energy than the hypermilers' entire lifetime usage will be.

They use H2 as their fuel, so it was environmentally friendly, right?

I wonder how long until they market the first solar powered launch? Hydrogen entirely derived from solar power.

 

[MisterJJ]

They use H2 as their fuel, so it was environmentally friendly, right?

I don't think so. I think SpaceX uses kerosene. But even if they did use H2, I'm just talking about energy usage, which could power the Bolt instead.

I found the following data on the space shuttle: "the rocket engines of each shuttle flight burn about 500,000 gallons (133,950 kg) of cold liquid hydrogen with another 239,000 gallons depleted by storage boil off and transfer operations." This does not include the solid rocket booster, which provide 70% of power for lift-off.

So if we just assume that the billionaire boys used equivalent of 50,000 kg of liquid hydrogen, and at 33.33 kWh/kg of energy, we get 1,666,500 kWh of energy used. Enough to fill a Bolt from 0 to full about 25,250 times. Equivalent to charging a Bolt from 0 to full every day for 69.15 years, not accounting for degradation or fires.

Which is actually a bit less energy than I would have thought.

 

[redpoint5]

I don't think so. I think SpaceX uses kerosene. But even if they did use H2, I'm just talking about energy usage, which could power the Bolt instead.

I found the following data on the space shuttle: "the rocket engines of each shuttle flight burn about 500,000 gallons (133,950 kg) of cold liquid hydrogen with another 239,000 gallons depleted by storage boil off and transfer operations." This does not include the solid rocket booster, which provide 70% of power for lift-off.

So if we just assume that the billionaire boys used equivalent of 50,000 kg of liquid hydrogen, and at 33.33 kWh/kg of energy, we get 1,666,500 kWh of energy used. Enough to fill a Bolt from 0 to full about 25,250 times. Equivalent to charging a Bolt from 0 to full every day for 69.15 years, not accounting for degradation or fires.

Which is actually a bit less energy than I would have thought.

I was joking because H2 is derived from fossil fuels, so even though it emitted no CO2 at launch, creating the fuel released tons of CO2.

Google says this about New Shepard- Gross mass: 75,000 kg (165,000 lb). Unfuelled mass: 20,569 kg

54,431 kg of fuel is extremely close to your estimate. Not sure what proportion of that would be hydrogen though since oxygen is a heavier element.

EDIT: It appears hydrogen would account for 1/8th of the weight, so only 6,800 kg. The other 47,600 kg would be oxygen.

 

[MichBolt]

...So if we just assume that the billionaire boys used equivalent of 50,000 kg of liquid hydrogen, and at 33.33 kWh/kg of energy, we get 1,666,500 kWh of energy used. Enough to fill a Bolt from 0 to full about 25,250 times. Equivalent to charging a Bolt from 0 to full every day for 69.15 years, not accounting for degradation or fires...

On the other hand, what would be the relative impact to the environment between:

• Reducing energy consumption of rocket launches by 50%
• Reducing energy consumption of road vehicles by 1%

 

[MisterJJ]

On the other hand, what would be the relative impact to the environment between:

• Reducing energy consumption of rocket launches by 50%
• Reducing energy consumption of road vehicles by 1%

That would take some serious number crunching. Falcon Heavy uses kerosene. Space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen and solid rocket boosters. You'd have to look at the various fuels and quantities used in the roughly 115 launches per year.

If you're talking about reducing the consumption of the small percentage of EV's by 1%, that's a relatively small amount, so I'm pretty sure you would get much bigger gains with the rockets.

BTW, if you are 1% more efficient with a Bolt for an entire "tank" of fuel (66 kWh), you will save .66 kWh. So my wife using her 1500 watt space heater for 1/2 hour in just one night is using more energy than you would save. 🤣

 

[MichBolt]

That would take some serious number crunching. Falcon Heavy uses kerosene. Space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen and solid rocket boosters. You'd have to look at the various fuels and quantities used in the roughly 115 launches per year.

If you're talking about reducing the consumption of the small percentage of EV's by 1%, that's a relatively small amount, so I'm pretty sure you would get much bigger gains with the rockets.

BTW, if you are 1% more efficient with a Bolt for an entire "tank" of fuel (66 kWh), you will save .66 kWh. So my wife using her 1500 watt space heater for 1/2 hour in just one night is using more energy than you would save. 🤣

I wasn't limiting it to the Bolt. There are hundreds of millions of road vehicles and only dozens of rockets. A 1% increase in efficiency in road vehicles would far outweigh any increase in efficiency of rocket lauches, even completely eliminating all rocket launches.

 

[MisterJJ]

A 1% increase in efficiency in road vehicles would far outweigh any increase in efficiency of rocket lauches, even completely eliminating all rocket launches.

In reality, no. ICE efficiency continues to improve each year but the appetite for larger vehicles increases as well, negating any improvements.

 

[shrox]

I don't think so. I think SpaceX uses kerosene. But even if they did use H2, I'm just talking about energy usage, which could power the Bolt instead.

I found the following data on the space shuttle: "the rocket engines of each shuttle flight burn about 500,000 gallons (133,950 kg) of cold liquid hydrogen with another 239,000 gallons depleted by storage boil off and transfer operations." This does not include the solid rocket booster, which provide 70% of power for lift-off.

So if we just assume that the billionaire boys used equivalent of 50,000 kg of liquid hydrogen, and at 33.33 kWh/kg of energy, we get 1,666,500 kWh of energy used. Enough to fill a Bolt from 0 to full about 25,250 times. Equivalent to charging a Bolt from 0 to full every day for 69.15 years, not accounting for degradation or fires.

Which is actually a bit less energy than I would have thought.

The Saturn V rockets got 5.1 inches per gallon.

 

[KimnRuby]

I drive 100 miles each way to see my mom once or twice a week. We both live in rural areas and I know of only one level 2 charger at a resort that's about 30 miles from her door. Not a big deal in summer but in winter I need to use heat and defrost to see out the windows. Yes, I also open the windows occasionally the clear the moisture. Until we can get level 2 chargers at both locations (just family stuff causing the delays), I sometimes need to conserve battery. I've reworked my routes and keep finding new ways to straighten the line. My new routes avoid the interstate and allow me to drive on scenic back roads with little traffic so I can glide along at 45 mph or less. Before I did this, I twice rolled into home with my dashboard flashing orange and a message that the car is shifting to a low energy use mode. I usually stay overnight and that helps ad charge to my battery too.

 

[redpoint5]

I drive 100 miles each way to see my mom once or twice a week. We both live in rural areas and I know of only one level 2 charger at a resort that's about 30 miles from her door. Not a big deal in summer but in winter I need to use heat and defrost to see out the windows. Yes, I also open the windows occasionally the clear the moisture. Until we can get level 2 chargers at both locations (just family stuff causing the delays), I sometimes need to conserve battery. I've reworked my routes and keep finding new ways to straighten the line. My new routes avoid the interstate and allow me to drive on scenic back roads with little traffic so I can glide along at 45 mph or less. Before I did this, I twice rolled into home with my dashboard flashing orange and a message that the car is shifting to a low energy use mode. I usually stay overnight and that helps ad charge to my battery too.

There is a route to my parents house that is 4 miles shorter than the interstate route that Google suggests is way faster. When I take the back way, Google always adds 5 minutes to the trip time, but in actuality I end up arriving 5 minutes sooner than if I had continued on the interstate route, meaning my way is actually 10 minutes faster than Google's calculation.

I wonder why Google's estimate is so wrong about estimating that backcountry route? It has many turns, some of which I'll have to slow to 45 MPH (25 MPH suggested by sign), but taking corners fast could only account for about 1 minute of time saving.

 

[MichBolt]

I drive 100 miles each way to see my mom once or twice a week. We both live in rural areas and I know of only one level 2 charger at a resort that's about 30 miles from her door. Not a big deal in summer but in winter I need to use heat and defrost to see out the windows. Yes, I also open the windows occasionally the clear the moisture. Until we can get level 2 chargers at both locations (just family stuff causing the delays), I sometimes need to conserve battery. I've reworked my routes and keep finding new ways to straighten the line. My new routes avoid the interstate and allow me to drive on scenic back roads with little traffic so I can glide along at 45 mph or less. Before I did this, I twice rolled into home with my dashboard flashing orange and a message that the car is shifting to a low energy use mode. I usually stay overnight and that helps ad charge to my battery too.

Does your mom have an electric dryer or electric stove where the outlet could be accessible? You might be able to buy / make a 240 V adapter for your OEM EVSE (it will charge at 240V x 12A, or roughly 2.8 kW, or about 11 miles per hour of charging). So if you stay overnight, you could recover the 100 miles of range that you used to get there.

 

[Vito Bernardi]

What you're quoting is one of the best real-life tests. It appears that the Ampera-E might have higher rolling resistance than the Bolt EV (due to stickier, higher performance tires), so a faster driving speed might be appropriate for the Ampera-E. Ideal speeds for the Bolt EV should be somewhere between 20 and 25 mph. I think 24 mph is easiest just because that is the lowest speed you can set the cruise control to hold.

I might have to do the test myself one of these days.... when I have an entire day to test. My gut tells me that the test in Norway still wasn't the best a Bolt EV could do. Just extrapolating from first generation Volts that can get over 80 miles out of ~ 10-11 kWh, a Bolt EV should be able to do more than 480 miles when hypermiled under ideal conditions.

If I drive 65 MPH how many miles can I get in Range?

 

[NickSP]

If I drive 65 MPH how many miles can I get in Range?

Are you going uphill or downhill?

 

[redpoint5]

I mean, the Bolt gives instantaneous kW consumption, right? If so, you take the remaining kWh, divide by the current consumption, and get the number of hours that can be driven. Multiply the hours by your speed, and you've got range.

 

[Sean Nelson]

I mean, the Bolt gives instantaneous kW consumption, right? If so, you take the remaining kWh, divide by the current consumption, and get the number of hours that can be driven. Multiply the hours by your speed, and you've got range.

Up here in Canada where efficiency is shown as kWh / 100km it's very handy when driving at 100 km/hr (62 MPH) to simply read off your efficiency from the power meter. If the power meter says 15kW, then you're consuming 15kWh / 100km.