What is wrong with lighter cars? I'm not a physicist but even I know that the less a car has to move around the less work it has to do and the less it will pollute. Couple weight savings with better aerodynamics (less work through less drag) and higher gearing and you have the basis for cars like the Bluemotion VWs even though these cars don't come anywhere near the efficiency of the little Lupo 1.2 TDI 3L car of several years back which claimed to use 3 litres of Diesel per kilometer though a small highly efficicent Diesel, weight pruning and aerodynamic enhancements.

One of the unexpected benefits of the 3L Lupo was the weight-saving bits got used for the GTI- alloy wings and bonnet IIRC for a start.

I actually think the Lupo 3L was a cracking idea: High efficiency, low weight. Just think what could be achieved with a stripped down small car with a composite bodyshell and a light, efficient engine.

There's an urban myth (maybe true?) that Renault created the Clio V6 because when they heard the phrase "Lupo 3 litre" they thought VW were dropping a 3 litre petrol engine into a Lupo .

Now that would have been something!

But again, how much research time and effort is wasted on other spurious projects like wind farms, solar power tidal power etc that could be spent on looking past the end of next week and looking into the future?

Nuclear fusion btw has happened, the problem at the moment is to get a net energy output as at the moment more energy is put in than produced.

Indeed, and the last time I looked (about 10 years ago) we were about 6 times closer to controlled fusion as a net power generator than we were 60 years ago. That rate of progress suggests fusion generation should become viable in the next 20 years.

Basic economics will destroy our oil dependence long before it actually runs out but instead of you wondering how you're going to fill your car up, you'll be more concerned about putting food on the table, cheap oil = cheap food, expensive oil = hungry

And all of the above conveniently ignore those 3 Bn Chindians who will see the lives we lead and want of a piece of the action for themselves. Why not? We're thoroughly selfish too.

I think over the years to come, we'll be gradually weaned off our oil dependance, either by choice (e.g. personal choice, increasing expense, government measures) or force (e.g. OPEC turns the taps off).

I think the most worrying problem is the latter, i.e. force. While weaning ourselves off oil will be hard enough, if our supply is suddenly interrupted in even a tiny way, it'll have an enormous impact. Look what a bunch of blockades did nearly a decade ago, the country almost ground to a halt!

Of course, we'd probably end up invading someone if this hypothetical situation ever occured, and dress it up as something else ("It's not about oil, honest!"), like we did with Iraq, Afghanistan, WW1, etc etc

WW1 wasn't about oil, it was about some loony wanting to be king of earth.

or was that WW2? i forget now.

time for a google i think.

Arguably it was both WW1 and WW2; certainly they were both about land rather than oil (and also the last 2 rounds in the France vs Germany war that's been going on since about 1_000AD).

or was that WW2? i forget now.

time for a google i think.

I'm afraid your credibility on this subject is now in tatters

Arguably it was both WW1 and WW2; certainly they were both about land rather than oil (and also the last 2 rounds in the France vs Germany war that's been going on since about 1_000AD).

I think it's probably the case that it was about "resources", which include land and oil.

It was sparked by an assasination (as we are taught in school!), but the build-up was going on before that.

Wars are nearly always about resources, countries rarely go to war for any other reason, whatever the government/media would have you think.

I'm afraid your credibility on this subject is now in tatters

its lucky i never considered myself to have any to start with then

i am not and i will not ever consider myself a historian.

I think it's probably the case that it was about "resources", which include land and oil.

It was sparked by an assasination (as we are taught in school!), but the build-up was going on before that.

Wars are nearly always about resources, countries rarely go to war for any other reason, whatever the government/media would have you think.

Agreed with notes.1) For WW1, Archduke wassisname was indeed an excuse for the war rather than the reason for it.2) For WW2, Germany's declared purpose was to capture land for the German people to expand into (note land, not minerals).

its lucky i never considered myself to have any to start with then

i am not and i will not ever consider myself a historian.

I admire your honesty, but perhaps disagreeing with me wasn't so smart when you acknowledge it's not a strong subject of yours?!

Having not read the article I don't know which they are using, but isn't American MPG different to English MPG in some way? Could be wrong.

Just googled it and it if it is US MPG it is roughly 46 UK MPG, which still isn't fantasic though.

(Fuel Consumption Calculator)

Yes it is smaller 1US gallon is = 0.8UK gallon.

Anyway back to the original subject,

Hybrids are more costly to produce and overall are more damaging to the ecosystem of mother earth, unfortunatley the politicians are only interested in the lower emissions hybrids emit on the roads and don't seem to realise the further damage cuased in mining for the battery materials and emisions in transporting them around the globe.

Electric only cars will always have problems with the range they can travel without re charging and lets not forget the emissions required by the power stations.

Petrol & diesel are doomed in the near future due to resources starting to dwindle in the near future.

Nuclear or fusion power driven vehicles are a non starter due to the high technology and expense of producing such a beast.

The only viable method of car propulsion I can see is hydrogen FC's . the technology is proven, can be used in the common internal combustion engine, there is an abundance off H in the atmosphere, emmisions are zero except a nice glass off water to refresh the garden and refuelling is as simple as it is with LPG. The only stumbling block at present is storing enough Hydrogen in the average car to cover a reasonable distance, this is being resolved as we speak and is the only way forward to fuel cars of the near future.

Problem sorted.

If I had to have an electric car this would be it http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php

Edited 21 May, 200917 yr by Soot1e

Agreed with notes.1) For WW1, Archduke wassisname was indeed an excuse for the war rather than the reason for it.2) For WW2, Germany's declared purpose was to capture land for the German people to expand into (note land, not minerals).

Yes it was after the murder of wassisname in Austria/Hungary I think but don't know who declared war on who but it wasn't Germany, they just piled in like everyone else to settle differences.

Technically it was us, GB, that declared war on Germany at the start of WW2.

Technically it was us, GB, that declared war on Germany at the start of WW2.

True, in response to a mutual self-defence treaty with Poland, which was activated by the German invasion of Poland. Had Germany either not invaded Poland or responded positively to Chamberlain's formal diplomatic note, the declaration of war would not have happened (at least on that date).

Nice to see Obama has pretty much killed off automotive fuel cell research by removing all government grants.

Yes it was after the murder of wassisname in Austria/Hungary I think but don't know who declared war on who but it wasn't Germany, they just piled in like everyone else to settle differences.

Technically it was us, GB, that declared war on Germany at the start of WW2.

Agree with you as to Hybrids but current reports state that there is a glut of petrol and Diesel and the prices are being inflated by speculators. I don't really believe the old chesnut about the reserves running low. I asked someone I know who works for Shell and he said there is more than enough of the stuff to keep us in V8s for a couple of hundred years. I must admit that I am surprised that we are still using motive technology that has its roots in the ideas of a Birmingham button maker 200 years ago:confused:

Agree with you as to Hybrids but current reports state that there is a glut of petrol and Diesel and the prices are being inflated by speculators. I don't really believe the old chesnut about the reserves running low. I asked someone I know who works for Shell and he said there is more than enough of the stuff to keep us in V8s for a couple of hundred years. I must admit that I am surprised that we are still using motive technology that has its roots in the ideas of a Birmingham button maker 200 years ago:confused:

While I think there is still a lot of oil out there (I think hundreds of years is a little optimistic), I think there are a couple of problems:

1) Usage is increasing all the time; we are personally using more and more, also more people are using oil. So x barrels of oil will not go as far in the next ten years as it did in the last ten, etc etc etc

2) What oil is out there is going to become increasingly expensive to extract. While there is still lots of oil out there, we are reaching the end of "easy oil". The days of just drilling a hole and watching it gush out of the earth are diminishing. In the future, it's going to cost more and more to get it out of the ground.

When you say you don't believe that old chestnut about reserves running low, you do accept though that they won't last forever, don't you? It's going to start having an impact eventually, whether it's now or in ten years or thirty years, it's going to happen and it's probably going to be in your lifetime...

When you say you don't believe that old chestnut about reserves running low, you do accept though that they won't last forever, don't you? It's going to start having an impact eventually, whether it's now or in ten years or thirty years, it's going to happen and it's probably going to be in your lifetime...

People have been saying this since 1960, or possibly earlier.

People have been saying this since 1960, or possibly earlier.

I accept that it will take a long time and we're not about to run out anytime soon, and by the time oil does start running dry for good, we'll probably have moved on to gas or whatever, because oil will eventually price itself out of the market.

But that last point is the critical bit; long before oil actually runs out, it will become uneconomical to extract from the ground.

Short of potential political problems in Saudi (something the Americans are very worried about by the way, the House of Saud is looking rather fragile and is unpopular with the natives, which has been suggested as the real reason for the Iraq war in some quarters, incase of a feared Islamic revolution in Saudi), oil is still going to last a long time. What will happen though is it will gradually get too expensive for many people to buy (or at least use for running cars).

We're also using a lot more than in 1960!