Ben Potter wrote:
> I clearly hadn't had my morning cuppa when I sat down with that lot - since
> the frontal area is wrong too. 0.79 is closer and gives 77% efficiency
> required for a US 200 mpg. The original would be a reasonable for a bus.
>   
Yes, I wondered about that, 3 m ^2 is almost a billboard.  But, to get 
to 200 MPG,
a car has to be insanely streamlined, like an egg on wheels, really 
small frontal
area, maybe go down to 3 wheels to cut rolling resistance, cut the weight to
the bone, and get rid of every possible loss in the drivetrain.  And, 
STILL, it
will only get 200 MPG on a straight road, hit a hill or have to stop for 
traffic and
it takes a huge dip.  Look at some of the solar-powered card for some idea
how far you have to go.  They are running around 45 MPH on a few Hp
with the driver essentially sitting in a sauna box.  If they give him 
ventilation,
it wrecks the aerodynamics.

Jon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Reply via email to