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
