Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dwightlooi last won the day on December 31 2019

dwightlooi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

629 Kind of a Big Deal

About dwightlooi

  • Rank
    OSV Member
  • Birthday 09/10/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Belmont, CA
  • Interests
    Cars, guns, technology, design, politics, cooking, etc.

Recent Profile Visitors

19,116 profile views
  1. That's VERY a bad Photoshop job on the teeth...
  2. OK... given GM's announcement regarding their Ultium Battery architecture, my prescription for a practical EV will be:- 4 x Ultium Battery modules = 33 kWh (~80 mile electric range) = enough for 95% of US commuters 1 x 30kW Capstone (single stage unrecuperated) Microturbine = Ability to recharge battery to 90% capacity in 1 hour 16 gallon fuel tank will provide 230 mile of additional range for a total of 310 miles* *Note: With 16% thermal efficiency on the Turbine-Generator, 16 kg (5.56 gallons) of fuel is needed to produce 33kWh (or 80 mile range) using 12.9 kWh/kg Gasoline fuel. 16 gallons of fuel will hence provide (16/5.56) x 80 = 230 miles range extension. Basically, the idea is that you get to be fully electric for your daily commute and grind. Once in a year when you drive to LA from San Francisco or whatever, it'll cost you $68 in gasoline at $3.30 a gallon which you can get in 2 minutes at any of the gas stations along the way. Sure as hell beats lugging around an additional 1000 lbs and $20,000 in battery capacity every day for capacity you use once or twice a year. Or, waiting in line to recharge four times along the way. You can also go to a 33% efficiency recuperated turbine and basically half your fuel costs to $34 for that 380 mile trip (300 mile beyond electric range). But is saving that $34 once or twice a year worth the additional costs, space and weight of the recuperated turbine-generator (about $3000 more taking three times the space and weighing about 2.5 times as much)? I don't think so.
  3. None of this would have happened if the Australians are smart and not fixated on "free trade" fallacies. Imagine a 50% import tax on cars made anywhere except Australia, plus making any purchase of durable goods over $1000 that is made in Australia tax deductible for income tax purposes! Suddenly, Holden makes perfect sense and importing US, Mexican or Chinese made Chevys makes zero sense. Not only that, you'll probably find at least two or three automakers like Toyota or VW setting up a factory in Aussieland. FREE TRADE = SUICIDE.
  4. Speaking of Turboelectric generators... Simplest (least efficient) is a turbocharger with a combustor between compressor and the turbine wheels. The shaft is then extended and a generator/starter added. Efficiency is going to be low because a single stage centrifugal compressor can generate a pressure ratio of maybe 4:1 (5:1 with advanced aerodynamics and larger sizings). Next up is a recuperated turbine (most common arrangement in the turbine generator world). That is we put a heat exchanger on the turbine exhaust and use it to heat air coming out of the compressor. This recovers the majority of the heat otherwise wasted into the atmosphere.With a simple recuperator, expect the efficiency of a 4:1 or 5:1 compression ratio ICE, albiet one operating without valves, cams, pistons, rods, rings, belts, ports and all the other nonsense to add friction and aspirational drag. Two steps up (more efficient) is a dual shaft design. You add a second turbocharger whose compressor feeds the first turbocarger's compressor and whose turbine is turned by the exhaust of the 1st turbo's turbine. Everything on the 1st turbo doesn't change, but now you are talking about 8:1 to 10:1 compression and practically ICE level efficiencies. The unit is started by spinning up the inner (high pressure) stage and lighting the combustor. The low pressure stage will catch up once the unit is self-sustaining. With a recuperator, a 2-stage turbine generator is every bit as good as a ICE running at it's optimum speed, load and at WOT. The most efficient is a COGES-E. Basically, you have the above, but instead of a recuperator you have a boiler which captures the heat by turning water into steam. The boiler can be so efficient that the exhaust air is no hotter than blast of summer wind (130~140 degrees F). The steam is then used to turn a secondary steam turbine to produce additional power. A COGES-E arrangement can be as good as 60~66% thermally efficient which beats the 50% from larger diesels and 35-40% from gasoline motors. This is the state of the art for liquid or gaseous fuel power generation. In cases where power density is paramount and efficiency is not particularly important, you'll see non-recuperated single or dual stage turbines. Basically, staging increases power, recuperation increases efficiency. A commercial airliner usually has a turbine APU in the tail which is not recuperated because nobody really cares about the fuel efficiency of the APU as ground and starting power generation is less than 0.02% of the fuel consumed on a flight.
  5. That only works if consumers actually want to buy EVs. Outside of Global Warming coolaid strongholds like California that is not really happening for three reasons. (1) People like the ability to refuel in 2 minutes vs recharge in 2-10 hours. (2) At today's costs the battery costs more than the lifetime gasoline cost of ICE powered cars. (3) Batteries with an energy density of about 0.8MJ/kg is simply not a direct replacement for gasoline at 46 MJ/kg. If you car carries the same weight in fuel as the Tesla Model S does in battery mass (1,200 lbs) it'll have an astounding range of 6,000 miles at a modest 30 mpg. If you have an all EV lineup today. GM will go out of business as it'll mean a 95% reduction in market share on top of losing money on every vehicle they sell. IMHO, pure EVs are impractical. What is needed if we are to go to mostly EVs is some way to have infinite range using combustible fuels when you need to at a minimal space, weight and economic cost. Fuel efficiency is not particularly important since daily commutes can largely be done on battery power (if the inconvenience of having to plug the vehicle in every night). This points to a turbo-electric generator. Why? Because it is very simple. It is air cooled. And, it has very high power density -- about 50hp from the size of a stack of CDs. It is not very efficient. But if you only use it for that one interstate trip or two a year, plus when you forgot to plug in your car, who cares if it is 15 mpg?
  6. He sure stopped for the better part of two years and we gave him ZERO sanctions relieve, no nuclear fuel and nothing but a bit of attention. Sure as hell beats paying tribute to the fat arse under Clinton or Obama!
  7. Not really. It doesn't work like that. The pie isn't "Chevy Sports car Buyers" and how to split it between a Camaro and a Speed. The pie has always been "$30~50K sports car buyer" and how to split it between all the relevant cars from every manufacturer. I'll be more worried for the Toyota/Subaru FT86, Toyota Supra, BMW M240i, etc. than I'll be for the Camaro or the Dodge Challenger. If GM wants market share they have to go steal it from the other gyus. The Camaro isn;t stealing anything except from maybe the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger.
  8. Three things... (1) There is no reason to believe that the Camaro is going anywhere. It is not expensive to keep making it on the same platform with refreshed sheetmetal. Sales are enough to sustain production. Heck, sales are higher than all of GM's EVs combined. (2) The SPEED is not really in the same segment. It is a 2-seat MR coupe; not a muscle car. Mid-engine doesn't really cost anything apart from a new platform and in many cases a new platform doesn't cost much if it is kept simple (like the Kappa). Anyone looking for a muscle car is not going to look at the SPEED or vice versa. The point is that Muscle car people are not really C8 Corvette people either and there needs to be an entry level car that brings people to the Vette. (3) I know yoiu gays do not want to hear thus. But I think GM should have a Caddy version of the C8 instead of any Z06, ZR1 or whatever upgraded variants. What's the point in injecting Chevy with super-super car credentials? Caddy can you that in spades. Besides, obody is going to complain when the price tag breaches $100K when it's a caddy.
  9. Don't worry, Orange Man is very smart.
  10. Not really... the Miata is neither fast nor mid-engine nor a hard top coupe.
  11. Here's an idea for Corvette's baby brother...
  12. FICTION Chevrolet Speed The Chevrolet Speed is built on the AMR (Affordable Mid-engine Rear-drive) Platform to be an affordable sibling to the Corvette that appeals to buyers in their 20s and 30s. It is designed around the 3-3-3 paradigm calling for a 300 hp car, weighing 3,000 lbs and costing 30,000 dollars. The modestly sized car features an architecture that avoids using expensive materials such as aluminum, magnesium or carbon composites, while utilizing an all-strut suspension design. Power is provided by a 2.7L turbocharged Inline-4 from the Silverado Pickup and the high torque rating dual-clutch transaxle is sourced from Getrag. The entire powertrain and its cooling system are contained in the engine compartment behind the occupants with the radiator positioned horizontally above and behind the engine, while side scoops feed air into the compartment. There is a 6.6 cu-ft trunk under the engine compartment cover but no front storage compartment with electric HVAC and steering taking up the space under the hood. The cabin is an exercise in spartan simplicity with no instrument cluster, buttons or knobs; just a Heads-Up-Display and a 12” LCD multi-function touch screen in the center console. Seat adjustments are manual and a simple 5-speaker BOSE stereo system rounds out the amenities. A Premium Performance Package adds a 360° camera system, leather upholstery, 18” wheels, Magnetic Ride Control and a helical limited slip differential for $6,000. A 420 hp Chevrolet Speed SS is expected to follow featuring a 420 hp version of the 2.7L engine, air-to-water intercooling, bigger brakes and Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires. FICTION
  13. We don't know that, and we'll NEVER know that. Even if it is true the ChiComs will never admit it because everyone in the world and their own population will be lining up to pound them in the arse. Sure, the Chicom will survive such a scandal, but Xi Jinping is not invulnerable -- not to other aspiring power blocks within the Chicom at least. So, you'll never know because there is no way they'll let you.
  14. Dead divided by dead plus recovered. You do not count people who are still sick because some of them will die but haven't died yet. 2876 / (2876 + 36873) = 0.072354 I also believe that the death rate will go up when you have millions of people sick because when the medical care the you get is an asprin, a bottle of water and a cot in a converted stadium you are more likely to die than if you have 10 nurses, 5 doctors and a specialist from the CDC to fussy over your daily progress like you do now, with a respirator, an ECMO machine and all the gadgets of a good ICU at their disposal if you need it. Sick?
  15. 2.5% is utter rubbish. It will be much higher, probably around 10~15%. You need to compare the death rate to the recovery rate, not the total infected. Not even taking into account under reporting by China for economic reasons, we have:- 84,144 infected (total) 39,749 have concluded their illness (recovered or died) 2,876 dead 36,873 recovered Death ratio 7.2% If and when you have millions infected, you are not going to have a hospital bed and intensive care for people who need it. 36,308 currently sick 8,087 in serious or critical condition Serious illness ratio is 18.2% Without ample medicare care, more than half -- probably closer to three quarters -- of 18.2% who become seriously ill will die. If there is no no vaccine and no effective anti-viral treatment (which I am optimistic there will be), we can expect about half the world population infected at some point and that 10% of those infected will die. This is disease has the potential to kill 390 million people or about 5 times more than WWII.

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...