Comments on: Engineering the Cadillac Converj

By: Herm

Herm — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:50:31 +0000

they will never make this concept car like this, they cant.. they will have to raise the roof line and it will not look as cool.. probably reduce the size of the wheels also.

Can you visualize the typical cadillac owner getting into a car made for a 4′ midget?.. they are not flexible enough

The could stretch the car out so the headroom became normal, but then the volt powertrain could not be used.

By: Herm

Herm — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:31:31 +0000

Hi-Pa claims their in-wheel motors can be lighter than a regular wheel assembly, mostly due to getting rid of the heavy disc brake components. They use electronic brakes and regeneration.

Then again Hi-Pa has not show a full power working prototype..all their prototypes move very slowly:

http://www.hipadrive.com/sema.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#43 Cautious Fan Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
#24 DaveG
Wheel motors also greatly increase the “unsprung mass,” making for a rougher ride.

By: Cautious Fan

Cautious Fan — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:14:08 +0000

#97 DonC

I like the the idea of a revenue neutral gas tax increase, balanced like you say against a cut in payroll taxes. It naturally aligns incentives much more efficiently. For example, if we need a larger military due to our gas consumption, this cost should be borne by the oil users. Higher payroll taxes provides a disincentive to job creation so cutting those is good. The only problem is the payroll taxes goes to worker benefits like social security, unemployment, etc. There’s a natural link between working more, paying more social security, and getting more when you retire. If you disconnect those, it becomes difficult to develop “conversion” equations that are fair, especially when it’s a politician doing the work.

Note however that to work well, the tax would have to be applied to all oil users, not just gasoline. Up in New England they actually subsidize fuel oil usage. I thought it was hilarious when, during the campaign, one candidate wanted to place an windfall tax on oil companies, and use the money to subsidize consumption. Hmmmm. So when prices are high, punish production and reward consumption. Sign me up.

By: fred

fred — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:33:39 +0000

I won’t buy one. Better things to do with my money than buy a show off.

By: JEC

JEC — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:27:27 +0000

110 DonC
“Of course it makes sense! If you want to reduce the consumption of something a good way to do it is to tax it. It works like a charm.”
———————————————————————————–
Taxes at federal levels results in the govt finding a new revenue stream, and then they need to create new branches of govt to “utilize” this new found wealth. This new branch then finds that it could sure use more money to keep it growing….so maybe they increase that gas tax a little more and hire a few more “regulators” to be sure they are getting their fair share of this revenue stream.

Pretty soon this little gas tax funded branch becomes a whole tree, that we the tax payers continue to fund forever. Even if we did become 100% oil independent, this branch would still need to be nurtured and funded by the American tax payer. Oh, and to believe that this gas tax would be used to fund oil indendency, you would be a fool. This tax will be used as the govt sees fit, not as you our I would want it applied.

Taxes are not the answer.

The answer to oil independence will lie in the hands of entrepreneurs , who find ways to beat oil without government subsidies or handouts. This type of growth has deep roots, and can flourish under its own means.

As H.W. Bush said “Read my lips, no new taxes” (well he did say it, but he did not follow through, and he regrets this today)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w