• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Electric LBCs

Share this page

Popeye said:
Now, how about a Hydrogen conversion? Still has the sound and feeling of a gasoline engine... :smile:
Click to expand...
Been a Hydrogen apologist for decades. Seems the biggest problem is transfer to the end-user. Not so sure that's the REAL reason, though.

NutmegCT said:
I know one guy who put the system on the north side of his roof, so his neighbors could see he was "green". His system gets little sun - but sure looks good.
Click to expand...
That's how I view a lot of the Tesla owners: "I'm saving the planet, you're an a**hole!"
 
Regarding the noise factor, our Toyota Venza hybrid "whines" when on electric power. Kinda annoying. Otherwise, we really like it. Lots of room, and it's quite nice on trips. Getting very close to 40 mpg - not bad for a comfy cruiser.
 
Hybrid is (as mentioned before) the only reasonable answer as an alternative to totally gas powered IC vehicles to this point, IMHO.
 
Popeye said:
I agree with JP - there are a lot of things I would not do myself, but I still respect them. I'm not a hot-rodder, but I admire their craftsmanship, for example. Amazing metal working skills and beautiful (if not always to my taste) paintwork.

But I'll also laugh at the electric car jokes - as I will at the "old fart with an IC engine" jokes.

Now, how about a Hydrogen conversion? Still has the sound and feeling of a gasoline engine... :smile:

Wishing all a wonderful afternoon!
Click to expand...

Theres 2 ways that I know of to use hydrogen - one is to burn it in a mostly traditional IC engine - requires changing the intake and such to make it run efficient. The other is to use the hydrogen in fuel cells to create electricity (as is done in spacecraft) and then run electric motors. I do not know which method would yield greater efficiency. My guess would be the fuel cell/electrical route would be more efficient because less energy would be lost as heat, but I am no expert in such things.

Storage can be problematic because the hydrogen molecule is so light it will pass through a lot of materials (including pretty much anything you could make a flexible hose/line out of) and anything other than a 100% perfect seal at any connection/coupling, it has to be supercooled to liquify and then has insanely high pressure as it tries to return to its gas state if not kept supercooled. None of these are impossible to solve, but they are problems that make using it more difficult/expensive.
 
I'd be willing to own a hybrid if I could find one I liked and could afford. Right now no purely electric car has anywhere near the range I need.
 
Agree. If I just bopped around the neighborhood, electric would be fine. But I drive 50 miles to volunteer at the air museum, then 50 miles back home. If there were a dedicated and available charger at the museum, I might consider it. But the mere thought of low battery while I'm looking for a charging station scares me. And here in New England, we use the car heater at least six months of the year; that must be a huge draw on the battery.

low-battery-level-icon-isolated-charging-symbol-electic-charge-technology-eps-166196569.jpg
 
waltesefalcon said:
I'd be willing to own a hybrid if I could find one I liked and could afford. Right now no purely electric car has anywhere near the range I need.
Click to expand...

Precisely my predicament. I'd be stuck for eight hours waiting for a charge just to get home again.

On the third hand it would mean a three day work week. :LOL:
 
Drove to Boston from PA a couple of months ago. An EV would never make it without the help of a Faraday pit stop.
 
PA to Boston? I was about to say something about the need for a better public transport system ... but I don't want to start WW3 ...
 
Yes, I agree that battery technology still has a ways to go. Regenerative braking is also important for sure, and I agree with the point about manual transmissions contributing to power loss. In my case with the '67 Spitfire, I am in no hurry and plan on driving it possibly many thousand miles as a ICE vehicle. I am just thinking long term, assuming no major engine failure before those thousands of miles, when it comes time to pull the whole block and perform major mechanics or a complete rebuilt. Then, if prices have dropped enough and battery technology improved enough, I would consider a electric motor with a short range of no more than 100 miles to keep down costs and weight. The car would remain a local hobby car for short distances around town as it is now, would have time to be plugged in overnight in a 110 outlet for a slow charge, and would remain with no frills as it is now (no radio, air conditioning, power steering (fine with rack and pinion), no internet connectivity, blue tooth, etc.). The only modifications I have done so far to the original mechanics are: using pancake-style air filters with washable filter elements for a MK3 Spitfire instead of the pleated paper air filters standard on the MK2 (I was fortunate to barely squeeze the pancake filters in between the fuel lines leading to the dual HS2 carbs) and gutting the condenser and points in the Delco Remy distributor for a Pertronix electronic ignition. If the time comes for a removal of the 1147 cc Triumph ICE and a basic electric motor conversion, I hope to still be flexible and coordinated enough in my old age to do the conversion myself. As I mentioned earlier, I'll still have the Honda S2000 for road trips, and that's the car I feel would it would be sacrilege to convert over. Now if I had a Triumph TR3B in pristine condition, yes, I would also consider it sacrilege to convert that car over, but not the Spitfire.
 
An ICE vehicle? You're an immigration agent and are using a Spitfire on duty?
 
DrEntropy said:
Been a Hydrogen apologist for decades. Seems the biggest problem is transfer to the end-user. Not so sure that's the REAL reason, though.
Click to expand...
There actually is a not so bad possibility for H2 distribution. H2 can be added to standard natural gas distribution systems, and will work well with existing systems up to about 10%. It is also fairly easy to filter out and concentrate back to 100% for pure H2 use. Obviously this will require massive cooperation between regulators / gas distributors etc. Getting all the kids to play together nicely will probably be more complicated than the technical problems.
 
H2 in gas pipelines, mixed or pure. Wow, never knew that.

Hydrogen Pipelines

Gaseous hydrogen can be transported through pipelines much the way natural gas is today. Approximately 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipelines are currently operating in the United States. Transporting gaseous hydrogen via existing pipelines is a low-cost op...
www.energy.gov www.energy.gov

That could create a few problems, but also solve some problems. We'd already have a distribution system for a fuel relatively easy to use in ICE cars. And maybe (?) cleaner and safer to produce than electric battery systems. Really interesting.

Thanks for posting this.
Tom M.
PS - if you celebrate Hannukah, Chag Urim Sameach!
 
The whole H2 idea has been around a while, fought tooth-and-nail by the petroleum refining industry. Propane made some inroads but only in small, mostly "experimental" ways. Biggest detriment to H2 has been "The Hindenburg Syndrome." Too many haven't considered that liquid fuels like gasoline drop to the ground and can burn a long time, but a hydrogen "spill" goes gaseous, will flash and RISE as it combusts. Actually much safer than volatile liquid fuels. People are gullible.

Me mum gave me a coffee cup as a birthday gift when I turned sixteen. On it was the meme: "I Love Mankind... It's PEOPLE I can't stand!"

Pretty much sums up my philosophy on the subject of hydrogen as an alternative to liquid automobile fuels.
 
"People are gullible". Ain't that the truth. Back when the framers were cobbling together our Constitution, Gov. Elbridge Gerry (yep, that Gerry ...) wasn't too positive on giving all people "the vote".

" ... they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute ..."

And that was before the internet!

We sure don't want to trust people around two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen!
Tom M.
 
DrEntropy said:
The whole H2 idea has been around a while, fought tooth-and-nail by the petroleum refining industry. Propane made some inroads but only in small, mostly "experimental" ways. Biggest detriment to H2 has been "The Hindenburg Syndrome." Too many haven't considered that liquid fuels like gasoline drop to the ground and can burn a long time, but a hydrogen "spill" goes gaseous, will flash and RISE as it combusts. Actually much safer than volatile liquid fuels. People are gullible.

Me mum gave me a coffee cup as a birthday gift when I turned sixteen. On it was the meme: "I Love Mankind... It's PEOPLE I can't stand!"

Pretty much sums up my philosophy on the subject of hydrogen as an alternative to liquid automobile fuels.
Click to expand...
Canada is the world's 4th largest producer of Natural Gas - I consider it a massive policy failure that no NGV infrastructure has been created in this country. Even for public vehicles or affordable dual fuel would have made a huge difference over the years. This especially because Petro-Canada (including gas stations) was created as a Crown Corporation in 1975- and government owned till 2009.
 
Back
Top