[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Spied on the Street! 2019 Pilot and Pilot PHEV mule
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Insight Brings Style, Sophistication and 55 mpg City Rating
More.......................
It's Official: Honda to supply Red Bull Racing in Formula One from 2019
More.......................
Will the next-gen TLX bring back double wishbones? Or a Plugin Hybrid model?
More.......................
Acura tackles Pikes Peak with 2019 RDX, NSX, and TLX entries
More.......................
Honda Partners on General Motors’ Next Gen Battery Development
More.......................
Trucks Set Records as Core Products Deliver American Honda May Sales Gains
More.......................
First in a Generation: All-New 2019 Acura RDX Arrives in Showrooms June 1
More.......................
General Talk --> Re: News from ze Front (Germany and Europe)
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 3rd Generation Acura RDX Reviews
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: RDX Sales
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Just got a 2.0 Accord Touring
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Odometer
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2018 French Grand Prix - Spoilers
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2018 WC
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda/Acura loyalist left in the blind spot
Join Discussion......
Insight --> Re: 3rd Generation Honda Insight Reviews
Join Discussion......
Videos --> Re: MS woman goes Dukes of Hazzard in her 9th Gen Civic EX
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Nikkei: Battery wars: Japan teams up for next-gen electric cars
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Nissan picks Thailand as first export market for unique hybrid
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: 2018 Accord 1.5T Sport CVT Impressions
Join Discussion......
Classifieds: Buy & Sell --> Re: 1999 Zanardi NSX 6MT, 2008 CR S2000 for sale
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > NSX > > Re: 2020 NSX Type-R

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5]
Author
  Post New Thread
Vtec_rally
Profile for Vtec_rally
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-22-2018 15:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
RolledaNsx wrote:
silverf16 wrote:
Highest thermal efficiency of engines based on categories:

Gas Turbine, 61% - GE gas turbine for powerplants
2 stroke diesel, 50% - Wärtsilä cathedral for Marine
Mercedes F1, 50% - 1.6 liter Turbo with waste heat recovery.
Toyota Diesel, 44% - 1GD-FTV 2.8 liter
Toyota gasoline hybrid 41% - 2.0L Dynamic force.
Toyota gasoline (non hybrid), 40% - 2.0L Dynamic Force

There is also talk of Mazda trying targeting 56% with Skyactive 3 engines. Skyactive X is not turbo.

All the examples above does not apply to production sports cars like NSX. However, I have no doubt companies like Honda can develop NA engines that are efficient and sporty. High rpms and emission is not a problem that Honda cannot solve. The NSX revs to 7500. What is another 500-1000 rpms when a street car barely spends anytime up there except to thrill the driver every now and then.

Make it so Scotty.





Children!!!!!

Marine 2 stroke diesel ICE now tops about 51% but add HER to it then it goes up 8-15% on system used.In the future they think with HER they can get 40% more with total 90%.

MB plans to be 55% with their PU by 2021.All four manufacturers do not want to get rid of the MGU-H(F1 owners do) because they made more advance on the tech the past 4 years than the past 60 years.MGU-H is the future of the ICE in production cars to deal with the future crazy laws from GOV'T.

So do not be surprise there is a limited NSX version with a MGU-H in the Future.

By asking the question at the end= you do not know anything about engine design. Adding 500-1000 to engine that already revs to 7500 is a big deal, even more so with a boosted engine over na engine.



Sounds like the FIA and F1 have made up their minds about the MGU-H being removed when the new regulations are put in place.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hybrid-f1-regulations-went-too-far-says-todt-1040337/

I hope it doesn't go away. I wonder how much the major manufacturers will push back and how much leverage they'll have ?

silverf16
Profile for silverf16
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 13:46
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
..".Sometime after the car is launched, the (mid engine) Vette is expected to receive a 5.5-liter flat-plane crank V8 engine that produces at least 600 hp Besides the extra power, the engine will reportedly have a redline that is a bit shy of 9,000 rpm."

500 hp LT1 Naturally Aspirated
600 hp Naturally aspirated at 9K rpm
800 hp Turbo
1000 hp Turbo & Hybrid driving at least the front wheels

Not exactly 31 flavors, but enough engine variants for each kind of Corvette enthusiasts.

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/05/2020-corvette-rumored-four-powertrain-options-including-one-around-1000-hp/

lexusgs
Profile for lexusgs
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 14:31
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
silverf16 wrote:
..".Sometime after the car is launched, the (mid engine) Vette is expected to receive a 5.5-liter flat-plane crank V8 engine that produces at least 600 hp Besides the extra power, the engine will reportedly have a redline that is a bit shy of 9,000 rpm."

500 hp LT1 Naturally Aspirated
600 hp Naturally aspirated at 9K rpm
800 hp Turbo
1000 hp Turbo & Hybrid driving at least the front wheels

Not exactly 31 flavors, but enough engine variants for each kind of Corvette enthusiasts.

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/05/2020-corvette-rumored-four-powertrain-options-including-one-around-1000-hp/



Nice you can get a less expensive NA engine or a turbo and not just be forced into a expensive heavy hybrid only version.

RolledaNsx
Profile for RolledaNsx
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 15:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
lexusgs wrote:
silverf16 wrote:
..".Sometime after the car is launched, the (mid engine) Vette is expected to receive a 5.5-liter flat-plane crank V8 engine that produces at least 600 hp Besides the extra power, the engine will reportedly have a redline that is a bit shy of 9,000 rpm."

500 hp LT1 Naturally Aspirated
600 hp Naturally aspirated at 9K rpm
800 hp Turbo
1000 hp Turbo & Hybrid driving at least the front wheels

Not exactly 31 flavors, but enough engine variants for each kind of Corvette enthusiasts.

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/05/2020-corvette-rumored-four-powertrain-options-including-one-around-1000-hp/



Nice you can get a less expensive NA engine or a turbo and not just be forced into a expensive heavy hybrid only version.



Corvettes NA 5.5L V8 will have around 8000 rpm redline, not 9000.
600 hp

silverf16
Profile for silverf16
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 18:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'm charmed that there are options out there and a flat crank V8 will sound sweet. You bet the engine will be a screamer. Your mid engine corvette may start to sound like naturally aspirated Ferraris.

It'll be interesting to see how they will package all these engine variants and how the body and vehicle dimensions may change based on engine.

It is an awfully long rear end. Not sure if it can be shortened for some configurations.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 18:56
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
silverf16 wrote:
I'm charmed that there are options out there and a flat crank V8 will sound sweet. You bet the engine will be a screamer. Your mid engine corvette may start to sound like naturally aspirated Ferraris.

It'll be interesting to see how they will package all these engine variants and how the body and vehicle dimensions may change based on engine.

It is an awfully long rear end. Not sure if it can be shortened for some configurations.



I was hoping for the same thing from the Mustang GT350R's flat-plane Voodoo engine but it sounds more like a regular cross-plane smallblock.



Last edited by JeffX on 05-31-2018 18:58
silverf16
Profile for silverf16
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 19:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The Mustang gt350 has some weird setup on their version of the crank and exhaust. To create the sound that sounds more like a mustang than a ferrari. I suspect this is how they want to market it.

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23764


As for the reportedly 9k revving Corvette, I suspect it won't sound like a cross plane V8 with burbe sound. Instead, it will make grown up CBR like noises akin to F cars. One of the reasons Chevy went mid engine is dial up the market from the FR platform Corvette to chase after exotic big boys. Since F cars no longer have NA V8 engines, it is a great opportunity to rekindle the market with big boy performance and race car sound instead of NASCAR sound.

And for this 5.5 liter engine, they will do it without turbos so the music coming out your exhaust will not be muted.

JeffX wrote:
silverf16 wrote:
I'm charmed that there are options out there and a flat crank V8 will sound sweet. You bet the engine will be a screamer. Your mid engine corvette may start to sound like naturally aspirated Ferraris.

It'll be interesting to see how they will package all these engine variants and how the body and vehicle dimensions may change based on engine.

It is an awfully long rear end. Not sure if it can be shortened for some configurations.



I was hoping for the same thing from the Mustang GT350R's flat-plane Voodoo engine but it sounds more like a regular cross-plane smallblock.


[url][/url]

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 01:30
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
lexusgs wrote:
owequitit wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
They should just drop the GT3, the name means nothing and it is not special anymore if it is also getting a turbo like everything else in the lineup.

Porsche has so much profit built into a 911, especially a GT3 that any extra silly taxes/fines it gets for not being compliant would likely be easily absorbed, even if they raised the price a couple grand buyers would happily pay it to get that screaming high revving flat six.

They really can't build just 1 low production version of a car with a NA engine while everything else in the lineup is turbo/hybrid/electric? Are car makers or politicians that stupid to think such low production cars that are rarely driven are doing anything to the environment/air quality especially when 18 wheelers/lories, work trucks, airliners, boats. etc are the real big polluters. It is ridiculous.



Except the aren't. Trucks maybe. But per person, airplanes put a fraction of the pollutants in the air vs a normally loaded car. Same with ships and trains which burn a lot of fuel but carry many more magnitudes worth of stuff doing it.

Also, the number of planes, trains and boats running at any time is a small fraction of the number of cars moving world wide.



Planes/Aircraft, Trucks, and Boats are enormous polluters and are much less regulated then passenger cars.

I am sure anyone can tell by my posts I am the last person to get on the Al Gore/greenie bandwagon and be for more regulations and everyone forced to own hybrids, electrics or small engine little cars but even for me there is no denying how big of polluters and users of fuel aircraft, boats, and trucks are. I am mainly pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of trying to regulate people's personal vehicles so much when little is done for the really big polluters like aircraft, trucks, and boats. Just a few of the largest boats can emit pollution of hundreds of thousands to millions of modern cars, especially when those large boats burn filthy sulfur rich bunker fuel at sea and in some cases at or near port depending on regulations of countries they are in.

Politicians can regulate our cars all they want, force us into electrics that will just switch the pollution source yet it is still not going to have the impact they think especially when roads are clogged with big trucks belching plumes of dirty smoke, aircraft and big boats and other sources still majorly contributing to air pollution.

That is why I said what I said about the GT3 or a NA NSX, it is so silly and pointless for politicians or gov to regulate a low volume sports car or luxury car so much when they contribute nothing when it comes to air pollution compared to the big polluters that get little regulation because there is too much money, influence, union's, etc involved.

I know most of these are more left leaning sites and are biased but there is truth to what they say and find too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping/air-pollution-ships
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html



Sorry, Lexusgs, but they do not.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/index.html

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html

http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon-emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/

The reality is that while jets DO make tons of pollutants, when it is divided by the number of people being moved and the miles they are being moved over, it is MORE efficient and CLEANER than cars and has been for awhile now.

As an example:

When an MD-80 is in cruise flight, it burns about 2.5 gallons of fuel for every mile traveled. That is a rough average that includes taxi, takeoff, cruise, descent and landing over a 2,000 mile flight.

When split up amongst 150 passengers traveling on that flight, it works out to about .016 gallons per person/per mile.

Coincidentally, a modern car that averages 25MPG and has one occupant on it, averages about .04 gallons per mile per person. So even with 4 people on board that car, it works out to be about the same as a reasonably full airplane.

The problem is that the MD-80 is old and burns A LOT of gas. Something like an A320 or 737-700/-800/-900 burns around .010 to .011 gallons per person/per mile roughly (they are about 20-30% more efficient than an MD-80. The newest generation of airplanes (such as the A320NEO and 737 Max) burns an additional 15-20% less still when compared to the A320. So realistically, the newest generation of airplanes are burning almost half of what the old one was.

* I made the A320 to MD-80 comparison for a specific reason. They are both designed to accomodate roughly 150 people. The MD-80 can go as high as ~160-170 and the A320 can go as high as 186 in high density configuration, but both were originally optimized for 150.

** That said, versions of airplanes like the A321 or A319 have very similar fuel burns despite carrying more people (A321) or fewer people (A319). This is why airlines are very much favoring larger versions of existing jets because if they fill them up, the unit cost drops significantly due to higher occupancy.

Using that understanding, if an A321 with a similar fuel burn to an A320 is used, but with 200 seats, then the per person/per mile burn drops to .009. An A321 NEO would be even lower.

I also never said that airplanes didn't pollute. What I said was that for their fuel burn, they are carrying magnitudes more stuff, so on a per unit basis, it works out similarly or better. This is why trains are the most efficient way to transport cargo across land. They use more gas than a semi, but they carry so much more cargo, that it offsets it per ton, making it more efficient.

The issues with airplanes come in when A) They aren't full and B) their emissions are dumped higher in the atmosphere, which changes the dynamics of how they work.

Your wiki link is also flawed in that it doesn't mention this reality and only considers gross total emissions. According to the links I have provided, aviation does not account for a hugely significant amount of pollution, especially when compared to cars. It IS expected to grow significantly as air transport in places like China and India explodes and there is expected to be a net increase because even though planes like the A320 NEO burn far less gas, there will be many more of them.

However, it can also be argued that global travel would not be possible otherwise.

Finally, consider that airplanes still burn a less refined version of diesel and still emissions have dropped by orders of magnitude without the use of catalytic converters, particulate filters, etc.

**A normal misconception of airplanes is that if we build more runways (same argument greenies in California use against highways) then there will be more pollution because there will be more airplanes. However, the opposite is typically true because more runways does not necessarily have a linear effect on demand and thus service. But more importantly, airplanes are NOT designed to idle and they are actually most efficient at cruise power. That means that the longer an airplane sits on the ground waiting to take off, the more pollution it is actually causing. Airports like SFO, JFK, La Guardia and Newark that are plagued with consistent delays and can't expand due to growth or political restrictions actually cause more pollution than efficient airports with fewer delays like DFW.

Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 05:04
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
It's rather akin to ships using filthy bunker fuel - most of it is burned mid-ocean, where the pollution may safely disperse and be broken down by natural processes, which a catalytic converter merely accelerates.

Since the problem is basically too many people, it is the concentration of pollutants in urban areas that is really the problem - hence the pressure to send it elsewhere via EVs.

Ironically, many urban areas are so much cleaner (no London smogs!) than they used to be, except we've swapped so much of it for oxides of nitrogen. Choose your poison...

RSX
Profile for RSX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 07:58
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Nick GravesX wrote:
Ironically, many urban areas are so much cleaner (no London smogs!) than they used to be, except we've swapped so much of it for oxides of nitrogen. Choose your poison...


I've always attributed that to so much manufacturing moving from the West to China. No?

Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 09:28
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
RSX wrote:
Nick GravesX wrote:
Ironically, many urban areas are so much cleaner (no London smogs!) than they used to be, except we've swapped so much of it for oxides of nitrogen. Choose your poison...


I've always attributed that to so much manufacturing moving from the West to China. No?



That may partially be true, but remember 'our' factories are massively cleaner than they once were.

Also, London smogs were largely caused by coal burning, both for factories and for domestic heating. Gas (which replaced coal) is hugely cleaner and why I see CNG/LNG trucks as a more practical answer than BEVs, when the equipment stops being so bloody expensive.

In the case of LA, the clean air acts applied to the enormous traffic jams resulted in a massive improvement. However, similar moves to 'clean up' industrial fallout were imposed by the EPA, IIRC.

Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 09:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
EDIT: I should have said that even coal burning is a lot cleaner than it was once. Unless it's that filthy brown German stuff.
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2018 00:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Nick GravesX wrote:
It's rather akin to ships using filthy bunker fuel - most of it is burned mid-ocean, where the pollution may safely disperse and be broken down by natural processes, which a catalytic converter merely accelerates.

Since the problem is basically too many people, it is the concentration of pollutants in urban areas that is really the problem - hence the pressure to send it elsewhere via EVs.

Ironically, many urban areas are so much cleaner (no London smogs!) than they used to be, except we've swapped so much of it for oxides of nitrogen. Choose your poison...



This is correct. Large cities unnecessarily magnify pollution problems because the habitat wasn't necessarily designed to support that level of life.

Shipping it out of sight is also a major downside to NIMBYism.

lexusgs
Profile for lexusgs
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2018 14:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
owequitit wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
They should just drop the GT3, the name means nothing and it is not special anymore if it is also getting a turbo like everything else in the lineup.

Porsche has so much profit built into a 911, especially a GT3 that any extra silly taxes/fines it gets for not being compliant would likely be easily absorbed, even if they raised the price a couple grand buyers would happily pay it to get that screaming high revving flat six.

They really can't build just 1 low production version of a car with a NA engine while everything else in the lineup is turbo/hybrid/electric? Are car makers or politicians that stupid to think such low production cars that are rarely driven are doing anything to the environment/air quality especially when 18 wheelers/lories, work trucks, airliners, boats. etc are the real big polluters. It is ridiculous.



Except the aren't. Trucks maybe. But per person, airplanes put a fraction of the pollutants in the air vs a normally loaded car. Same with ships and trains which burn a lot of fuel but carry many more magnitudes worth of stuff doing it.

Also, the number of planes, trains and boats running at any time is a small fraction of the number of cars moving world wide.



Planes/Aircraft, Trucks, and Boats are enormous polluters and are much less regulated then passenger cars.

I am sure anyone can tell by my posts I am the last person to get on the Al Gore/greenie bandwagon and be for more regulations and everyone forced to own hybrids, electrics or small engine little cars but even for me there is no denying how big of polluters and users of fuel aircraft, boats, and trucks are. I am mainly pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of trying to regulate people's personal vehicles so much when little is done for the really big polluters like aircraft, trucks, and boats. Just a few of the largest boats can emit pollution of hundreds of thousands to millions of modern cars, especially when those large boats burn filthy sulfur rich bunker fuel at sea and in some cases at or near port depending on regulations of countries they are in.

Politicians can regulate our cars all they want, force us into electrics that will just switch the pollution source yet it is still not going to have the impact they think especially when roads are clogged with big trucks belching plumes of dirty smoke, aircraft and big boats and other sources still majorly contributing to air pollution.

That is why I said what I said about the GT3 or a NA NSX, it is so silly and pointless for politicians or gov to regulate a low volume sports car or luxury car so much when they contribute nothing when it comes to air pollution compared to the big polluters that get little regulation because there is too much money, influence, union's, etc involved.

I know most of these are more left leaning sites and are biased but there is truth to what they say and find too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping/air-pollution-ships
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html



Sorry, Lexusgs, but they do not.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/index.html

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html

http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon-emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/

The reality is that while jets DO make tons of pollutants, when it is divided by the number of people being moved and the miles they are being moved over, it is MORE efficient and CLEANER than cars and has been for awhile now.

As an example:

When an MD-80 is in cruise flight, it burns about 2.5 gallons of fuel for every mile traveled. That is a rough average that includes taxi, takeoff, cruise, descent and landing over a 2,000 mile flight.

When split up amongst 150 passengers traveling on that flight, it works out to about .016 gallons per person/per mile.

Coincidentally, a modern car that averages 25MPG and has one occupant on it, averages about .04 gallons per mile per person. So even with 4 people on board that car, it works out to be about the same as a reasonably full airplane.

The problem is that the MD-80 is old and burns A LOT of gas. Something like an A320 or 737-700/-800/-900 burns around .010 to .011 gallons per person/per mile roughly (they are about 20-30% more efficient than an MD-80. The newest generation of airplanes (such as the A320NEO and 737 Max) burns an additional 15-20% less still when compared to the A320. So realistically, the newest generation of airplanes are burning almost half of what the old one was.

* I made the A320 to MD-80 comparison for a specific reason. They are both designed to accomodate roughly 150 people. The MD-80 can go as high as ~160-170 and the A320 can go as high as 186 in high density configuration, but both were originally optimized for 150.

** That said, versions of airplanes like the A321 or A319 have very similar fuel burns despite carrying more people (A321) or fewer people (A319). This is why airlines are very much favoring larger versions of existing jets because if they fill them up, the unit cost drops significantly due to higher occupancy.

Using that understanding, if an A321 with a similar fuel burn to an A320 is used, but with 200 seats, then the per person/per mile burn drops to .009. An A321 NEO would be even lower.

I also never said that airplanes didn't pollute. What I said was that for their fuel burn, they are carrying magnitudes more stuff, so on a per unit basis, it works out similarly or better. This is why trains are the most efficient way to transport cargo across land. They use more gas than a semi, but they carry so much more cargo, that it offsets it per ton, making it more efficient.

The issues with airplanes come in when A) They aren't full and B) their emissions are dumped higher in the atmosphere, which changes the dynamics of how they work.

Your wiki link is also flawed in that it doesn't mention this reality and only considers gross total emissions. According to the links I have provided, aviation does not account for a hugely significant amount of pollution, especially when compared to cars. It IS expected to grow significantly as air transport in places like China and India explodes and there is expected to be a net increase because even though planes like the A320 NEO burn far less gas, there will be many more of them.

However, it can also be argued that global travel would not be possible otherwise.

Finally, consider that airplanes still burn a less refined version of diesel and still emissions have dropped by orders of magnitude without the use of catalytic converters, particulate filters, etc.

**A normal misconception of airplanes is that if we build more runways (same argument greenies in California use against highways) then there will be more pollution because there will be more airplanes. However, the opposite is typically true because more runways does not necessarily have a linear effect on demand and thus service. But more importantly, airplanes are NOT designed to idle and they are actually most efficient at cruise power. That means that the longer an airplane sits on the ground waiting to take off, the more pollution it is actually causing. Airports like SFO, JFK, La Guardia and Newark that are plagued with consistent delays and can't expand due to growth or political restrictions actually cause more pollution than efficient airports with fewer delays like DFW.



You are focusing on only certain passenger jet models and using just 25mpg for your argument while ignoring other aircraft like private jets, personal aircraft, helicopters, military aircraft, etc. Personal vehicles can have 1 occupant, 2, 5 or 7 depending on the vehicle.

Many vehicles, particularity cars do get better then 25mpg especially when traveling long distances now and they will continue to improve in the future, cars will get cleaner in the future even without hybrids/electrics. In Europe and Japan the avg fuel economy numbers are much higher too.

My argument also included trucks, boats, factories, and other pollution sources, it was a combined pollution source argument compared to just personal passenger cars that are being regulated so much and will be in the future. This debate I am having with you is odd because I am not one who pushes for tougher and tougher regulations on either industry or even complaining that aircraft or other sources are big polluters/users of fuel but I am pointing out the hypocrisy and in many ways pointlessness of govt. regulating passenger cars so much and being so tough on them(especially rarely driven super cars/expensive luxury cars that do nothing to harm the environment) and forcing people into more expensive vehicles/powertrains they don't want while you have a combo of other bigger polluters that are not regulated nearly as much and air travel, ships/shipping, boating, trucks are only growing and getting more popular. It is very hard to impossible to make them much more fuel efficient without spending tons of money/big breakthroughs in technology and there are unions and a lot of money protecting those industries.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-03-2018 02:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
lexusgs wrote:
owequitit wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
owequitit wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
They should just drop the GT3, the name means nothing and it is not special anymore if it is also getting a turbo like everything else in the lineup.

Porsche has so much profit built into a 911, especially a GT3 that any extra silly taxes/fines it gets for not being compliant would likely be easily absorbed, even if they raised the price a couple grand buyers would happily pay it to get that screaming high revving flat six.

They really can't build just 1 low production version of a car with a NA engine while everything else in the lineup is turbo/hybrid/electric? Are car makers or politicians that stupid to think such low production cars that are rarely driven are doing anything to the environment/air quality especially when 18 wheelers/lories, work trucks, airliners, boats. etc are the real big polluters. It is ridiculous.



Except the aren't. Trucks maybe. But per person, airplanes put a fraction of the pollutants in the air vs a normally loaded car. Same with ships and trains which burn a lot of fuel but carry many more magnitudes worth of stuff doing it.

Also, the number of planes, trains and boats running at any time is a small fraction of the number of cars moving world wide.



Planes/Aircraft, Trucks, and Boats are enormous polluters and are much less regulated then passenger cars.

I am sure anyone can tell by my posts I am the last person to get on the Al Gore/greenie bandwagon and be for more regulations and everyone forced to own hybrids, electrics or small engine little cars but even for me there is no denying how big of polluters and users of fuel aircraft, boats, and trucks are. I am mainly pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of trying to regulate people's personal vehicles so much when little is done for the really big polluters like aircraft, trucks, and boats. Just a few of the largest boats can emit pollution of hundreds of thousands to millions of modern cars, especially when those large boats burn filthy sulfur rich bunker fuel at sea and in some cases at or near port depending on regulations of countries they are in.

Politicians can regulate our cars all they want, force us into electrics that will just switch the pollution source yet it is still not going to have the impact they think especially when roads are clogged with big trucks belching plumes of dirty smoke, aircraft and big boats and other sources still majorly contributing to air pollution.

That is why I said what I said about the GT3 or a NA NSX, it is so silly and pointless for politicians or gov to regulate a low volume sports car or luxury car so much when they contribute nothing when it comes to air pollution compared to the big polluters that get little regulation because there is too much money, influence, union's, etc involved.

I know most of these are more left leaning sites and are biased but there is truth to what they say and find too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping/air-pollution-ships
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html



Sorry, Lexusgs, but they do not.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/index.html

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html

http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon-emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/

The reality is that while jets DO make tons of pollutants, when it is divided by the number of people being moved and the miles they are being moved over, it is MORE efficient and CLEANER than cars and has been for awhile now.

As an example:

When an MD-80 is in cruise flight, it burns about 2.5 gallons of fuel for every mile traveled. That is a rough average that includes taxi, takeoff, cruise, descent and landing over a 2,000 mile flight.

When split up amongst 150 passengers traveling on that flight, it works out to about .016 gallons per person/per mile.

Coincidentally, a modern car that averages 25MPG and has one occupant on it, averages about .04 gallons per mile per person. So even with 4 people on board that car, it works out to be about the same as a reasonably full airplane.

The problem is that the MD-80 is old and burns A LOT of gas. Something like an A320 or 737-700/-800/-900 burns around .010 to .011 gallons per person/per mile roughly (they are about 20-30% more efficient than an MD-80. The newest generation of airplanes (such as the A320NEO and 737 Max) burns an additional 15-20% less still when compared to the A320. So realistically, the newest generation of airplanes are burning almost half of what the old one was.

* I made the A320 to MD-80 comparison for a specific reason. They are both designed to accomodate roughly 150 people. The MD-80 can go as high as ~160-170 and the A320 can go as high as 186 in high density configuration, but both were originally optimized for 150.

** That said, versions of airplanes like the A321 or A319 have very similar fuel burns despite carrying more people (A321) or fewer people (A319). This is why airlines are very much favoring larger versions of existing jets because if they fill them up, the unit cost drops significantly due to higher occupancy.

Using that understanding, if an A321 with a similar fuel burn to an A320 is used, but with 200 seats, then the per person/per mile burn drops to .009. An A321 NEO would be even lower.

I also never said that airplanes didn't pollute. What I said was that for their fuel burn, they are carrying magnitudes more stuff, so on a per unit basis, it works out similarly or better. This is why trains are the most efficient way to transport cargo across land. They use more gas than a semi, but they carry so much more cargo, that it offsets it per ton, making it more efficient.

The issues with airplanes come in when A) They aren't full and B) their emissions are dumped higher in the atmosphere, which changes the dynamics of how they work.

Your wiki link is also flawed in that it doesn't mention this reality and only considers gross total emissions. According to the links I have provided, aviation does not account for a hugely significant amount of pollution, especially when compared to cars. It IS expected to grow significantly as air transport in places like China and India explodes and there is expected to be a net increase because even though planes like the A320 NEO burn far less gas, there will be many more of them.

However, it can also be argued that global travel would not be possible otherwise.

Finally, consider that airplanes still burn a less refined version of diesel and still emissions have dropped by orders of magnitude without the use of catalytic converters, particulate filters, etc.

**A normal misconception of airplanes is that if we build more runways (same argument greenies in California use against highways) then there will be more pollution because there will be more airplanes. However, the opposite is typically true because more runways does not necessarily have a linear effect on demand and thus service. But more importantly, airplanes are NOT designed to idle and they are actually most efficient at cruise power. That means that the longer an airplane sits on the ground waiting to take off, the more pollution it is actually causing. Airports like SFO, JFK, La Guardia and Newark that are plagued with consistent delays and can't expand due to growth or political restrictions actually cause more pollution than efficient airports with fewer delays like DFW.



You are focusing on only certain passenger jet models and using just 25mpg for your argument while ignoring other aircraft like private jets, personal aircraft, helicopters, military aircraft, etc. Personal vehicles can have 1 occupant, 2, 5 or 7 depending on the vehicle.

Many vehicles, particularity cars do get better then 25mpg especially when traveling long distances now and they will continue to improve in the future, cars will get cleaner in the future even without hybrids/electrics. In Europe and Japan the avg fuel economy numbers are much higher too.

My argument also included trucks, boats, factories, and other pollution sources, it was a combined pollution source argument compared to just personal passenger cars that are being regulated so much and will be in the future. This debate I am having with you is odd because I am not one who pushes for tougher and tougher regulations on either industry or even complaining that aircraft or other sources are big polluters/users of fuel but I am pointing out the hypocrisy and in many ways pointlessness of govt. regulating passenger cars so much and being so tough on them(especially rarely driven super cars/expensive luxury cars that do nothing to harm the environment) and forcing people into more expensive vehicles/powertrains they don't want while you have a combo of other bigger polluters that are not regulated nearly as much and air travel, ships/shipping, boating, trucks are only growing and getting more popular. It is very hard to impossible to make them much more fuel efficient without spending tons of money/big breakthroughs in technology and there are unions and a lot of money protecting those industries.



I haven't neglected anything.

1) 25MPG is pretty average (and I would say on the higher side) for what you might expect to find in the more fuel efficient SUV's which are outpacing everything in sales.

It is unquestionably higher than what your average boutique sports car will average, and those are the cars you are saying "don't matter" in this discussion.

Also, if you pay attention to the calculations, you will notice that an average four passenger sedan has to be full in order to match it. The problem is that as you add passengers (and subsequently, size and weight) MPG goes down. An airliner very much matches a fully loaded car on a long trip, and usually beats them over longer distances. There is a reason why an airline can sell you a ticket for what is usually cheaper than what it would cost you to drive... It isn't magic or voodoo. You can argue the enjoyability of it all you want, but it is pretty much impossible to argue the economics.

2) If you look at the actual breakout of air transport, you would see that airline activity accounts for the VAST majority of all flying. Between airlines and air cargo flown under Part 121 (basically revenue airlines with more than 9 seats), you cover the vast, vast majority of flying. Biz jets are more prevalent than they used to be, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as airliners. The longer the route, the fewer "private" airplanes you will see, as the cost increases exponentially.

https://www.nbaa.org/business-aviation/fact-book/business-aviation-fact-book-2014.pdf

*There were 20.8 million "General Aviation" operations as of the last data for 2014. If you subtract instructional activity (students learning to fly or people staying current) it was around 16 million operations.

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-economic-and-social-benefits-of-air-transport.pdf

** Conversely, there were 38.2 million commercial airline flights as of the latest data, which was not only 2x the number of operations for "general aviation" aircraft, but resulted in the transport of 3.6 BILLION people and $2.7 TRILLION in economic activity.

They did that on 85 billion gallons of fuel in 2016.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants.


*** This is noteworthy for 2 reasons.

A) Transportation is the largest single sector for greenhouse gas emissions. It accounts for 28% of the total produced in the US. Of that, over half is from light duty cars and trucks. Now, this is relevant to the discussion because the US has BY FAR the most prevalent, largest and well developed air transport system in the world. Of IATA's estimated 26,000 commercial aircraft in use world wide, roughly 7,000 of those are in use in the US alone. The four largest airlines on the planet are based in the US.

There is something like 90,000 daily commercial airlines flights world wide, and airlines like American, Delta and United account for around 25,000 of those per day, not to mention the other flights in just the US industry.

B) Despite the scale that most people have no clue about and can't fathom, there are still MORE gains to be made by focusing on cars, most of which normally drive around with 1 person on board. So while 25MPG isn't unrealistic, neither is the .04 gallons per mile with single occupancy.

C) Interestingly, energy generation also accounts for 28%, which is one reason BEV's don't pencil out yet.

3) The rest of your post is completely irrelevant because unions have nothing to do with fuel savings. There is no union push to keep old, fuel inefficient airliners in service, so I am not sure where you got that idea from. In fact, most unions willingly push for newer airplanes, as they offer more safety margin, more comfort and more profitability for the company they depend on for economic sustenance.

The aviation industry specifically has seen an average of 20-30% net fuel savings with each subsequent generation of airplanes (with the 727 burning ~30% less than the 707, the MD-80/737-300 burning 20-30% less than the 727 and the 737NG/A329 burning ~20% less than the MD-80/737-300, etc.) If you look at it purely mathematically, a 737-9MAX is literally moving the same number of people the same distance on well less than half the fuel that a 707 was doing it for in 1960. It is doing it on half to slightly more than half of what a 727 was doing it for in 1980 and it is moving more people than an MD-80 was for 30% less fuel burn in 1990. It is even doing it for 15-20% less than what a 737-900 is doing it for today, and it fundamentally the same airplane.

That also means a fraction of the CO2, NOX, particulates, etc. Like orders of magnitude less.

Something like an A321NEO is probably averaging about .008 gallons per passenger/per mile, which is about 20% of what a 25MPG car with 1 person is doing.

4) Considering General Aviation, when you factor out the thousands of piston engined airplanes doing mundane work like rapid package delivery, flight training, aerial mapping, power line inspection, etc, you are left with relatively few "gas guzzling" private jets that are globetrotting guys like Elon Musk all over the world.

Those small airplanes are less fuel efficient than cars, but they are also relatively small in number (though the fly a disproportional amount). I am all about technological advancement at that stage (and it has started in earnest), but it boils down to cost and reliability, so that segment is hugely conservative when it comes to adopting new technology. But hey, when you have 1 engine to bet your life on and it is costing you nearly $200 an hour to do it, I can understand the viewpoint of cost and reliability. Did it for years.

****Did you know that an IO-360 powered, 4 cylinder Cessna 172 has 8 spark plugs for redundancy? Did you know those spark plugs have to be cleaned and maintained (possibly replaced) every 50 hours of use? Did you know that a set of spark plugs for a Cessna 172 is about $800? Did you know that the engines have to be rebuilt about every 2,000 hours at a cost of about $20,000? Cost is a real issue at that level.



Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-03-2018 06:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
D'oh! US gallons.

I had a rule of thumb of ~30 passenger MPG for large passenger planes and that's about 25/0.83...

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-03-2018 12:58
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
You guys know where I'm at on the significance of GHG emissions and fuel economy (don't care, impact wildly exaggerated by the "climate science" community).

I am more curious about NOx and particulate emissions. I think that's an area where certainly there is room for improvement when it comes to aircraft.

The most recent study I've found is by Yim, et al.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034001/meta

I think the whole "premature deaths" measurement is highly speculative and an invention of scaremongers because they have a hard time pointing to specific causative effects. That said, Yim suggests that just takeoff and landing events have a pretty significant pollution impact.

Unfotunately, cleaning up particulates and NOx simply through combustion efficiency improvements is difficult. And I don't see us putting filters on the exhaust of aircraft turbines any time soon. It really comes down to a cost/benefit equation, and the benefit of having rapid, safe air transport is pretty substantial and the asserted cost seems low.

SC

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-04-2018 02:10
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Some of these are older, but I found them interesting:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/sites/waitz/publications/Ann.Rev.reprint.pdf

http://ccap.org/assets/Aircraft-Nox-Emissions-Analysis-of-New-Certification-Standard-and-Options-for-Introducing-an-Airport-Bubble_CCAP-February-2005.pdf

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940032744.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/sites/waitz/publications/engine_aging.pdf

http://www.purepowerengine.com/cleaner.htm

You are exactly correct that particulates and NOx remain the biggest hurdles. As you well know, as they push fuel efficiency up by burning more fuel, the particulates get smaller, and as temps go up, NOx becomes problematic.

It is interesting how features like combuster design have had significant effects on NOx production, even though combustion temps have skyrocketed in the last 20-30 years.

I included the Pratt & Whitney Pure Power 1000G link because one of the ways they are achieving this is to reduce the size of the engine core and relying more on the bypass air from the fan to provide the thrust. Of course, since it isn't being burned, it drives total emissions down for a given thrust level, as well as reducing noise, etc.

Anyway, this engine is one of the more innovative transport category engines to be designed in memory and it has been plagued with teething issues, but promises to make large strides in the area of emissions when they get it worked out.

In contrast, GE/Safran has taken the derivative approach with the LEAP, which is the direct competitor to the Pure Power series (both power the essential and ubiquitous A320/737 series. It's interesting that even with the more conservative approach, GE/Safran claims thrust specific fuel efficiency improvements of 15%, 20% lower carbon emissions and 50% lower NOx emissions vs the previous generation engine on the 737-700/800/900.

I also don't doubt that takeoffs are major pollution events, but it is interesting to note that fuel flows at idle on the ground are typically about 30% or so of cruise consumption and the engine is far out of its ideal operating range. I haven't found one, but I will see if I can track down an analysis of jets idling for excessive amounts of time vs higher frequency of departures and arrivals. I am sure there is some environmental factors, but I can say anecdotally that the air quality around airports that tend to keep metal moving efficiently seems to be better than airports that don't, on average.

Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-04-2018 05:28
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
That's probably akin to truck drivers and lung cancer; causality and correlation.

One of the problems was that for a long time, they tended to blame cigarette smoking primarily, whereas these days it appears to be regarded as a significant secondary risk-increaser.

It was probably more expedient to tax tobacco companies, rather than to force industries to spend money cleaning up their acts.

It's difficult to think of an effective method of improving jet idle situations; I cannot foresee some sort of SCR being fitted, and an idle-stop device would not be practicable either, I think. It's not as if the buggers will re-start 'on the button'.

I wonder if VAG made aircraft, how on earth would they design an idle defeat device..?

lexusgs
Profile for lexusgs
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-04-2018 13:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Maybe we might want to get back to talking about the subject of this thread, the NSX-R?
superchg2
Profile for superchg2
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-04-2018 14:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
lexusgs wrote:
Maybe we might want to get back to talking about the subject of this thread, the NSX-R?

With sales of only 15 last month, sounds like a waste of time.

lexusgs
Profile for lexusgs
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-04-2018 18:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
superchg2 wrote:
lexusgs wrote:
Maybe we might want to get back to talking about the subject of this thread, the NSX-R?

With sales of only 15 last month, sounds like a waste of time.



So they should just throw in the towel and give up again?

Maybe the reason sales are only 15 a month is because there is just one version available and there is not much talk about it anymore in car mags.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-05-2018 00:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Nick GravesX wrote:
That's probably akin to truck drivers and lung cancer; causality and correlation.

One of the problems was that for a long time, they tended to blame cigarette smoking primarily, whereas these days it appears to be regarded as a significant secondary risk-increaser.

It was probably more expedient to tax tobacco companies, rather than to force industries to spend money cleaning up their acts.

It's difficult to think of an effective method of improving jet idle situations; I cannot foresee some sort of SCR being fitted, and an idle-stop device would not be practicable either, I think. It's not as if the buggers will re-start 'on the button'.

I wonder if VAG made aircraft, how on earth would they design an idle defeat device..?



Well, as with most things, an understanding of the system is in order.

First, jet engines are like any engine. They are hopelessly inefficient if they are running on the ground with the airplane stopped. They aren't designed for it to an even greater degree than cars. So when you have airports with fierce opposition from environmentalists to not expand, or are landlocked, then you get more airplanes sitting there spewing more pollution because they aren't moving, but are still burning gas. LA always comes to mind when I think of this because not only are they very landlocked in terms of being able to build new infrastructure, but ANY proposal for expansion is met with "if you build more, demand will go up and the last three times it was expanded are PROOF!" The problem is that the infrastructure is so beyond capacity that the amount of expansion required to not appear to just be additional demand would be impossible given the space available.

Sort of like LAX O'Hare, and New York's 3 airports. All are landlocked, all are in major metro areas and all face huge environmental opposition. New York could probably easily handle double the air traffic economically, but everything is running at 105% capacity on a GOOD day, so you have to have a slot to get in or out and when the weather goes bad, so does everything else.

We have a regulation called the "1, 2, 3 rule" that is related to needing an alternate airport (it specifies weather criteria that require an alternate airport and the subsequent additional fuel) and we used to make fun of Newark Airport (it would apply equally to La Guardia and JFK too) for having their own 1,2,3 rule: "1 cloud, 2 drops of rain, 3 hour delays." LOL.

As for the engines, they COULD do something like a pulsejet at idle, but I don't know how complex that would get or how reliable it would be.

As for the carcinogens, we get zapped with something like 400% the annual recommended dose of radiation anyway, so there is that.

silverf16
Profile for silverf16
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-05-2018 00:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Maybe they sold 15 units in May because:

"Acura sold lots of NSXes at the end of 2017, as dealers cleared out showroom inventory used for marketing and the NSX had its second and third best US months in October and November 2017, with 87 and 83 sold, respectively. As a result, inventory for 2018 NSXes has been limited"

"And a lot of customers are placing custom orders for NSXes, which is common for cars in this price bracket. Those custom-ordered NSXes won't be built for a few more months"

Wait, that was last month's excuse for selling an entire 5 units. Can we spin that excuse again?

At least Acura tripled the units from April to May. Acura Marketing can put that on their headlines for May sales.

Wait a few more months and see what unfolds.



Nick GravesX
Profile for Nick GravesX
Re: 2020 NSX Type-R    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-05-2018 03:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
Nick GravesX wrote:
That's probably akin to truck drivers and lung cancer; causality and correlation.

One of the problems was that for a long time, they tended to blame cigarette smoking primarily, whereas these days it appears to be regarded as a significant secondary risk-increaser.

It was probably more expedient to tax tobacco companies, rather than to force industries to spend money cleaning up their acts.

It's difficult to think of an effective method of improving jet idle situations; I cannot foresee some sort of SCR being fitted, and an idle-stop device would not be practicable either, I think. It's not as if the buggers will re-start 'on the button'.

I wonder if VAG made aircraft, how on earth would they design an idle defeat device..?



Well, as with most things, an understanding of the system is in order.

First, jet engines are like any engine. They are hopelessly inefficient if they are running on the ground with the airplane stopped. They aren't designed for it to an even greater degree than cars. So when you have airports with fierce opposition from environmentalists to not expand, or are landlocked, then you get more airplanes sitting there spewing more pollution because they aren't moving, but are still burning gas. LA always comes to mind when I think of this because not only are they very landlocked in terms of being able to build new infrastructure, but ANY proposal for expansion is met with "if you build more, demand will go up and the last three times it was expanded are PROOF!" The problem is that the infrastructure is so beyond capacity that the amount of expansion required to not appear to just be additional demand would be impossible given the space available.

Sort of like LAX O'Hare, and New York's 3 airports. All are landlocked, all are in major metro areas and all face huge environmental opposition. New York could probably easily handle double the air traffic economically, but everything is running at 105% capacity on a GOOD day, so you have to have a slot to get in or out and when the weather goes bad, so does everything else.

We have a regulation called the "1, 2, 3 rule" that is related to needing an alternate airport (it specifies weather criteria that require an alternate airport and the subsequent additional fuel) and we used to make fun of Newark Airport (it would apply equally to La Guardia and JFK too) for having their own 1,2,3 rule: "1 cloud, 2 drops of rain, 3 hour delays." LOL.

As for the engines, they COULD do something like a pulsejet at idle, but I don't know how complex that would get or how reliable it would be.

As for the carcinogens, we get zapped with something like 400% the annual recommended dose of radiation anyway, so there is that.



Yeah, I get that bit. It's akin to the anti-car lobby engineering traffic jams to 'encourage people to use public transport' and creating unnecessary pollution.

I'll look into a pulsejet - thanks!

It is an unfortunate term of the job, that you get ionized on a daily basis - be careful or they'll make you wear tin-filed suits. I suppose from a libertarian perspective, it's part of the deal, whereas the heavy pollution around airports is affecting 'non-combatants' and those ignorant of it and then there is a potential legal claim for damages. That could be complex and costly.


 
Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0