<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FuelVapor AlÃ©.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/</link>
	<description>The Neat Side of the Web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:20:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sid Morrison</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-144149</link>
		<dc:creator>Sid Morrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-144149</guid>
		<description>Yeah, Kudos to Michael on posting the Tesla site link.  I thought of exactly the same thing myself after my prior posting.

Now, I&#039;m not a big fan of electric cars, but the guys behind Tesla are actually doing it right:

1.  They have a real business plan aimed at selling cars, not getting investors.
2.  Their business plan makes sense -- roll out the $90K car first, then progressively cheaper models as volume builds up.  They aren&#039;t pushing an unrealistically low price upfront for the 1st model.
3.  They are enlisting help from experts where needed -- the basic chassis is based off a Lotus Elise, a vehicle known for light weight.
4.  They clearly *do* know the technology and have made good choices when compromises needed to be made.  You can argue with some of their optimism about a few things, but the plan is pretty sound, as is their technology. The same is not true of this FuelVapor car.

Straight talk from Sid. I wish them well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, Kudos to Michael on posting the Tesla site link.  I thought of exactly the same thing myself after my prior posting.</p>
<p>Now, I&#8217;m not a big fan of electric cars, but the guys behind Tesla are actually doing it right:</p>
<p>1.  They have a real business plan aimed at selling cars, not getting investors.<br />
2.  Their business plan makes sense &#8212; roll out the $90K car first, then progressively cheaper models as volume builds up.  They aren&#8217;t pushing an unrealistically low price upfront for the 1st model.<br />
3.  They are enlisting help from experts where needed &#8212; the basic chassis is based off a Lotus Elise, a vehicle known for light weight.<br />
4.  They clearly *do* know the technology and have made good choices when compromises needed to be made.  You can argue with some of their optimism about a few things, but the plan is pretty sound, as is their technology. The same is not true of this FuelVapor car.</p>
<p>Straight talk from Sid. I wish them well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-144010</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-144010</guid>
		<description>This definitely looks like a shady (at best) venture.  If you really want to turn heads without having to pull up to the pump, I would suggest checking out Tesla Motors: http://www.teslamotors.com/  All I need to do is find an extra hundred grand in between my couch cushions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This definitely looks like a shady (at best) venture.  If you really want to turn heads without having to pull up to the pump, I would suggest checking out Tesla Motors: <a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.teslamotors.com/</a>  All I need to do is find an extra hundred grand in between my couch cushions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tinderbox</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-142148</link>
		<dc:creator>Tinderbox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-142148</guid>
		<description>Looks like Joe Camel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Joe Camel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sid Morrison</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-142140</link>
		<dc:creator>Sid Morrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:41:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-142140</guid>
		<description>This one is a scam, folks.  The &quot;technology&quot; they are pushing is hokey -- their site is full of half-truths and downright falsehoods concerning the technology.  Note that they are looking for investors, not people to buy the cars. That is always the giveaway...

First, there&#039;s nothing &quot;magic&quot; about running pre-vaporized fuel. It&#039;s been done many times before.  The emissions can be a little better (mostly at low temperature starts), but not gobs better. You will still need a catalytic converter I assure you.

Secondly, if you try to run at 20:1, you will seriously hurt your power density.  There are stratified charge engines now that will cruise at 45:1 or higher, but they go back to stoichiometric operation (14.6:1) when power is called for. 

Third, if the CO2 is reduced 30%, then by DEFINITION the fuel consumption will be the same amount (unless they are running a different fuel, and they are claiming *gasoline vapor*, not something else).  The fact they are claiming only a 10-20% reduction in fuel consumption shows they are technically inept.

Fourth:  20:1 is not declared &quot;impossible&quot; by textbooks. Rather NOx emissions get really bad there and conventional catalysts do not function well at cleaning up a lean feedstream, so they don&#039;t help much either.

I can elaborate more, but this is a major scam. &quot;We have a flashy website -- be an investor, please&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This one is a scam, folks.  The &#8220;technology&#8221; they are pushing is hokey &#8212; their site is full of half-truths and downright falsehoods concerning the technology.  Note that they are looking for investors, not people to buy the cars. That is always the giveaway&#8230;</p>
<p>First, there&#8217;s nothing &#8220;magic&#8221; about running pre-vaporized fuel. It&#8217;s been done many times before.  The emissions can be a little better (mostly at low temperature starts), but not gobs better. You will still need a catalytic converter I assure you.</p>
<p>Secondly, if you try to run at 20:1, you will seriously hurt your power density.  There are stratified charge engines now that will cruise at 45:1 or higher, but they go back to stoichiometric operation (14.6:1) when power is called for. </p>
<p>Third, if the CO2 is reduced 30%, then by DEFINITION the fuel consumption will be the same amount (unless they are running a different fuel, and they are claiming *gasoline vapor*, not something else).  The fact they are claiming only a 10-20% reduction in fuel consumption shows they are technically inept.</p>
<p>Fourth:  20:1 is not declared &#8220;impossible&#8221; by textbooks. Rather NOx emissions get really bad there and conventional catalysts do not function well at cleaning up a lean feedstream, so they don&#8217;t help much either.</p>
<p>I can elaborate more, but this is a major scam. &#8220;We have a flashy website &#8212; be an investor, please&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denita TwoDragons</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-141977</link>
		<dc:creator>Denita TwoDragons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-141977</guid>
		<description>Supper-efficient?! *LMAO!* That was mos def a Freudian slip, seeing as I&#039;m thinking about dinner...

--TwoDragons</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Supper-efficient?! *LMAO!* That was mos def a Freudian slip, seeing as I&#8217;m thinking about dinner&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8211;TwoDragons</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denita TwoDragons</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/comment-page-1/#comment-141976</link>
		<dc:creator>Denita TwoDragons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/03/fuelvapor-ale/#comment-141976</guid>
		<description>FINALLY! An supper-efficient car that doesn&#039;t look like a rinkydink little toy! 

--TwoDragons</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FINALLY! An supper-efficient car that doesn&#8217;t look like a rinkydink little toy! </p>
<p>&#8211;TwoDragons</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Page Cached by VaroCMS @ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:19:53 +0000 --><!-- page generated in 0.089 seconds -->
