Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade, Hush
Neil Young warehouse blaze started in hybrid 'LincVolt' car
By Joshua Melvin
[email protected]
Posted: 11/16/2010 07:47:46 AM PST
Updated: 11/16/2010 10:02:40 AM PST
The three-alarm blaze that caused $1.1 million in damage to a warehouse filled with rock legend Neil Young's music equipment and memorabilia appears to have started in a one-of-a-kind hybrid car stored at the site, a fire official said Monday.
Flames began in a 1959 Lincoln Continental dubbed LincVolt, which runs on electric batteries and a biodiesel-powered generator, and then spread to the warehouse at 593 Quarry Road in the early morning of Nov. 9, according to Belmont-San Carlos Fire Marshal Jim Palisi and a website devoted to the car.
Young assembled a team of workers in 2008 to convert the 19.5-foot behemoth from gasoline to hybrid power, an effort he chronicled in a four-part film series.
While the exact cause of the fire is still being probed, it seems "to be an operator error that occurred in an untested part of the charging system," Young wrote in a statement. Workers have removed the car's computer and hope it will shed light on the cause.
"We are investigating the components involved with plug-in charging," Young wrote.
The flames severely damaged the car and caused an estimated total of $850,000 in damage to the items Young had stored in the roughly 10,000-square-foot warehouse. On the morning of the fire, Young's workers and friends carried guitars, framed photos, film canisters and crates of musical equipment out of the burned structure. Damage to the building is estimated at $250,000, Palisi said.
"How
Advertisement
do you put a price on that vehicle?" Palisi added. "To me, it's priceless."
Firefighters managed to save at least 70 percent of the building's contents, which included five other classic cars. They raced to the scene about 2:55 a.m. and had the blaze under control by 3:45 a.m., officials said.
Young expressed his thanks to the fire department for saving what they could of his items in the warehouse, saying "a lot of archival items were threatened and the fire department did a first-class job protecting them."
The music legend had just returned from an appearance at the Specialty Equipment Market Association car show in Las Vegas, where he delivered a talk on the hybrid.
"I love my car," he told the audience.
D'oh reading is fundamental and I guess I was just mental when I read your post.GlockandRoll wrote:Methanol...
http://www.gbodyparts.com/product_info. ... cts_id=469
I want to see actual miles driven and fuel used.GlockandRoll wrote:I remember there was a lot of s--t-talking here about turbo's not adding efficiency, here's a video that you guys may be interested in:
C6 Corvette w/ STS twin-turbo kit, 650 HP and 40+MPG on the highway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZVBgQU-mCs
Who cares what you want to see?tmix wrote: I want to see actual miles driven and fuel used.
Turbochargers use exhaust gas scavenging, it's thermal dynamics 101. It's wasted heat energy that is being pushed out the tailpipe, likewise the engine is pulling air in. When a turbocharger is used on an engine under normal loads, not increased boost, they help the engine run more efficiently.TROOPER wrote:This fucking thread!! Damnit all to hell, man!
Alright. If it boosts the fuel efficiency of a Corvette, that only proves that the engine wasn't getting enough O2 through natural aspiration. That is an anecdote. This does not mean that any car with a turbo will see an improvement in efficiency.
What is a turbo doing anyway? It pumps air into the intake so that more fuel can be burned correctly. In a car without a turbo, mashing the gas pedal down will dump in more fuel, right? But if you don't get more O2 also, then you don't get a proper air/fuel ratio. So without a turbo, there is only so much fuel you can efficiently burn - basically, its a cap on power.
That said - the apparatus to pump in air isn't free - it costs energy somewhere. In a clever system, it would use energy that is being dumped anyway - heat would be the best candidate since it is being generated and not used.
THIS DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!
-----------------------
ETA: ... except that Corvette's are the balls, yo.
The benefits of the back-pressure created by a turbocharger outweigh it's drawbacks, and they consistently boost MPG. In fact you may be the only person on the entire planet who doesn't understand this - they way I see it. In fact, it's clear you have little to no experience with reciprocating piston internal combustion engines.TROOPER wrote:Exhaust isn't a free energy source. Those silly, loud-ass ricers with the over-sized exhuast do what they do in an attempt to reduce the effort of the engine to expel exhaust through the muffler. Look at it in silencer/gun terms. If you really wanted to minimize blow-back, you'd take the silencer off completely. The downside is that its louder.
With ricers, its a compromise... there's still *some* muffler there, but it doesn't suppress worth a s--t. On the plus side, its less work for the engine. Using a high-flow exhaust doesn't give more power to the engine, but it does put more of the engine's power to the tires, and less on venting exhaust.
A turbo actually increases back pressure, because now the engine has to basically turn a windmill on the way to the tail-pipe. Of course that windmill generates power by increasing fuel burn rate - but that isn't the same as efficiency. That's power. Theoretically, the system decreases efficiency as a cost, with the benefit being an increase in power.
On this particular example, it could be that the Corvette's big engine wasn't getting enough air normally to run at its best. It is a big engine afterall. By the same token, its big-block V-8 might see less of a decrease in power per piston to turn that turbo-charger... especially compared with a very, very small 4-cylinder.
Either way - the automotive industry is a mature industry, breakthroughs are usually small, and growth is at the margins. Turbochargers are a well-known tool, it isn't a new thing. If they consistently boosted MPG, then all cars would have them because the big manufacturers seek increases in MPG all the time. Even if there were some kind of conspiracy where the oil company prevented that from being true somehow, there'd be a thriving cottage industry for after-market alterations to give everyone that boost in MPG. It just isn't there across the board - or even for most of the board.
diesel would have , especially going uphill soo how many new diesels cars have you seen lately WITHOUT a turbochargerTROOPER wrote:Exhaust isn't a free energy source. Those silly, loud-ass ricers with the over-sized exhuast do what they do in an attempt to reduce the effort of the engine to expel exhaust through the muffler. Look at it in silencer/gun terms. If you really wanted to minimize blow-back, you'd take the silencer off completely. The downside is that its louder.
With ricers, its a compromise... there's still *some* muffler there, but it doesn't suppress worth a s--t. On the plus side, its less work for the engine. Using a high-flow exhaust doesn't give more power to the engine, but it does put more of the engine's power to the tires, and less on venting exhaust.
A turbo actually increases back pressure, because now the engine has to basically turn a windmill on the way to the tail-pipe. Of course that windmill generates power by increasing fuel burn rate - but that isn't the same as efficiency. That's power. Theoretically, the system decreases efficiency as a cost, with the benefit being an increase in power.
On this particular example, it could be that the Corvette's big engine wasn't getting enough air normally to run at its best. It is a big engine afterall. By the same token, its big-block V-8 might see less of a decrease in power per piston to turn that turbo-charger... especially compared with a very, very small 4-cylinder.
Either way - the automotive industry is a mature industry, breakthroughs are usually small, and growth is at the margins. Turbochargers are a well-known tool, it isn't a new thing. If they consistently boosted MPG, then all cars would have them because the big manufacturers seek increases in MPG all the time. Even if there were some kind of conspiracy where the oil company prevented that from being true somehow, there'd be a thriving cottage industry for after-market alterations to give everyone that boost in MPG. It just isn't there across the board - or even for most of the board.
So harsh!GlockandRoll wrote: The benefits of the back-pressure created by a turbocharger outweigh it's drawbacks, and they consistently boost MPG. In fact you may be the only person on the entire planet who doesn't understand this - they way I see it. In fact, it's clear you have little to no experience with reciprocating piston internal combustion engines.
What point are you arguing, other than for the sake of arguing:TROOPER wrote: So harsh!
Did you see the first part of my post that said if its boosting the MPG, then that means the engine wasn't getting enough air naturally? You did see that right? Its there. I can quote it if you want. Hang on
Yep - I just scrolled down and its still there. I'll check again if you'd like. Goddamn you're impatient.
Yeah - holy s--t - its still there.
Its clear that you don't understand something simple as well - which is that the turbo-charger isn't free. If it improves MPG, then that means that the engine wasn't getting enough air NATURALLY.
INSUFFICIENTLY NATURALLY ASPIRATED!
not free at all 
