1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 12:54AM
<HTML>Anybody know of an on-line source which has the DOT studies of steam powered cars? Or of the research the car makers have done on this? I'm getting my tushie kicked on another message board for daring to suggest that a steamer could be an equal to an internal combustion engined car. Thanks.</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 01:34AM
<HTML>Can you give us an outlline of the arguments that have been made to date?</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 02:11AM
<HTML>Well, here's one:
Steam is rather inefficient. ICE is a one step conversion (chemical energy -> mechanical energy) and steam is at least a two step conversion. Eavh additional step causes some losses in energy as conversion is not even near 100%.
Here's another:
I'd like to see some support for that if I may. I'd like to see a steam engine in the 100 - 300 HP range which is more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Supposing it exists we can then deal with using it in a car.
They want facts and hard numbers which I don't happen to have handy at the moment, so I was hoping that one of you folks (nice place you've got here, by the way, been thinking about building a steam powered motorcycle, so I'll definately be sticking around here). You can read the whole mess at:
[boards.straightdope.com]
<a href="http://steamgazette.com/phorum-3.3/profile.php4?f=1&id=27">Terry Williams</a> wrote:
>
> Can you give us an outlline of the arguments that have
> been made to date?</HTML>
Steam is rather inefficient. ICE is a one step conversion (chemical energy -> mechanical energy) and steam is at least a two step conversion. Eavh additional step causes some losses in energy as conversion is not even near 100%.
Here's another:
I'd like to see some support for that if I may. I'd like to see a steam engine in the 100 - 300 HP range which is more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Supposing it exists we can then deal with using it in a car.
They want facts and hard numbers which I don't happen to have handy at the moment, so I was hoping that one of you folks (nice place you've got here, by the way, been thinking about building a steam powered motorcycle, so I'll definately be sticking around here). You can read the whole mess at:
[boards.straightdope.com]
<a href="http://steamgazette.com/phorum-3.3/profile.php4?f=1&id=27">Terry Williams</a> wrote:
>
> Can you give us an outlline of the arguments that have
> been made to date?</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 10:16AM
<HTML>Brian,
The D.O.T. hearings and research contracts in the late 60's were not concerned about efficiency at all, they were totally concerned about low emmisions and pollution,
There first meeting in Washington had the the requiredments of a steam car that could equal the performance of a full sized Buick with 5 people on board!!!--in there shortsightedness they were not even looking for efficiency or economy. Just a few years later we had the early 70's gas shortages and that doomed the steam projects. I was in attendance at these meetings for the MIT Instrumentation Labs. So whatever you do get from the D.O.T. will not have very good results for efficiency or miles per gallon. A Stanley has only 6-8% thermal efficiency and the Doble possibly 12-14% on the road, a far cry from a good modern gas car that can reach steady state 20% going down the road. The overall efficiency including traffic, stopping would fair much better for the steamer and tend to equalize things, that is a point that you could bring out. It is possible that data recorded on the Williams steam car and Ted Prichard's very efficient Falcon would yield equivalent results to the modern gas car.
Best, George</HTML>
The D.O.T. hearings and research contracts in the late 60's were not concerned about efficiency at all, they were totally concerned about low emmisions and pollution,
There first meeting in Washington had the the requiredments of a steam car that could equal the performance of a full sized Buick with 5 people on board!!!--in there shortsightedness they were not even looking for efficiency or economy. Just a few years later we had the early 70's gas shortages and that doomed the steam projects. I was in attendance at these meetings for the MIT Instrumentation Labs. So whatever you do get from the D.O.T. will not have very good results for efficiency or miles per gallon. A Stanley has only 6-8% thermal efficiency and the Doble possibly 12-14% on the road, a far cry from a good modern gas car that can reach steady state 20% going down the road. The overall efficiency including traffic, stopping would fair much better for the steamer and tend to equalize things, that is a point that you could bring out. It is possible that data recorded on the Williams steam car and Ted Prichard's very efficient Falcon would yield equivalent results to the modern gas car.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 11:34AM
<HTML>Brian,
I note in reading through the thread you mentioned that industry has not come up with successful steam developments. That is true, but look at the funding provided and the balance of funding between steam and ICE. Even when Detroit has tried, they failed miserably. Around 1970 GM funded two steam cars, one built by engineers at GM, the other built by Bill Besler. The Besler car was far superior and was based on Doble techiniques many years old at the time. It still runs. The GM car was a piece of crap. Jay Carter has a steam car that was comparable to gasoline cars at the time it was built. I think it still runs but Jay doesn't have time to fool with it. But you may see the boiler in another vehicle in the not too distant future.
There was a statement in the thread regarding man carrying steam aircraft. Bill Besler flew a steam powered plane in 1933. The engine was directly reversable and it could land in a short space. It was also reported that he could talk to people on the ground while flying it.
Basic problem with efficiency of steam in a vehicle is the upper temperature limit of the working fluid in the cycle.</HTML>
I note in reading through the thread you mentioned that industry has not come up with successful steam developments. That is true, but look at the funding provided and the balance of funding between steam and ICE. Even when Detroit has tried, they failed miserably. Around 1970 GM funded two steam cars, one built by engineers at GM, the other built by Bill Besler. The Besler car was far superior and was based on Doble techiniques many years old at the time. It still runs. The GM car was a piece of crap. Jay Carter has a steam car that was comparable to gasoline cars at the time it was built. I think it still runs but Jay doesn't have time to fool with it. But you may see the boiler in another vehicle in the not too distant future.
There was a statement in the thread regarding man carrying steam aircraft. Bill Besler flew a steam powered plane in 1933. The engine was directly reversable and it could land in a short space. It was also reported that he could talk to people on the ground while flying it.
Basic problem with efficiency of steam in a vehicle is the upper temperature limit of the working fluid in the cycle.</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 03:31PM
<HTML>It is true that full power efficiency of Otto cycle engines is much higher than possible in a small steam plant. BUT, in a car, the engine practically never runs at full power as the engine must be sized for the peak power required. An Otto cycle engine suffers severe loss of efficiency when throttled, it uses twice as much fuell per horse power at 1/4 throttle as it does at full power.
A steam engine can be designed to produce its best efficiency under normal cruising conditions, and still have high peak power at lower efficiency for acceleration. Thus a less efficient steam engine may well get more miles per gallon than the Otto cycle engine if both cars are designed with performance to suit American drivers.</HTML>
A steam engine can be designed to produce its best efficiency under normal cruising conditions, and still have high peak power at lower efficiency for acceleration. Thus a less efficient steam engine may well get more miles per gallon than the Otto cycle engine if both cars are designed with performance to suit American drivers.</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2002 04:06PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
Take great heed in what David has said, the gas cars do not run at full power more than a fraction of the time. At part load they are not good at all.
My 1987 Mercedes-Benz E-300 six cylinder turbo Diesel consistantly gets 26.3 mpg in town with the air conditioning running and my using the turbo often. On a trip the car gets around 30.1 mpg at 70 mph. Real world numbers, I keep track of it for my own information.
My 1991 F-250 Ford Diesel truck, non turbo, consistantly gets 23 mpg in town and 27 on long drives at its sweet spot, 2300 rpm, about 75 mph. Also real world numbers.
The Doble gets about 8-9 in town and I have not made any long trips yet, aand it is nowhere near tuned to give its best as yet.
As a consulltant on the steam bus project, I had good contact with almost all the developers that were active in the 1958-85 period. I still have boxes of their reports from that era. The DOT and EPA numbers were more often than not extrapolated from steady state dyno runs, and in the real world, phony as hell. Assumptions were made by people who knew nothing about steam cars and didn't want to be told what worked and what didn't in a steam car. And the government politicians that ran the programs knew even less.
Kindly remember, these people, with the one exception of Bill Besler, WERE IN THE GOVERNMENT GRANT BUSINESS, NOT THE STEAM CAR BUSINESS.
The G.M. SE-101 was a bad joke, Besler's SE-124 was certainly not, old Doble technology or not. It worked. It also made several trips from Emeryville to the L.A. area with no problems, something no other steam car in that program period ever did. None were road worthy.
If we continue to exchange this good thinking about a new steamer, we may just possibly evolve a design that shows that the steam car is a viable system. It not only burns cleanly, with a good burner, but can burn all sorts of liquid fuels that are nowhere near as energy dependent to make as gasoline today. Consider the total energy cost of making alcohol, in the end it is not an efficient fuel at all.
Electric car batteries are not there, and for the forseeable future, no magic battery is going to appear. Fuel cells are a political placibo, are horribly costly, fragile and demand a reliable conversion to get the hydrogen in the vehicle.
The present idea from Washington to reduce CO2 is pure political posturing.
Let us continue by all means, there are enough brains working on new steam car engineering right now than ever were applied before.
It ain't dead yet!!
Jim</HTML>
Take great heed in what David has said, the gas cars do not run at full power more than a fraction of the time. At part load they are not good at all.
My 1987 Mercedes-Benz E-300 six cylinder turbo Diesel consistantly gets 26.3 mpg in town with the air conditioning running and my using the turbo often. On a trip the car gets around 30.1 mpg at 70 mph. Real world numbers, I keep track of it for my own information.
My 1991 F-250 Ford Diesel truck, non turbo, consistantly gets 23 mpg in town and 27 on long drives at its sweet spot, 2300 rpm, about 75 mph. Also real world numbers.
The Doble gets about 8-9 in town and I have not made any long trips yet, aand it is nowhere near tuned to give its best as yet.
As a consulltant on the steam bus project, I had good contact with almost all the developers that were active in the 1958-85 period. I still have boxes of their reports from that era. The DOT and EPA numbers were more often than not extrapolated from steady state dyno runs, and in the real world, phony as hell. Assumptions were made by people who knew nothing about steam cars and didn't want to be told what worked and what didn't in a steam car. And the government politicians that ran the programs knew even less.
Kindly remember, these people, with the one exception of Bill Besler, WERE IN THE GOVERNMENT GRANT BUSINESS, NOT THE STEAM CAR BUSINESS.
The G.M. SE-101 was a bad joke, Besler's SE-124 was certainly not, old Doble technology or not. It worked. It also made several trips from Emeryville to the L.A. area with no problems, something no other steam car in that program period ever did. None were road worthy.
If we continue to exchange this good thinking about a new steamer, we may just possibly evolve a design that shows that the steam car is a viable system. It not only burns cleanly, with a good burner, but can burn all sorts of liquid fuels that are nowhere near as energy dependent to make as gasoline today. Consider the total energy cost of making alcohol, in the end it is not an efficient fuel at all.
Electric car batteries are not there, and for the forseeable future, no magic battery is going to appear. Fuel cells are a political placibo, are horribly costly, fragile and demand a reliable conversion to get the hydrogen in the vehicle.
The present idea from Washington to reduce CO2 is pure political posturing.
Let us continue by all means, there are enough brains working on new steam car engineering right now than ever were applied before.
It ain't dead yet!!
Jim</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 29, 2002 12:11AM
<HTML>I think it is at dot.gov where you can find all kinds of amazing facts and figures about the US automobile usage and the one that comes to mind is the number of gallons of fuel wasted in specific cities due to congested traffic. The numbers are staggering and growing at a phenominal rate as the number of vehicles on the road continues to climb. The complex hybrids are built help to curb this type of waste but the steam vehicle can be designed so burner output matches the vehicles needs in normal operation. I would like to know the actual efficiency of the average auto used in New York, LA, London or most other major cities, bet it is pretty low. Jim is right about the government, think about it, we (USA) do not even have a national energy policy. Any energy / enviromental plan they spout off about is just grandstanding to get the green vote.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 29, 2002 06:46AM
<HTML>Hi Guys,
Thanks to everyone for the common sense! I remember saying the same things on other steam forums, and getting the lunatic treatment. "Gas engine = 24% efficient, steam engine = 12%; therefore steam cars use twice the fuel of gas cars, PERIOD, end of discussion!" The gas car boys have some of us brainwashed pretty good. My long, strange trip into steam cars began way back when a friend told me his 1972 Buick Electra got about 10-12 mpg; odd (I thought), that's about the same reported in modern driving for "half the efficiency" 1920s Stanleys & Dobles of similar weight ...
To achieve its theoretically possible ~20% road efficiency at legal highway cruise speed, the gas engine of a typical car has to be no bigger than about 30 hp/kw.. I'd guess its acceleration would then be about 0-60 mph (~0-100km/hr) in around 30 seconds if normally aspirated. Think Yugo. If you want 20% in city driving, forget highway-capable gas engines. Think lawnmower engine. Big difference between full load & part/variable load conditions.
A comparison of gas & steam engine BSFC charts can be deceptive. Steam engines equal/beat gas engines in only a small portion of the chart, at the lower end ("part load"). However, that small portion is exactly where most driving occurs, and most charts don't cover transient conditions (accelerating/decelerating). When idling at a stop, the efficiency of a gas engine is less than zero. And don't forget the higher fuel consumption in short trips, when the gas engine/tranny are warming up (Ted Pritchard does mention this on his website, with engineering literature references). On many short trips, the gas car never warms up completely, and short trips cover a large chunk of automobile use.
One bright spot is that my efficiency article, linked earlier in this thread, is going to be excerpted in a high school science textbook in the fall. I filled out & sent back the reprint permission forms a couple months ago, and now wish I'd written & edited the article a little better, instead of as a dashed-off mess of notes & updates for fellow steam fans. Researchers for the book told me the figures matched their research, but they'd never seen all the numbers put together in one comparative article. So maybe some of the young folks will learn something "on the level" in school for a change, not just the above-mentioned century-old Detroit party line. The editors told me that they are also going to reprint some steam car web links, so we may have some budding engineers asking around the Phorum later this year.
More and more web sources (incl Yahoo) now list steam cars as an alternative automotive technology; quite a change from their status as an "Officially Nonexistant" engine or mere historical curiousity for most of the last century.
Jim is right; the steam car is definitely not dead! Just widely overlooked & massively underfunded. When today's "Official Alternatives" graduate to "obvious flop" status, and some good modern steam cars get attention on the road, this may change surprisingly quickly. Get in on the ground floor now, folks. The facts are on our side, and fuel cells and other "Official Alternatives" have already had stock price collapses and technical setbacks.
For more info on many of the gas-hoggin' Clean Air Era steam cars, check out ERDA 17-54, available as a reprint from the SACA Storeroom (item #204). Lots of interesting and useful info. Also see TM 126, on the Dutcher experimental engine. Both from the SACA Storeroom, via the SACA webpage @ [www.steamautomobile.com]
Peter</HTML>
Thanks to everyone for the common sense! I remember saying the same things on other steam forums, and getting the lunatic treatment. "Gas engine = 24% efficient, steam engine = 12%; therefore steam cars use twice the fuel of gas cars, PERIOD, end of discussion!" The gas car boys have some of us brainwashed pretty good. My long, strange trip into steam cars began way back when a friend told me his 1972 Buick Electra got about 10-12 mpg; odd (I thought), that's about the same reported in modern driving for "half the efficiency" 1920s Stanleys & Dobles of similar weight ...
To achieve its theoretically possible ~20% road efficiency at legal highway cruise speed, the gas engine of a typical car has to be no bigger than about 30 hp/kw.. I'd guess its acceleration would then be about 0-60 mph (~0-100km/hr) in around 30 seconds if normally aspirated. Think Yugo. If you want 20% in city driving, forget highway-capable gas engines. Think lawnmower engine. Big difference between full load & part/variable load conditions.
A comparison of gas & steam engine BSFC charts can be deceptive. Steam engines equal/beat gas engines in only a small portion of the chart, at the lower end ("part load"). However, that small portion is exactly where most driving occurs, and most charts don't cover transient conditions (accelerating/decelerating). When idling at a stop, the efficiency of a gas engine is less than zero. And don't forget the higher fuel consumption in short trips, when the gas engine/tranny are warming up (Ted Pritchard does mention this on his website, with engineering literature references). On many short trips, the gas car never warms up completely, and short trips cover a large chunk of automobile use.
One bright spot is that my efficiency article, linked earlier in this thread, is going to be excerpted in a high school science textbook in the fall. I filled out & sent back the reprint permission forms a couple months ago, and now wish I'd written & edited the article a little better, instead of as a dashed-off mess of notes & updates for fellow steam fans. Researchers for the book told me the figures matched their research, but they'd never seen all the numbers put together in one comparative article. So maybe some of the young folks will learn something "on the level" in school for a change, not just the above-mentioned century-old Detroit party line. The editors told me that they are also going to reprint some steam car web links, so we may have some budding engineers asking around the Phorum later this year.
More and more web sources (incl Yahoo) now list steam cars as an alternative automotive technology; quite a change from their status as an "Officially Nonexistant" engine or mere historical curiousity for most of the last century.
Jim is right; the steam car is definitely not dead! Just widely overlooked & massively underfunded. When today's "Official Alternatives" graduate to "obvious flop" status, and some good modern steam cars get attention on the road, this may change surprisingly quickly. Get in on the ground floor now, folks. The facts are on our side, and fuel cells and other "Official Alternatives" have already had stock price collapses and technical setbacks.
For more info on many of the gas-hoggin' Clean Air Era steam cars, check out ERDA 17-54, available as a reprint from the SACA Storeroom (item #204). Lots of interesting and useful info. Also see TM 126, on the Dutcher experimental engine. Both from the SACA Storeroom, via the SACA webpage @ [www.steamautomobile.com]
Peter</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 29, 2002 01:36PM
<HTML>Peter B.,
My previous post mentioned the steamer having advantages in traffic and stop-go driving, it is just more difficult to match steady highway cruising milage(I would still prefer the steamer!). On average the Williams/Pritchard/Carter cars would probably equal overall fuel milage at speed and be superior in heavy traffic.
Hate to disagree but I always give the example of my 1984 Dodge Caravan(when new) that because of low wind and rolling resistance was claimed to require 25 horsepower to maintain 60mph. This is a 4000# car with stuff in it and would get 30+mpg on a consistent highway basis. Figure it out, this big frontal area box would, at times use less than 3 gallons of gasoline per hour to generate 25(plus a few more for auxilaries) horsepower or an on-the-road efficiency of 18%---and that was 18 years ago. It is a long stretch to compare a 40 mile per hour Stanley with a burn rate of 4 gallons per hour and about 15-16 sustainable horsepower to a 60 mph highway speed modern high milage modern auto. It would take a 8-9 gallon per hour burn rate to move such Stanley down a level road at 60MPH that would require about 35 horsepower. Another case in point, and not intending to demean the steamer, is the legendary Paxton with super high temperatures and pressures, compound steeple engine and modern body would get only 21 miles per gallon @ 60mph. I think the case for the steamer is its great effortless acceleration and ease of movement, a nice high speed road car where efficiency is not the utmost goal, Corvette owners don't care about fuel milage! Certainly modern knowledge and materials could improve upon the Paxton efficiency but someone better have the big bucks ready for such a task at this time.
May someone succeed, George</HTML>
My previous post mentioned the steamer having advantages in traffic and stop-go driving, it is just more difficult to match steady highway cruising milage(I would still prefer the steamer!). On average the Williams/Pritchard/Carter cars would probably equal overall fuel milage at speed and be superior in heavy traffic.
Hate to disagree but I always give the example of my 1984 Dodge Caravan(when new) that because of low wind and rolling resistance was claimed to require 25 horsepower to maintain 60mph. This is a 4000# car with stuff in it and would get 30+mpg on a consistent highway basis. Figure it out, this big frontal area box would, at times use less than 3 gallons of gasoline per hour to generate 25(plus a few more for auxilaries) horsepower or an on-the-road efficiency of 18%---and that was 18 years ago. It is a long stretch to compare a 40 mile per hour Stanley with a burn rate of 4 gallons per hour and about 15-16 sustainable horsepower to a 60 mph highway speed modern high milage modern auto. It would take a 8-9 gallon per hour burn rate to move such Stanley down a level road at 60MPH that would require about 35 horsepower. Another case in point, and not intending to demean the steamer, is the legendary Paxton with super high temperatures and pressures, compound steeple engine and modern body would get only 21 miles per gallon @ 60mph. I think the case for the steamer is its great effortless acceleration and ease of movement, a nice high speed road car where efficiency is not the utmost goal, Corvette owners don't care about fuel milage! Certainly modern knowledge and materials could improve upon the Paxton efficiency but someone better have the big bucks ready for such a task at this time.
May someone succeed, George</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: July 29, 2002 10:43PM
<HTML>The current DOE secretary, Spence Abraham, was in the recent past my US senator. After one term the voters of Michigan fired him. His only job previous to the Senate was as an employee of the Michigan GOP. It is no suprise that this long time friend and neighbor of Grosse Pointe auto executives would offer a plan that sends billions of tax dollars to his country club buddies back in Michigan. Just send a small fraction of that research money back to the GOP and they can recoup the money invested in electric cars in the past. The plan profits the auto execs even though fuel cells are as likely to be a successful power source as controlled thermal nuclear fusion. For the last 40 years both have been only 10 years from commercial viability as long as the subsidies keep coming. Not since Jimmy Carter has an engineer attended a cabinet meeting. By the way, Jimmy's old sub had a steam engine. Neither big business nor big government will tell the truth about steam car potential until some home builder shows the world how to do it.
As for potential energy efficiency improvements the ICE can only add about 10% more before becoming cost prohibitive. Steamers can take the heat not used by the motor and return at least 30% more back to the boiler for little additional cost. Its just a matter of creative plumbing and ductwork.</HTML>
As for potential energy efficiency improvements the ICE can only add about 10% more before becoming cost prohibitive. Steamers can take the heat not used by the motor and return at least 30% more back to the boiler for little additional cost. Its just a matter of creative plumbing and ductwork.</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 30, 2002 06:42AM
<HTML>Hi George,
For comparable weight and acceleration, I think the big-gas-engined current large pickups and SUV's are a better comparison, and these end up with the same fuel mileage as an old Stanley, at least in city driving, which is most driving (and the % of city driving is increasing with urban congestion), and where the antiques can keep up nicely with modern traffic. I'm not advocating putting antique powerplants in modern vehicles, just saying that if these oldtimer vehicles can do this well (even the less-well-designed ones), imagine what we can do today.
No doubt about it, an IC car can be built to beat any steam car's fuel mileage, and there are many on the road (esp diesels) which no steamer could beat, but the required manual trannies, expensive add-ons (like blowers), reduced acceleration, etc are unacceptable to modern drivers. That's why big gas-hogs are the top sellers. And these popular gas-hogs are the real competition, not the more economical designs of 20-30 years ago.
I agree that the steam car's silence, smoothness, easy driving, and performance are the real selling points. 96% of cars have gas engines rather than (long-available and recently much-improved) diesels, those engines are getting progressively larger and more fuel-thirsty, and 90% have automatic trannies, despite the serious fuel mileage penalties of all these options. Why, and whether this is acceptable, is endlessly debatable, but I believe that these options are selected by most consumers in an effort to get the above-mentioned running characteristics which steam cars already have to a greater degree than the best IC cars.
To become competitive, steam cars have a long way to go in convenience, maintenance cost/hassle, unit cost (needs careful design & mass production), and a few other areas, but I think it is doable. Far from easy, but overall more technologically feasible than the other alternative powerplants now in development.
Peter</HTML>
For comparable weight and acceleration, I think the big-gas-engined current large pickups and SUV's are a better comparison, and these end up with the same fuel mileage as an old Stanley, at least in city driving, which is most driving (and the % of city driving is increasing with urban congestion), and where the antiques can keep up nicely with modern traffic. I'm not advocating putting antique powerplants in modern vehicles, just saying that if these oldtimer vehicles can do this well (even the less-well-designed ones), imagine what we can do today.
No doubt about it, an IC car can be built to beat any steam car's fuel mileage, and there are many on the road (esp diesels) which no steamer could beat, but the required manual trannies, expensive add-ons (like blowers), reduced acceleration, etc are unacceptable to modern drivers. That's why big gas-hogs are the top sellers. And these popular gas-hogs are the real competition, not the more economical designs of 20-30 years ago.
I agree that the steam car's silence, smoothness, easy driving, and performance are the real selling points. 96% of cars have gas engines rather than (long-available and recently much-improved) diesels, those engines are getting progressively larger and more fuel-thirsty, and 90% have automatic trannies, despite the serious fuel mileage penalties of all these options. Why, and whether this is acceptable, is endlessly debatable, but I believe that these options are selected by most consumers in an effort to get the above-mentioned running characteristics which steam cars already have to a greater degree than the best IC cars.
To become competitive, steam cars have a long way to go in convenience, maintenance cost/hassle, unit cost (needs careful design & mass production), and a few other areas, but I think it is doable. Far from easy, but overall more technologically feasible than the other alternative powerplants now in development.
Peter</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 30, 2002 07:30AM
<HTML>Hi Tom,
Agree on political shenanigans (don't get me started) and the possibility of improving steam car efficiency. Good comments, and these only scratch the surface. The story of Clinton's "Partnership For A New Generation Of Vehicles" also bears some looking-into.
The big thing is to go beyond discussion, get these things on the road, and show what can be done. Like Jim says, get to where we can hand the keys to nay-sayers, and invite them to take a drive.
Peter</HTML>
Agree on political shenanigans (don't get me started) and the possibility of improving steam car efficiency. Good comments, and these only scratch the surface. The story of Clinton's "Partnership For A New Generation Of Vehicles" also bears some looking-into.
The big thing is to go beyond discussion, get these things on the road, and show what can be done. Like Jim says, get to where we can hand the keys to nay-sayers, and invite them to take a drive.
Peter</HTML>
Re: D.O.T Studies of Steamers
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: July 30, 2002 04:20PM
<HTML>Thanks for all your help folks, but the main doubter seems to be the type who won't be convinced until he can buy them at his local car dealer. (Never mind the fact that I pointed out all kinds of technology which sat on the shelf for years before it ever made it into mass production.) I'm kind of wondering why no one's had a "Steam Car Challenge"? You could do it as a cross-country race, with time trials and check points and penalties for too early arrivals, and have winners in different categories, like "Best Time," "Best Fuel Economy," etc., etc. The History Channel sponsors such a race with classic cars, it should be possible to get The Discovery Channel to sponsor something like that. Might be able to get a few magazine publications to join in as well. If you have a category for antique autos, you just need to let Jay Leno know as he's got at least one Stanley in his collection.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.