Anyone flown on Concorde?

Quite comprehensively proven wrong. For brand new cars, that you can buy today, the most environmentally friendly car, based on a cradle to grave cost to the environment is the Jeep Wrangler.

Were you really taken in by that?

I assume you’re referring to a non peer reviewed article by a marketing company that purported to show what you claim. The report made all sorts of rather strange assumptions, there’s a nice debunking here: http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hummer_vs_prius3.pdf

In contrast, studies that don’t rig the data a) consistently put a car’s use phase as a majority of its total lifetime emissions and b)rate hybrids as better than conventional vehicles. See:

http://lowcvp.org.uk/assets/pressreleases/LowCVP_Lifecycle_Study_June2011.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/documents/hybrid-ice_final.pdf

I’m not going to get involved in the arguing but to say that Concorde wasn’t useful and to judge it in terms of more recent, or different aircraft totally misses the point.

It pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible, which in turn changed the way people (engineers, passengers and the general public) felt about flying.

It also changes the views of Britain (and France) around the world, showing what we as nations are capable of.

That is unquantifiable, but without doubt useful.

Nope, ransos posted it, so it can’t be wrong….

Can it?I’m too lazy to spend 5 minutes on a search engine so I’ll sit here and wave my handbag instead.

FTFY.

Ok but to put it another way those technologies were desired by the aviation industry as a whole, and the developers of Concorde contributed to those. Had they been working on something else, they would probably have come up with just as good ideas.

1)

You COUJLD also argue that had they not been wasting their time working on a doomed vanity project they might’ve come up with more practical and relevant technologies a few years earlier, and we’d have had dreamliners and A380s a decade ago….

2)

That depends on what it is that you are trying to do. Concorde was essentially barking up the wrong tree. The world didn’t really want supersonic travel, they wanted cheaper travel. The makers of Concorde got that wrong.

You could draw parallels with the car industry. VW, Ford & co have created excellent cars that the masses can afford and use in their daily lives, whilst Ferrari etc make cool stuff cars that are basically toys. Ok it’s fun to drive a sportscar, but it doesn’t really help society much. You probably take your dull family car for granted, but think of what you have been able to do with it. A couple of generations ago people stayed their whole lives in the same town, apart from a two week trip to the local seaside in the summer…

It pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible, which in turn changed the way people (engineers, passengers and the general public) felt about flying.

Really?

FTFY.

You made the point, why didn’t you just post the references the first time round?

Three of which, by the way, aren’t peer reviewed, and the one that is actually focusses on something else.

You made the point, why didn’t you just post the references the first time round?

Because we’ve done it before at great length and you were already whinging about the thread being derailed.

Three of which, by the way, aren’t peer reviewed, and the one that is actually focusses on something else.

I look forward to your assessment of why they’re wrong. Please cite references.

From the “debunking” report I liked to:

“The CNW results suggest that the majority of energy is consumed during the production of the vehicle. These results are at odds with every other study we’ve seen on the energy life-cycle costs of automobiles.”

“A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs.”

I look forward to your assessment of why they’re wrong

I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m just pointing out that you jumped on LHS for quoting a non-peer-reviewed study, then defended that action by posting three non-peer-reviewed studies, and one about plug in electric hybrid vehicles (which a Prius isn’t).

A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs.

An old landy (presumably diesel), which is what started this side topic, is considerably more efficient than pretty much any american SUV, and certainly a Hummer.

I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m just pointing out that you jumped on LHS for quoting a non-peer-reviewed study, then defended that action by posting three non-peer-reviewed studies, and one about plug in electric hybrid vehicles (which a Prius isn’t).

And I posted the debunking article which cites numerous peer reviewed studies. You could try reading them, seeing as you asked for references. Were I less charitable, I would conclude that all you’re doing is hoping to score a few points, rather than actually learn something.

The PHEV study includes information about hybrids and ICE cars, which you would know if you’d done more than read the title.

An old landy (presumably diesel), which is what started this side topic, is considerably more efficient than pretty much any american SUV, and certainly a Hummer.

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Not peer reviewed, I’m afraid. I doubt there’s much research funding in proving the obvious, but – here you go:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/land%20rover/series%20iii/diesel

http://www.fuelly.com/car/hummer/h3

Jeep Wrangler combined mpg: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31729

Grand Cherokee: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31742

New Land Rover: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31182

You’ll have to explain how this fits with your assertion that “pretty much any American SUV” is less efficient than an old Land Rover, given they’re more efficient than a new Land Rover.

All much worse than a Prius of course.

Back on subject 😉 Yes three times and my parents did a few times as well. Was an amazing machine. Loved to see it fly over on the way to New York. used to do contracting at heathrow for BA and had a chap show us round different aircraft and tell us about them. But concorde was a special machine, even if it was completely dwarfed by the 747 in the hanger next to it.

maxtorque – Member

1) Would current aerospace technologies be as advanced and as efficient as they are now without Concorde? I suggest the answer is No.

2) Is it better to have tried and failed, or to have not tried at all?
(i’ll leave that one up to each individual to answer for themselves!)

I like this post, the middle ground… You can agree that concorde was cool, and was a useful thing to do at the time, without arguing that it’s a shame that it’s not flying any more. The benefits from when it was cutting edge weren’t lost when we retired it once it was a bit of a pointy white elephant.

We learned a lot from the early space race, doesn’t mean we still need to be shooting Saturn 5s at the moon.

You’ll have to explain how this fits with your assertion that “pretty much any American SUV” is less efficient than an old Land Rover, given they’re more efficient than a new Land Rover.

For a start, an old land rover doesn’t have a sports-tuned diesel V6, which is what’s in the Disco you linked to. Neither does it weigh nearly three tons.

Secondly, the website I linked from was based on real world use, and not manufacturers’ figures.

Wow, a slanging match about hybrid cars and I’m not involved!

Anyway, yes there’s no doubt Concorde was a wonderful machine. I saw and heard it a few times, and it was great. But it was not the future of air travel – we are currently experiencing the future of air travel, and it’s just as amazing even though it’s not as fast.

The real problem with Concorde was simply physics. You can’t just get a bit faster with each generation like cars do – there’s a huge physical barrier, which is the speed of sound. Current planes are already as close to it as they can practically get, even a bit more speed would require enormous compromises to be made. That’s why most big planes have more or less the same cruising speed.

If anyone thinks A380s are not awesome, they have not seen one. Or they have no soul 😉

For a start, an old land rover doesn’t have a sports-tuned diesel V6, which is what’s in the Disco you linked to. Neither does it weigh nearly three tons.

No, it has a forty year old engine, that was never efficient in the first place.

Secondly, the website I linked from was based on real world use, and not manufacturers’ figures.

A sample size so tiny that it’s of no use whatsoever.

Anyway, you seem to be having trouble so I’ll make this simple:

1. The impacts of manufacture and disposal are outweighed by the impacts of use, in every single peer reviewed study on the subject.
2. A new Prius is more efficient than a new SUV, on a lifecycle basis.
3. A new Prius is more efficient than an old Land Rover, unless you’re doing a low annual mileage.

Clearly, you will now attempt to be even more wrong than you already are, but you will not be successful.

A sample size so tiny that it’s of no use whatsoever.

You worked out what that word means yet? You were having issues with it yesterday.

You worked out what that word means yet? You were having issues with it yesterday.

You must be confused. I suppose that given you can’t work out what “15-20 years ago” means we shouldn’t be surprised.

The impacts of manufacture are outweighed by the impacts of use and disposal, in every single peer reviewed study on the subject.

But you’re proposing the disposal of a vehicle that already exists. And we’ve already been through the fact that most of what you posted wasn’t peer-reviewed

2. A new Prius is more efficient than a new SUV, on a lifecycle basis.

The original discussion wasn’t about a new SUV (remember CFH’s ‘old landy’ that started this tedium)

3. A new Prius is more efficient than an old Land Rover, unless you’re doing a low annual mileage.

Which, if you’re so at pains to reduce emissions, is the first thing you should be doing.

You must be confused.

Not at all. You were the one arguing that something which clearly had utility to many people (albeit clearly not to you) was totally and unequivocally useless.

But you’re proposing the disposal of a vehicle that already exists. And we’ve already been through the fact that most of what you posted wasn’t peer-reviewed

I’ve corrected the typo. We’ve already been through the fact that the first article I posted has umpteen links to peer reviewed evidence. It’s a pity you’ve chosen to ignore them.

The original discussion wasn’t about a new SUV (remember CFH’s ‘old landy’ that started this tedium)

We were discussing the assertion that a new Jeep Wrangler is more efficient than a new Prius. Did you forget that bit?

Which, if you’re so at pains to reduce emissions, is the first thing you should be doing.

I’ve never argued otherwise. I use a remarkably efficient commuting vehicle called a “bicycle”.

Not at all. You were the one arguing that something which clearly had utility to many people (albeit clearly not to you) was totally and unequivocally useless.

No. Quite clearly it had utility to a miniscule number of people. That makes it useless to the people who paid for it.

We were discussing the assertion that a new Jeep Wrangler is more efficient than a new Prius. Did you forget that bit?

Obviously you did, we were actually talking about the assertion that a Jeep Wrangler has less of an environmental impact when you take into account all factors from cradle to grave than a Prius.

I use a remarkably efficient commuting vehicle called a “bicycle”.

Great aren’t they 😀

Obviously you did, we were actually talking about the assertion that a Jeep Wrangler has less of an environmental impact when you take into account all factors from cradle to grave than a Prius.

As my posts make very clear, we were discussing efficiency on a lifecycle basis. The assertion that the Wrangler is more efficient is false, as the evidence I supplied shows.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

The evidence you supplied is un-peer reviewed and also does not take into account other recent additions such as the batteries on only last 8 years on average, so you need to be replacing those. Not the most “efficient” thing.

No. Quite clearly it had utility to a miniscule number of people.

I’d define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than “miniscule”.

That makes it useless to the people who paid for it.

I think it’s pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it, otherwise it wouldn’t have been for the elite few, if it was free. And maxtorque has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that quite a lot of the technology developed for Concorde is now in use on current planes. No, I’m not saying these technologies wouldn’t have been developed without Concorde, but that investment from the public purse into them has clearly trickled down to the modern Airbus fleet.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

I’m sure he’d rather redefine it.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

The evidence you supplied is un-peer reviewed and also does not take into account other recent additions such as the batteries on only last 8 years on average, so you need to be replacing those. Not the most “efficient” thing.

You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted? The peer-reviewed papers that specifically address the impacts of battery manufacture and disposal?

I’d define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than “miniscule”.

Could you please tell us a) how many different people flew on Concorde during its lifetime and b) its percentage of total commercial air travel in the same period.

I think it’s pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it,

Yet they were still subsidised heavily by the public purse.

I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today, I would name names but he/she/it will run off and tell teacher 😆 not that that would be in the least bit hyocritical 😉

You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted?

Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?

Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?

Because the report is the only one I’m aware of that pulls together those different sources into one place.

Could you please tell us a) how many different people flew on Concorde during its lifetime

No. But I’m pretty sure it’s not a ‘miniscule’ number

Yet they were still subsidised heavily by the public purse.

But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.

I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today

Huffing after just one post, piggy? You need more exercise…

No. But I’m pretty sure it’s not a ‘miniscule’ number

In the context of utility, I find that unlikely. Regardless, your assertion is unproven.

But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.

Concorde ran as a publicly-owned loss for many years. That meant that every single ticket cost the taxpayer more money. If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well…

If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well…

If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that’s the case?

If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well…

Given the number of people on this thread who’ve never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.

And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.

If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that’s the case?

Prove a negative? No, I can’t.

Prove a negative? No, I can’t.

So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?

Given the number of people on this thread who’ve never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.

Again, the key word here is “scale”.

And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.

Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things. Though a defence of “but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost” is a bit weak, to say the least.

So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?

It might not be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Again, the key word here is “scale”.

It is. I work with many people who never even saw Concorde in the flesh. Having discussed it over coffee with a few of them this morning, most of them appreciated it to. So its appeal seems to be global. Not bad for something so useless.

Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things.

You seem to have been happy enough to debate other topics on here for quite some time. Why the change now?

Though a defence of “but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost” is a bit weak, to say the least.

Seems to be one you’re not prepared to argue, however

It might not be.

Hallelujah!