I agree it looks attractive John, but I don't believe the figures anyway, they are as reliable as they were with e-bikes a couple of years ago when we used to have to halve most manufacturer's claims.
Just as the Vectrix overclaims it's speed by 10 mph, I bet this does too, ideal circumstances etc, and a real world range in a moderately hilly area will no doubt be well under half the claim as always.
Like Toyota Prius buyers, I'm not worried by that initial cost, but there's the all important matter they all duck, how long will the advanced batteries last. Using the full range it does have in real world conditions will probably finish those in two years, replacement at an astronomic cost which even at three years would be unacceptable. It's this which has killed all attempts to date, and since there's been no battery advance that solves it, the car remains not viable.
And I haven't even mentioned the other thing they all duck, the hill climbing. Electric vehicle weight kills the climb performance and that has to be adequate. Anyone can make an electric car that goes fast for a long time, even with lead acid batteries, but it's when a hill is met that they collapse. The little G-Wizz is acceptable on the flat, but on hills it makes milk float drivers impatient and that's just not practical in today's traffic. There's already enough out there to upset and enrage drivers without fleets of sluggish e-cars doing the same on every hill.
There's a huge potential demand for viable electric town cars, especially in London with no congestion charge, no parking charge and free recharging for them, and as the Prius proved, capital cost isn't a problem, but for the reasons I've given, we won't be seeing many Think cars around trying to satisfy that.
I wish I was wrong, but I'm completely confident I'm not.
.
|