DBCohen

 

guess I am a believer in the 'every little helps' approach. That is why I will be switching my commute from my Prius to an electric bike when I can...

 

i would say i am with you at this stage of my life, my household carbon footprint is well bellow average and this is with a solid fuel stove, i create my own balance trying via sensible use of things to aim for a reduction of pollutants.

i have worked hard all my life and now at 58 and semi retired i intend to use my campervan to enjoy the countryside i want to save, but i use electric bikes for local runs to try and keep my polluting down to a minimum.

when you consider what my wife and i did last week, we worked 3 days moving top brand cars of the docks, and we both moved over 2 million pounds worth of cars its going to be a long time changing.

 

mike

Flecc, you mentioned a Prius battery 'shock to come' in a previous post - from that I inferred that you were supporting the industry myth that Prius has untold battery issues that the manufacturers fail to highlight.

 

And in the real world, cars exist and are not going anywhere in the SHORT term. Given that, I believe we should support a compromise approach - hybrids such as Prius reduce CO2 emissions and provide good urban fuel economy, while still operating in the road and fuel infrastructure that exists today.

 

I am a strong supporter of environmental responsibility. I am not naive enough to assume that driving a Prius is some sort of environmental panacea. Neither is an all electric car, or an electric bike - they all need to be recharged, and 9 times out of 10 that electricity is generated through fossil fuel consumption.

 

I guess I am a believer in the 'every little helps' approach. That is why I will be switching my commute from my Prius to an electric bike when I can...

 

No, I hadn't fallen for the myth as you've probably gathered. I think the main contribution the Prius makes is that it draws attention to the failings of ordinary car design and the emphasis on performance in those.

 

As every engineer, chemist and physicist knows, conversion of one energy source into another involves loss, and the Prius does just that. It follows that an IC car should be able to do better than one which uses any conversion, while still using energy recovery. In fact some of today's cars are very close indeed to what the Prius does in real world terms. Most Prius owners seem to get around 47 mpg, and the claimed 65 mpg seems generally out of reach for users. There are plenty of IC cars that also give 47 mpg in real world conditions without utilising any recovery, including my Skoda Fabia 1.2 litre. I'm sure if it's VW designers had concentrated less on achieving it's near 100 mph to match the markletplace and more on economy, it could have proven the point I make on conversion losses.

.

Until we get something like a weekly cycle show (akin to Top Gear) with good presenters aimed at commuters and sports equally, and having a good section on electric bikes, and that refers to cars in the way Top Gear refers to cycles, I cant see how Joe Bloggs will care less.

 

Maybe they should have a section on bike stunts to encourage take up (along with races across London against expensive sports cars)

 

Wouldnt that be nice

The comments by Flecc and Ian are indications of how successful these lobbyists have been at spreading fear-mongering rumours about hidden costs in hybrids.

 

Hi David,

 

the comment I made on the life & cost of the Prius battery wasn't influenced by any lobbying by anti-motoring organisations but purely on my own and others experiences of the life and cost of various battery types and by factual information from battery manufacturers data. I don't know how vital battery capacity is to the function of the Prius system, it could be that the vehicle has additional capacity to compensate for the inevitable ageing, or it could be that the manufacturers expect to have to replace batteries under warranty and have considered this in their business plan.

 

When I made the comment I was unaware of the 8 year warranty and assumed the replacement cost would have to be borne by the customer as in previous vehicles, obviously the warranty makes the car much more attractive from a total cost point of view.

 

However none of the above changes the facts that batteries of all types are expensive and as many have found to their cost can have a very limited life, often with no support from a warranty.

 

Ian.

 

I guess I am a believer in the 'every little helps' approach. That is why I will be switching my commute from my Prius to an electric bike when I can...

 

I agree and that's very much my approach, as my car mileage shows, typically around 400 miles per annum and never reaching 1000. That's why I wouldn't go to Presteigne. Things are not quite as bad as the 9 times out 10 fossil fuel electricity you mentioned though, since about 20% of our power is still nuclear from our own plants and importation from France. Add to that the 3% or so of renewable at the moment and things won't be too black when we build new nuclear capacity and grow that renewable figure to 10% as planned. Then our e-bikes will be an even better alternative and we'll be able to manufacture hydrogen for larger vehicles in less damaging ways.

.

In fact some of today's cars are very close indeed to what the Prius does in real world terms. Most Prius owners seem to get around 47 mpg, and the claimed 65 mpg seems generally out of reach for users. There are plenty of IC cars that also give 47 mpg in real world conditions without utilising any recovery, including my Skoda Fabia 1.2 litre.

.

 

Well, in my view fuel economy is not the real issue. That issue is emissions - CO2 output is our principal concern today, given the effect on the environment. As such, fuel economy only really comes in to it as related to those emissions. Of course, those anti-hybrid lobbyists do like to bang on about the Prius not reaching 65 mpg, while ignoring the fact that those figures are based on rolling road tests and that NO car on the market achieves those figures on the road.

 

My Prius is reporting an average MPG over 10000 miles of 49.6 - yet the CO2 emissions for that are 104 g/km against the 140 g/km of your Fabia. And that is with a larger car, automatic transmission and aircon running a fair bit.

 

But the fact is, for both of us we are running high mpg, low emission cars and looking to minimise out car journeys with bicycle use. A good start, I'll warrant. Hopefully, more people will look to match these attempts in the future.

I agree David, the point you make about my Fabia's somewhat higher emissions was exactly what I meant about the traditional car designers needing to do better.

 

However, I don't bang on about about the mpg in isolation, I just don't see the Prius as being a hybrid at all, since it's not a dual fuel car as I've pointed out, it just diverts some of it's power and uses it later in a different form.

 

So if I was anti-hybrid, I couldn't be against the Prius, it being a petrol car.

.

Well, in my view fuel economy is not the real issue. That issue is emissions

I admire any efforts to reduce CO2 emmissions but I'd certainly be much more of a fan of the Toyota brand had they not aborted their electric car development in favour of the hybrid. I recommend anyone who's not seen that DVD I linked to earlier watch it. It was an eye opener for a few issues to me including Hydrogen fuel cell technology - so much for that angle with the Swizzbee or that Hydrogen motorbike shown on TV a while back. The good thing about purely electric transport is that it has the capacity to be zero emmission if the right source of charging electricity is used such as photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, something not possible with hybrids which are indeed a compromise answer. The technology is already there for fully electric so why are those car manufacturers waiting?

 

At least muddying of the waters isn't so much of an issue with electric bikes and although it's expensive, there are also currently photovoltaics ideally suited to charging electric bike batteries in the same time as current mains chargers.

Some Simple Facts Relevant To Electric Cars

 

Most of our e-bikes have a max output of approx 0.6kw.(200W nominal)

 

A typical small petrol car has a max output of approx 60kw.

 

The replacement battery cost for an e-bike under the most favorable conditions will be approx 3p/mile.(Or more)

 

Therefore all other things being equal we can have an electric car carrying 350kgs of batteries with a range of 20-30 miles and a running cost of £3 per mile + the cost of the electricity.

 

If the above car were to have a range comparable with its petrol counterpart its battery capacity would have to be in the order of 500kWh. No existing technologies could deliver a battery of that capacity weighing much under 3 tons, and a 10 hour overnight charge would require a 50kW supply, that's consumption on an industrial scale.

 

OK, so the above is an over simplification but it serves highlight the fact the the main barrier to electric cars is battery capacity and cost. The only way it could ever become feasible is for consumers to settle for much lower performance vehicles, which I fear there's little chance of in these image conscious times where size seems to matter a lot.

 

Car manufacturers are in business primarily to make money rather than save the planet, they know they have a captive audience with 4x4's and the like and I fear that is where the focus will remain.

Ian puts the picture in a nutshell, the fact being that any fully electric vehicle that has to carry it's own power source has it's performance crippled at the outset, the larger the vehicle, the more impossible that position becomes.

 

Only a technological miracle could change that, and there isn't the faintest shred of evidence of one being possible.

all other things being equal we can have an electric car carrying 350kgs of batteries with a range of 20-30 miles and a running cost of £3 per mile + the cost of the electricity.

Clearly you haven't viewed the DVD about the EV1. It was far better than that and I think the range was about 100 miles (far more than the average motorist does in a day and or even an electric bike). I realise you were using a hypothetical example but those figures are wildly off. The limiting factor for ordinary everyday use is not battery technology (as much as the oil companies and other lobby groups would have us believe) but is actually the general motoring publics reluctance to accept a range below what they can get with a petrol car, even though a higher range than what current technology offers is not required for most car users on a day to day basis. I can understand this unwillingness to be potentially restricted and it's one of the reasons I made sure my electric bike will get up even the steepest of hills I may come across. The solution for people who want to be able to cover long journeys beyond the batteries range is either to plan a charging break for a few hours mid journey or use alternative forms of transport such as public transport or a rental car on the odd occassion higher range is needed.

 

Car manufacturers are in business primarily to make money rather than save the planet, they know they have a captive audience with 4x4's and the like and I fear that is where the focus will remain.

I think the public is becomming more educated about such things. Certainly things like multi-tiered congestion charging and scaled parking permit fees are helping the cause for electric cars. Of course the electric bike is preferred over even electric cars where practical though.

The limiting factor for ordinary everyday use is not battery technology (as much as the oil companies and other lobby groups would have us believe) but is actually the general motoring publics reluctance to accept a range below what they can get with a petrol car, even though a higher range than what current technology offers is not required for most car users on a day to day basis. I can understand this unwillingness to be potentially restricted and it's one of the reasons I made sure my electric bike will get up even the steepest of hills I may come across. The solution for people who want to be able to cover long journeys beyond the batteries range is either to plan a charging break for a few hours mid journey or use alternative forms of transport such as public transport or a rental car on the odd occassion higher range is needed.

 

Right, this might come across like a rant, so before I start, let me make it clear that I respect EVERYONE's views. I am not looking to start a fight. OK, with that out there, let me say...

 

Oh, come on! This is the typical blue sky argument that the most ardent green supporters have been espousing for years - and it hasn't worked, and never will!

 

Do you honestly think that people sit in traffic jams on the motorways daily because they enjoy it? Because it is fun? Because they hate being at home, and would rather be cooped up in a tin box breathing bad air?

 

With today's level of taxation, fuel prices, road pricing, car prices and congestion people still use the car. Why? Because for many journeys, there is no viable alternative.

 

I need to visit my clients - I work as a consultant. They pay me £x a day to give them my advice. They expect, when paying me, for me to arrive at their location when they need me. They will not pay for me to spend many hours travelling in 100-mile chunks across the country, recharging as I go. If you know of a way to universally change those attitudes immediately while at the same time implementing the required infrastructure, while not requiring martial law (!) - let's hear it.

 

Now, as I hope my previous posts demonstrate, I am environmentally responsible - I drive a vehicle that is low emissions, high MPG, and I avoid using it when I can. I am switching to an e-bike for my commute when in the office. I travel by train when I can. But many of the journeys I need to make for work have to be car only, because they cannot be reached easily by train or alternative. That's also ignoring the fact that most car alternatives are FAR more expensive, including the train.

 

But, effecting change is a GRADUAL process. You cannot ever expect to get support to throw out an entire country's infrastructure overnight, expect people to radically change their lifestyles (especially if they perceive it as being for the worse). I typically find that people who promote such approaches have the luxury of having a particular lifestyle that suits those approaches. Bully for them - but they can't just impose those values on everyone else, unless you want to live in a dictatorship rather than democracy.

 

I say these things in full knowledge that we may be creating environmental catastrophe - but if you really want to effect change, you have to gently ease people in to it, while arguing strongly for it. Our politicians have never had the will to even start.

 

So I'd rather see the Toyota Prius approach - proving that a car can be more emission sensitive than it's peers, while retaining the usefulness of the tool. Let's focus on getting us switched to an environmentally aware, make small steps attitude and economy - then you have a platform on which to build more decisive change. And maybe, those small steps in the meantime will start to make a difference.

 

It does make me laugh - one car manufacturer invest billions in research on a vehicle that is a definitive environmental improvement, and then rather than leaving it as a concept car, actually puts it in to production and starts to apply the same technology to the rest of their range - and instead of embracing it as an intial success, improvement and a vindication of their argument, the green lobby poo poos it as not good enough and continues to live in a fantasy world. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

 

The problem with many really ardent environmentalists (and I am not accusing anyone on this forum of this) is that they have a political agenda that goes far beyond pure environemental respect. They actually dislike industrialisation, mechanisation and many of the trappings of our Western society. They seem to favour a far more agrarian lifestyle, and want to sweep our society away in its favour. Here's the news, people - that stuff is hard work, harder than any of us have ever known. Go and ask an African farmer scratching a living for his family fifteen hours a day what he thinks of it! Ask him if he wants to reject the car, when he needs to get his crops to market or his sick child to hospital!

 

It is this radical subtext that has lead to marginalisation of environmental issues in the political debate - and that is to our worldwide detriment.

 

OK, rant mode off. I just am saddened that during my lifetime the Green movement has not been more effective by being realistic in their arguments and proposals - perhaps if they had we might live in a better world today.

I agree with very nearly all of what you've said David, and I'm certainly not a Green (I'm pro nuclear for starters), nor am I a "back to nature" fanatic. But I see nothing wrong in pointing out failings in what has been done so far to improve things. The alternative can so easily be complacency.

 

In essence, the fact I can be critical doesn't mean that something is useless, it just means it could be better, and the stimulus of criticism is what makes things better.

.

Oh, come on! This is the typical blue sky argument that the most ardent green supporters have been espousing for years - and it hasn't worked, and never will!

Just as well I'm not a green supporter then, although I do take environmental issues seriously. I don't understand why it won't work and certainly I'm never going to say never (well, other than there). All it takes is people willing to go to a little inconvenience.

 

Do you honestly think that people sit in traffic jams on the motorways daily because they enjoy it?

Not at all, what would make you think that? Just because I think a well designed electric car is superior in most ways to a hybrid (and I'm lumping hydrogen fuel cell cars in with hybrids) doesn't mean I don’t see a need for cars with IC engines to be used in some essential situations by a minority.

 

With today's level of taxation, fuel prices, road pricing, car prices and congestion people still use the car. Why? Because for many journeys, there is no viable alternative.

You've hit the nail on the head there Of course it's only a minority of people who will need the extra range that petrol/diesel offers (whether it be in the form of a hybrid or otherwise) on a day to day (or even fairly frequent) basis.

 

I need to visit my clients

I travel a great deal in my work also. Just like you I sometimes travel over 100 miles away from home and sometimes to places more than just a couple of miles from a railway station and I don't have a car at all. I always have the option of taking on a particular task and sometimes I reject them just because they're so difficult to get to though - how do I manage? Through a combination of public transport and my bike (with spare battery if reqd). Yes it usually takes longer than a car, yes it's not as convenient and yes it sometimes costs more but it is very feasible for most of my work. I put my suit jacket in my pannier along with my tie etc and change when I get to the general area (or depending on the client, in their company loo).

 

I work as a consultant. They pay me £x a day to give them my advice. They expect, when paying me, for me to arrive at their location when they need me. They will not pay for me to spend many hours travelling in 100-mile chunks across the country, recharging as I go. If you know of a way to universally change those attitudes immediately while at the same time implementing the required infrastructure, while not requiring martial law (!) - let's hear it.

Just as I don't foresee electric ambulances or fire engines in the near future, I understand that those with a frequent need to cover several hundred miles for a rapid response won't find an electric vehicle suitable. I put it to you that this is a minority of motorists however.

 

Now, as I hope my previous posts demonstrate, I am environmentally responsible - I drive a vehicle that is low emissions, high MPG, and I avoid using it when I can. I am switching to an e-bike for my commute when in the office. I travel by train when I can. But many of the journeys I need to make for work have to be car only, because they cannot be reached easily by train or alternative. That's also ignoring the fact that most car alternatives are FAR more expensive, including the train.

You've made that clear, along with the fact that you'd be among a minority of motorists in using your car that way. I won't go into rant mode about the trains but suffice to say I agree with your findings on price!

 

But, effecting change is a GRADUAL process. You cannot ever expect to get support to throw out an entire country's infrastructure overnight, expect people to radically change their lifestyles (especially if they perceive it as being for the worse).

Agreed with the proviso that it's important to distinguish between the situations where it's essential to take it slow and gradually and those where it's convenient for parties with a vested interest to delay any changes for as long as possible. I think what we currently have from many automakers is a clear case of the latter. I used to work (indirectly) for a automaker and although they provided an electric version of a particular model overseas, it wasn’t sold here (despite numerous enquiries to customer services asking what they provided in terms of electric cars). Other than the fact they’d need to make it UK compliant (including in a RHD form), they weren’t in any rush to introduce it here and we still don’t have it.

 

I typically find that people who promote such approaches have the luxury of having a particular lifestyle that suits those approaches. Bully for them - but they can't just impose those values on everyone else, unless you want to live in a dictatorship rather than democracy.

Agreed and you are right in that in my above example I have the choice of declining particular jobs if they're to difficult to get to (although taxis from the nearest train/bus station have been utilised in the past).

 

I say these things in full knowledge that we may be creating environmental catastrophe - but if you really want to effect change, you have to gently ease people in to it, while arguing strongly for it. Our politicians have never had the will to even start.

Certainly those in the US with influence at the time of the EV1 didn't seem to want to effect change.

 

So I'd rather see the Toyota Prius approach - proving that a car can be more emission sensitive than it's peers, while retaining the usefulness of the tool.

If it weren't for the fact that many hybrid manufacturers are putting all their eggs in one basket with alternative fuels i.e. hybrid or petrol/diesel only with no fully electric version, I'd agree but they should be providing both options. How much more design work can it really involve to put a mains charger, larger battery and charging point on what already has electric driving motors and associated control circuitry etc? You can't tell me that's a major ask beyond what they’re capable of. In many regards, there’s more work involved in designing a hybrid (and certainly more parts sales opportunities too).

 

Let's focus on getting us switched to an environmentally aware, make small steps attitude and economy - then you have a platform on which to build more decisive change. And maybe, those small steps in the meantime will start to make a difference.

Call me idealistic but I say if you want to adopt that approach, it's your choice. Personally, I'd prefer they go the whole hog by offering fully electric for those who want them (others can continue with hybrids) and the sooner the better.

 

It does make me laugh - one car manufacturer invest billions in research on a vehicle that is a definitive environmental improvement, and then rather than leaving it as a concept car, actually puts it in to production and starts to apply the same technology to the rest of their range - and instead of embracing it as an intial success, improvement and a vindication of their argument, the green lobby poo poos it as not good enough and continues to live in a fantasy world. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

It will come as no surprise to those who know my views on hub motor vs. crank drive through the gears on electric bikes, that I think there's room for both types, hybrid and fully electric. I get annoyed when I see manufacturers attempting to claim that a compromise answer is actually the panacea we'd sought all along. As long as there's demand for both, they should be attempting to meet that demand, rather than attempting to steer idealists towards a compromise solution.

 

It is this radical subtext that has lead to marginalisation of environmental issues in the political debate - and that is to our worldwide detriment.

What determines a radical subtext and how that differs from an idealistic viewpoint? Surely if automakers make a serious effort to develop fully electric vehicles while continuing to provide hybrids, then both sides are satisfied?

 

I just am saddened that during my lifetime the Green movement has not been more effective by being realistic in their arguments and proposals - perhaps if they had we might live in a better world today.

But it's their fault for failing to convince people that what they see is realistic and achievable then. Additionally (and importantly) they've also failed to put their ways across as viable options and I repeat no I'm not a greenie.

So, FK, you believe that manufacturers should offer short-range electrics as well as other vehicles.

 

I believe that the reason they don't is because they do not believe they will sell. You talk about demand - their seems to have been little demand for all-electric vehicles, with the exception of the EV1 enthusiasts and the milk dairies (!).

 

Hybrid vehicles such as the Prius (and I call it a hybrid has two transmission inputs, Flecc, not because it has a single fuel source - a point of semantics that I feel is not overly relevant in the context of emissions) have shown that their is a demand for them - Toyota cannot make them fast enough. Indeed, it has spurred one of the few changes in the US motor industry not forced through by legislation for years - US manufacturers are now looking at hybrid transmissions and regeneration, and bringing such vehicels to market.

 

Now there is a difference between demand (the wish of a group of individuals) and econmic demand (enough of those individuals to make sales of such an item profitable - or if not, at least an excruciatingly loss).

 

I also find it hard to believe that Toyota, now the biggest car maker on the planet, did not evaluate all electric as an option and reject it - presumably on economic or engineering grounds. Are you qualified enough, FK, in matters of manufacturing economics and electric vehicle engineering to realistically challenge that view?

 

If so, please share your argument - though I would suggest a new thread. If not, then it is as fruitless as wishing for a world where antimatter starships cross parsecs in hours.

 

And the difference between a radical subtext and an idealistic viewpoint? Merely the degree to which you can accept that not everyone sees the world as you do. Typically measured by your own level of fanaticism as seen by others. And that is my humble opinion, and I accuse nobody in this debate on this forum of that.

 

However, I did once know a former board member of Greenpeace. He left them in the early nineties, disgusted by the level of zeal and fanticism that the organisation had become dominated by. These were people who would do anything to get their point across, even if it meant media spin or dishonest statements. They felt that the French attack on the Rainbow Warrior justified this sort of approach, and were militant, irrational and unpleasant. They were one step away from being eco-terrorists, in his view.

 

It is those who I accuse of a radical subtext, that for many years have lead to green issues being seen to be wacky or the domain of nutcases.

Hi Kiwi.

 

few things would please me me more that to see a really practical electric car on the market but I really don't think it'll happen in the foreseeable future.

 

Clearly you haven't viewed the DVD about the EV1.

 

There are several versions of the EV1 story, each of which can be interpreted in different ways depending on ones point view, but the facts I believe are as follows.

The vehicle was a small two seater with a very good aerodynamic profile which aided it's range where speed could be maintained and in it's final pre hybrid form was claimed with careful driving to be able achieve over 100 miles from NiMh batteries totalling 27kWh. It was also claimed to have a high performance from it's massive 100kW motor. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what would happen to the range if you were use all that performance, and you don't have to be an accountant to know that to replace that battery would be very expensive indeed.

 

I believe the EV1 was only available to California residents, supposedly because of proposed legislation requiring a percentage of new vehicles to have zero emissions, it is therefore probably pure coincidence that the vehicles were leased to drivers in mid and southern California where conditions permit optimum battery performance and a heater is rarely needed for comfort.

 

The indisputable fact that we all know from our bikes is that batteries are expensive and have a limited life, and the bigger the battery the more expensive it is. The batteries used in the EV1 were equivalent to 70 typical e-bike batteries, using exactly the same NiMh technology with absolutely no reason why they should last longer the replacement cost would have added very significantly to the total cost of ownership had the vehicle ever been available for sale.

 

I think the public is becoming more educated about such things. Certainly things like multi-tiered congestion charging and scaled parking permit fees are helping the cause for electric cars.

 

It's certainly true that many members of the public are becoming more educated about environmental issues but where I live there is little evidence of it. Most of my neighbours seem to regard their cars as a status symbol many driving cars that cost almost as much as their house on ridiculously short journeys with no regard for the environment.

 

Of course the electric bike is preferred over even electric cars where practical though.

 

Agreed 100%. BMW 4x4's seem to grow on trees round here but I've never seen a neighbour on an electric bike, seems I'm the only one who has a status symbol of that magnitude

Sorry everyone, but I have to say this.

 

People do not choose cars based on need. As an employee of a leasing co., I can state that as an absolute truth. We have drivers sending cars back 'because the upholstery is the wrong colour'!

 

FACT - we live in a car culture, we are raised to 'one day' drive a car, all of our TV encourages car use, stars in sports cars are seen with car envy, most advertising revenue for TV, Magazines, Billboards and the Newspapers are from car manufacturers, they are the new cigarette companies of our society.

 

Very very few people chose the next car they are going to have based on their need, its make, colour, size, but mainly status sybolism, which just shows how well its ingrained into our culture. If they did then most commuters (who on average drive is it 5 miles?) would be in a Daewoo Matiz!

 

The truth of the matter is that we shouldnt be encouraging people to commute in insular large tin boxes at all, there is no need for it, it wastes resources, damages our planet and our health (directly and indirectly) and it clogs our highways.

 

If you are taking the family out, travelling a long distance to a clients, or anywhere you have to go thats far away, then yes, absolutely.

 

But thats not the truth of most journeys made by car drivers

 

John

Sorry everyone, but I have to say this.

Very very few people chose the next car they are going to have based on their need, its make, colour, size, but mainly status sybolism, which just shows how well its ingrained into our culture. If they did then most commuters (who on average drive is it 5 miles?) would be in a Daewoo Matiz!

John

 

I've got a Matiz! I didn't give a stuff what colour it was either, just took the one they could deliver quickest that had a/c and abs. They're great little cars though I will be trading it in very soon for a Citroen C1 which does around 60 mpg. The Toyota Prius is a real gas guzzler in comparison.

Anyone for an anti-Prius campaign? We could go round slapping stickers on them and shaming the drivers into buying a car like my new one that costs 1/3 the price and does about 30% more mpg.

 

Paul

Sorry everyone, but I have to say this.

 

No apology needed John, you speak the truth, every day I see parents doing "school runs" of half a mile in BMW X5's, it would be quicker to walk but no one would see the car then.

 

They don't seem to realise that not all of us are impressed

So, FK, you believe that manufacturers should offer short-range electrics as well as other vehicles.

No I believe they should be offering long range full electrics as well but 100 miles which is currently quite achievable with many good electric cars will be more than adequate for daily use of the majority.

 

I believe that the reason they don't is because they do not believe they will sell. You talk about demand - their seems to have been little demand for all-electric vehicles, with the exception of the EV1 enthusiasts and the milk dairies (!).

Dragging out the milk float comparison has no relevance whatsoever. I think most people realise they're vehicles designed for a specific purpose (which they perform well) and electric car design is a totally different kettle of fish. Where did the EV1 enthusiasts come from - they weren't born that way? The point is GM had plenty of demand for the EV1. Yes C.A.R.B. played a part in creating that demand but it was there before and after the emmission reduction legislation was being looked at. There's no reason to believe that demand won't be there for any other well designed electric cars and if anything, our higher fuel prices would tend to encourage more electric car thinking. All those people calling at least one car company I know of and asking about electrics cant be wrong. You know I cant remember a single enquiry for a hybrid, just do you have any electric cars?

 

regarding the hybrid synergie drive

their is a demand for them - Toyota cannot make them fast enough. Indeed, it has spurred one of the few changes in the US motor industry not forced through by legislation for years - US manufacturers are now looking at hybrid transmissions and regeneration, and bringing such vehicels to market.

That shows people are wanting alternatives to conventional IC engined cars. Purely electric cars are another option and I've no reason to believe their greater overall efficiency, when compared to hybrids wouldn't fail to attract a following.

 

Now there is a difference between demand (the wish of a group of individuals) and econmic demand (enough of those individuals to make sales of such an item profitable - or if not, at least an excruciatingly loss).

If the reason is really that the automakers got cold feet over profitability concerns then how do you explain that the a number of them all pulled out around the same time and that perfectly satisfactory profit making leased EV1 models (as just one example) were crushed, even though their drivers wanted to hang on to them?

 

I also find it hard to believe that Toyota, now the biggest car maker on the planet, did not evaluate all electric as an option and reject it - presumably on economic or engineering grounds. Are you qualified enough, FK, in matters of manufacturing economics and electric vehicle engineering to realistically challenge that view?

I'm qualified enough to smell a rat when a bunch of auto manufacturers all dropped full electrics like a hot potato at the same time as mentioned in that documentary. Honestly, if you've not yet seen it, you really should.

 

And the difference between a radical subtext and an idealistic viewpoint? Merely the degree to which you can accept that not everyone sees the world as you do.

The point is it's all an issue of perception and one mans fanatic may be another mans torch bearing leader. I think that people who expect manufacturers to provide both types of car cant be accused of not considering other peoples views.

 

It is those who I accuse of a radical subtext, that for many years have lead to green issues being seen to be wacky or the domain of nutcases.

I'm not here to defend the actions of 'green' organisations but I was pleased when Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur were caught after the Rainbow Warrior was bombed in NZ waters. They were French secret service agents so which party was responsible for radical subtext in that case?

few things would please me me more that to see a really practical electric car on the market but I really don't think it'll happen in the foreseeable future.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't consider that along the same lines as Bill Gates claiming that 640 kb of RAM would be suffient for any PC user. In the world of technology things can change rapidly and I hold an opposing view.

There are several versions of the EV1 story

The one I refer to is the Sony DVD linked to on that website. Lovefilm have it in their library.I'm not familiar with the details you provide and I thought it was always designed to be fully electric, it's just initially it only had lead acid batteries. It was only when the NiMH batteries were fitted that its image (and specs) improved significantly. As for battery cost, yes it would be high but as GM bought up large shares in the battery manufacturer, alot of it was money going back into their own coffers. When the batteries eventually died (and it was claimed that they'd last the life of the vehicle), they could also control recycling. Current electric vehicles often have heaters powered by a combustible fuel such as petrol - but then you don't have to use that (just like aircond in the Prius).

I think thats true and thus the warranty is unfair. I read the 50 cycles warranty and extended warranty and the battery excusion is buried in the small print. This kind of chicanery seems slightly odd behaviour when contrasted with all the reports on this forum of excellent customer service.

 

I can assure you it's cock-up rather than conspiracy. And there isn't really any small print on that page. I will make the terms clearer if need be, or offer another battery warranty extension. We find that if a battery goes wrong it usually does so within a couple of months or not at all. Maybe the warranty term will be extended to a year and beyond, we are due to review the whole subject of batteries with eZee later this year.

Unfortunately Kiwi, battery technology changes very slowly, theres nothing new on the horizon that will change things, just a slow and continued evolution of existing types which will remain expensive due to the relatively rare metals needed to make them.

 

As you say the EV1 was designed to be fully electric to comply with proposed california legislation, however in the projects later stages all the battery powered versions were recalled and destroyed under the terms of the lease and a hybrid version was developed in an attempt to increase the range before the project was finaly scrapped.

The batteries did in indeed last the life of the vehicle, which was the life of the lease (2 or 3 years I think). No leases were renewed and the vehicles were scrapped.

 

For a really practical EV solution see here (1st post, 2nd line)

No I believe they should be offering long range full electrics as well but 100 miles which is currently quite achievable with many good electric cars will be more than adequate for daily use of the majority.

 

I'm qualified enough to smell a rat when a bunch of auto manufacturers all dropped full electrics like a hot potato at the same time as mentioned in that documentary. Honestly, if you've not yet seen it, you really should.

 

FK, one documentary does not prove a conspiracy - it just makes a conspiracy theory.

 

Look, even though I am new round here, I can tell from your other posts that you are a dogmatic kind of guy. I am not interested in debating whether all-electric vehicles have been killed by engineers, marketing suits or men in black.

 

So let me close the debate with this - if anyone brings to market an all-electric car with a 300-mile range in normal traffic/driving conditions, I will buy one. That's the tipping point, as far as I am concerned. If anyone can live with less performance than that, then good on them.

Edited May 15, 200718 yr by DBCohen

I've got a Matiz! I didn't give a stuff what colour it was either, just took the one they could deliver quickest that had a/c and abs. They're great little cars though I will be trading it in very soon for a Citroen C1 which does around 60 mpg. The Toyota Prius is a real gas guzzler in comparison.

Anyone for an anti-Prius campaign? We could go round slapping stickers on them and shaming the drivers into buying a car like my new one that costs 1/3 the price and does about 30% more mpg.

 

Paul

 

It's not about MPG alone, it's about emissions. And I would hardly say that 49 MPG (what my Prius average is since I got it) compared to 60 MPG is a 'gas guzzler'. Get 10-12MPG around town in a a 4-litre Merc S-class or a BMW X5, and then talk to me about guzzling.

 

Looking at CO2 emissions (because that is what is going to put the coasts under water), a Prius emits 22%-34% less CO2 per kilometre than a Matiz, dependent on model.

 

Again, I go back to a previous post - Prius is the first time that the motoring industry has mass-produced a vehicle that aims to compromise on efficiency, emissions and useability for the benefit of the environment. And still they get slated by some people.

 

If you want to start a campaign, I can think of a large variety of other vehicles that are more appropriate candidates.