After decades of intense EV/battery development, the Meyers NmG (alias Corbin Sparrow) is the only production EV available, so lets see how it compares in costs (capital and maintenance) to an ICE vehicle. According to the Manufacturer's claims:
1. Range 20-40 miles AFTER 50 discharge cycle "break-in" 2. battery capacity will peak @ ~50 discharge cycles and decline thereafter. 3. 300 discharge cycle battery life 4. motor brush replacement @ ~2 year intervals requiring "break-in" with low acceleration. 5. 12.5s 0-60mph, 70 mph top speed. 6. price $23,900 FOB factory + shipping & taxes. 7. Capacity: One person + "grocery cart" equivalent load.
In my analysis I assume one discharge cycle per day since few people have the ability to recharge at work. Batteries range in price from a "cheap" marine battery @ $100 to Optima "blue tops" @ $185. I've assumed $120/battery x 13 units = $1560 battery replacement cost. Given the break-in requirements, I assume 20mi/cycle for the first 50 cycles and 30mi/cycle for the remaining 250 to battery replacemet for a replacement cycle of 8500mi which should also correspond approximately to the annual mileage @ 1 cycle/day.
Based on the above, in ~2 years and 17k miles the Nmg owner will incur over $3100 expense in battery replacement ALONE (ignoring energy cost) and must also replace brushes and endure a third lengthy break-in cycle. In this period I would not expect to replace more than oil and filters in ICE vehicle!
Now consider capital cost: at 8500mi/yr, 100k miles corresponds to 11.8 years, a reasonable ownership period. I'll assume 90% depreciation in 11.8 years suggesting a capital cost of $23900*0.9/100000=0.215/mi. Adding battery cost of $1560/8500=0.184 results in a combined cost of $0.399/mi, ignoring energy cost and all other maintenance expense (e.g. tires, brushes, drive belt, ....)
40 cents/mile is high for an ICE (for 12yr ownership) INCLUDING gasoline and other costs and for that you have to endure the substantial limitations of the NmG! Where are these EV benefits that some insist exist? Note that battery cost ALONE is 183% of the cost of gasoline for a 30mpg car @$3.00/g! YMMV
I realize this vehicle is no longer available but it is still a legitimate example of what is possible. The Toyota RAV4 EV. MSRP of $42,000. Range of 110 miles. 0-60 in 10 secs. Electronically governed top speed of 80 mph. Still being driven in limited numbers with owners achieving over 100k miles on the original battery pack. Brushless motors. Selling on ebay for $30k if you can find one.
Now consider that these had NiMH batteries. Newer Li-ion chemistry has close to twice the energy per weight.
I get it. You don't like EVs and there is nothing I am going to say to change your mind. I do like EVs. I think they represent the future of automobiles.
There is no perfect vehicle for everyone. Even the most popular vehicle, the Toyota Camry, only accounts for 4% of sales.
I've not said that I "don't like EVs". The concept of electric motor drive is a great idea, if only there was a practical and economical energy source, as I HAVE said.
Accepting your $42K sales price, that is more than I would pay for ANY vehicle, let alone one of such severe limitations. I think that the NmG would be a neat "grocery getter" for short trips near home, but I certainly wouldn't pay more for it than a full service vehicle (it is, after all, a "motorcycle" under law and does not conform to passenger car standards). It makes sense only for those of unlimited means (and garage space). I don't hink I'm alone. As I've said, to succeed in the market, a product must be comparable to existing alternatives at a competitive price. EVs are not likely to approach that goal in my lifetime.
Wouldn't real world examples be closer to industrial lift trucks? At least I have more experience with that aplication. It cost me about 25 to 30 percent more to purchase an electric lift truck with a 5000 Lb capacity with and electric motor over the same truck with a ICE motor. yearly cost have proven to be about the same for me in service costs anyway. It is hard to measure what my power costs are seeing as I am paying for lights, heating and air for 110K Square foot warehouse and office space. But I do have 4 electric lift trucks and two ICE lift trucks that do similar work. A battery cost me between 15k and 25k with a 7 year warrentee. For that 7 year period of time I can expect both electric and Ice trucks to give me 8 hours of service 5 days a week 52 weeks a year. \
The two ICE trucks cost me the same to service as the electric trucks and they cost me about 300 a month in fuel each. At the end of 7 years I can expect to spend about 50k in fuel for the two lift trucks If I have to replace all 4 batteries in the electric trucks I should be looking at 10k. that leaves me with about 40k left over for electrical use.
All that long-winded statement is about is that I believe some of the technology is already with us we just need enough people using it to make it profitable. They key point to long term usage for electrical lift trucks in a warehouse is in 110k square feet I can only have one or two ICE trucks because of air quality. The Electric trucks don't pollute the air like the ice trucks do. I agree they are a very long way from making a daily commuter that is pure EV. But I only live one mile fro my little community and once I retire a EV to pop down to the store and post office and eve the lake for a little fishing would be fine as an "extra" vehicle. Maybe even to haul behind the motor home if I were into that kind of living.
And I have no experience with lift truck ownership. But the performance requirements and operating cycles are obviously very different from road vehicles.
"That would depend on how each vehicle is designed to absorb and direct that energy."
Correct. The point remains though that the lighter vehicle would end up having to absorb and redirect more energy. How WELL it does that is obviously a testement to the design engineers.
"While only 36% of the miles are driven within 25 miles a majority of car accidents occur within 25 miles. So buying a EV as a rural vehivcle only and thinking you will be safer from traffic accidents, just isn't statistically true. That was the original point when someone said they would get a EV as a rural transport and wouldn't go out on the highway because it would be safe on the highway."
Something has been horribly garbled this morning.
Gagrice was posting that he would not consider an EV for anything but AROUND TOWN driving due to the safety aspects at HIGHER SPEEDS on the Highway (70+). He was specifying that they would be safe (in his opinion) for low speed (35mph) only.
His point had NOTHING to do with rural use. Or # of accidents within 25 miles of home, or anything else. All he was talking about was using an EV in a low speed (35mph) environment.
After he posted that, you (midcow) made a remark that the majority of the accidents occurred within 25 miles of home (I guess as some sort of odd rebuttal to gagrices opinion that EV's were only suitable for lower speeds).
To which snakeweasel made the response to you that the majority of our driving occurs within 25 miles of home. He was not making ANY correlation to rural or urban roads. ALL he was saying was that (to paraphrase for snake), "Of course the majority of accidents occur within 25 miles of home, that's where the majority of our driving occurs".
How you make the corralary between % of rural miles driven and the 25 miles from home figure is beyond me..... :confuse:
This is all getting so innane that I've completely forgotton what the POINT was......
Would an EV be more dangerous than a motorcycle? I'm guessing the answer to that is no. I'm fairly certain that I've seen more than 3 motorcycles on the interstates. Lots of crazy people out there.
And I agree that for some minority of the population, an EV might serve a purpose, although I doub't that its near 25%. And even for those who might be able to use an EV as a second vehicle, how many will be willing to pay MORE for a limited service vehicle as compared to other market offerings that serve a broader spectrum of vehicular functions?
"Electric vehicles, as they are presently designed are a perfectly good solution for maybe 25% of the driving population world-wide."
Oh, I think they are a "perfectly good" solution for more folks than that. I think that a current generation EV would be a "perfectly good" solution for MY needs.
Doesn't mean I want one.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my dietary needs might be a nice chef salad and a lite dressing.
Gimme a steak and a Bass Ale.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my housing needs might be a 900 sf apartment in a public housing project.
Gimme my 3000sf and 3 acres.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my home entertainment needs might be a 25" TV, a VCR and basic cable.
Screw 'perfectly good'. As long as EV proponents beat the "EVs are perfectly good for x% of the driving population", you will get nowhere with the general American public.
Oh, I think they are a "perfectly good" solution for more folks than that.
I agree, I think that a majority of two or more car homes can use an EV for at least one car with no trouble. How many multi car homes will have all the cars being driven more than 100 miles in one day?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I agree. The EV I plan on owning someday isn't going to be some minimalistic, bare necessities vehicle. It may not have a long range but I can live with that. It will have every creature comfort found in today's mainstream vehicles and it will be fast. I don't have $100k to spend on a Tesla Roadster but Tesla Motors has plans to bring a upscale sedan to market in a couple of years for around $50k. According to them this car will have a 250 mile range and do 0-60 in under 6 secs. $50k is still a lot of money for most people but when you consider fuel savings and the fact that there will probably be some kind of govt. tax breaks we are approaching a price point that people will begin to entertain.
Yes, exactly! That is the American way. Free Enterprise. The market will determine what is viable, acceptable, and the supply will meet it.
I like to stand an argument on its end, and see if the conclusions still ring true.
If we were talking about a new technology here, one where an engine ran on gasoline, and it didn't pollute, would the arguments some are making about electric cars/carts still ring true? Would they be so energetic in supporting it?
Would anyone honestly consider paying $50,000 for a car equiped like a base Ford Focus, when they could buy a Hybrid for $20,000 less, and cut fossil fuel use in half, and still not give up anything?
Would anyone honestly consider paying $50,000 for a car equipped like a base Ford Focus, when they could buy a Hybrid for $20,000 less, and cut fossil fuel use in half, and still not give up anything?
My answer is no to both options. This kind of started with a $10k electric vehicle that is very sparse and can seat 4 though probably not in luxury. For me it would be used to drive the 3 miles in either direction that has the stores I do 99% of my shopping in. Being the type of person that never makes a list I sometimes forget what I went to town for and have to go back. A vehicle like the Xebra would fit that need very well. I could buy a $10k whatever ICE car. I would be back to waiting in long lines to get gas and it would cost me 5-10 times what an EV would cost to operate. So my option is to drive my 15 MPG PU truck when I make my multiple trips to the store. Is the gas cost breaking me? Hardly. I just am not going to fall goose step into the vehicle that our government is promoting with the hybrid. I don't believe hybrids are a good longterm solution. I think EVs offer a simpler solution to many of our driving needs. Will people buy into it. I doubt it for the near future.
I completely agree, except about the Hybrid, as I think an immediate 50% reduction in emissions is better than waiting 5-10 years for some kind of better battery.
Sometimes new things have to be taken in stages for the public to support them. IMO, as we have seen in these forums, people once in a Hybrid tend to moderate their driving habits voluntarily, )as opposed to being forced to, which some EV proponents propose doing) and that would further drive down gasoline use.
Another benefit would be to force the EV developers to get real, and speed up their research, and make vehicles people will actually want to buy as badly as they now want to buy ICE's.
But I don't see our government supporting any one technology over another. Tax Credits are given for most anything, and Hybrids are no exception. Neither are EV's.
I think you and I completely agree that in our system, build a better car, and people will buy it.
Hopefully we will see that. I am a skeptic. We have not gained much in mileage over the last 20 years. In fact I believe the fleet average is a little lower than 20 years ago. I think diesel is a simpler interim solution than the hybrid. And you can fill up in back of McDonalds.
Check out the complete report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other studies, BY CLICKING HERE.
Some of it I paste below....
"The fuel economy of today's cars and light trucks is at its lowest point in 20 years. A combination of federal inaction on fuel economy policy and the increased marketing of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans as substitutes for passenger cars have led to this point.
Our nation now faces a number of significant and growing problems that could be addressed through a reasonable but aggressive approach to fuel economy improvements. These problems include increased consumer fuel costs; a growing dependence on imported oil; rising emissions of greenhouse gases, toxics, and smog-forming pollutants; and a fleet that is less safe than it would have been without the massive infusion of today's light trucks.
This report represents a comprehensive assessment of both the technical and economic potential of achieving a safe and fuel-efficient fleet. The analysis is based on existing technologies, many of which are on the road today. The research combined conservative economic assessments with sound computer models to investigate the impacts of significant fuel economy improvements through the year 2020. The study shows that increasing the fuel economy of the nation's fleet of new cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2012 and then to 55 mpg by 2020 can yield significant benefits to consumers, the economy, and the environment without sacrificing passenger safety during a collision. These findings indicate that, instead of looking for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, the nation can tap the ingenuity of Detroit's automobile industry to produce a fleet of safe and fuel-efficient vehicles. For these benefits to be realized, the federal government needs to act now to provide meaningful and continuous increases in fuel economy standards.
Relying on hybrid electric vehicle technologies could bring the fleet to at least 55 miles per gallon. Such a fleet would more than double current fuel economy levels and could save consumers between $3,500 and over $6,500 in fuel costs. Hybrid electric vehicle technologies could enable a family car to reach nearly 60 mpg, while an SUV could cross the 50 mpg mark. A simultaneous move to fuel cell vehicles could lead to a tripling of the fuel economy of family cars and could significantly reduce fuel costs for all drivers."
I read that a couple years ago. I think they may be dreaming a bit on the 40 MPG trucks unless they go with diesel. They seem to rely heavily on hybrid. So far no one has built a hybrid PU that gets good mileage. Mercedes has the diesel hybrid Sprinter that is used by FedEx and UPS. It is not available in the USA as of yet. The real truth is that EPA and CARB are making the rules and have concentrated solely on emissions. That has cost several MPG. If you like the goofy looking Prius or want to be jammed into a Civic you can have both clean emissions and high mileage. Most folks are not interested in that big of a trade-off. I for one would have bought a Dakota sized PU this time if it got 30 MPG combined. That is not going to happen with gas or gas hybrid. No hybrid sold here will even tow 5000 lbs. So what good are they to me?
Just remember, even if it has taken too long, we now have 8 bangers getting the mileage that 4's were getting 5-6 years ago. So imagine if they were really, really serious, huh?
we also have bloated "subcompact" "4-bangers" achieving no better mileage than their counterparts of 20 years ago. Not to say that there has not been progress in technology, but market forces have not allowed full potential to be realized.
Despite Prius's EPA rating of 60/51 its real world mileage is closer to 45 mpg. The EPA is going to address this discrepancy in the next couple of years. Also, I'm not sure where this 50% reduction in emissions is coming from. There is no way that the incorporation of hybrid technology doubles the mileage of a vehicle. I'm sure there is someway to disconnect the battery pack in a Prius and force it to operate as a strict ICE. Is the mileage suddenly going to be cut in half? I don't think so and the highway mileage will barely change at all.
I think you and I completely agree that in our system, build a better car, and people will buy it.
Nope doesn't work that way. You have to give the perception that you have a better car. You can sell a POS as long as enough people think the car is great. Now if you had a great car that every one thought was a POS they good luck selling it.
Madison Ave. works on perception not reality.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And advertisers know that for some significant part of the market, it is even less important what the buyer thinks of the product than what he thinks that OTHERS think of his purchase.
And we consider ourselves and intelligent species?
That is true, that is why a singled stitch leather handbag made from inferior leather can fetch hundreds of dollars if Gucchi is stamped on it while a double stitched high grade leather handbag with the off brand name that will out last the Gucchi sells for $45.00.
That is why the sneakers that are the same type Micheal Jordan uses (or more realistcally is paid to endorse) goes for $150 while the $35 ones right next to them are just as good.
Heck they even have gourmet pet food. :sick:
And we consider ourselves and intelligent species?
In a world where image can be everything I agree.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
who in the heck is the "Union of Concerned Scientists" ? They lost me with their untrue, Incredible opening sentence.
I place very little value or credence in what they have to say, especially about cars and fuel economy.
Insteresting , I mised the devate which has now been striken from the thread. Oh well!, I guess is was too harsh for my tender rose colored eyes. Anyway, an interesting statement that did stay was a $50K car price; that still seems pretty expensive for the average person. For my demographic , If I get a $50K car for my next car I would chose different than an EV. The second subtle or mayben ot so subtle point was the "good enough dicussion". It makes a lot of sense, everyone wants luxury and economy, NOT JUST ECONOMY. If you go back to the mid 70's when the gas lines hit and everyone first became concerned about miles per gallon there were 50 mpg and higher economy cars. Tat had a radio and AC and that was about it. No power anything; very lightweight ( good economy) and very spartain. I has a CRX HF which esaily go in the high 40s and low 50s in mpg, but is was slow and pretty spartan. Look at the Prius -Nav, smartcard .xeon lights, etc. But the cost approaches $30K and even though it is a high mpg car it is not an economical car. breakeven is 3-5 years after purchase, before any savings.
Now look at EV, in the very very early adopter stage. Development costs and a big decision about chraging infrasturcture. The charging infrastructure appears to be home 115Volt plugin overnight charge, 200-250 mile limit, second car for abouve average income. And initially only the glorified golf carts (Xebra, SamrtCar) will be affordable; the Telsa is not affordable unless you are in the top 1% of income ( I'm not there and I do pretty good).
Good Luck,
MidCow.
from wikipedia ( sometimes accurate, sometimes not)
USC background Some of the policies that the UCS endorses include controls on pollution, reduction of nuclear weapons, a ban on weapons in space, federal regulation of some biotechnologies, the protection of endangered species and action against global warming. The Union also encourages research on renewable energy, low-pollution vehicles, and sustainable agriculture. The Union does not oppose the use of nuclear energy, but is a proponent of strict safety guidelines. They oppose a cap on tax credits for the development of hybrid vehicles. They are against genetic engineering of livestock and oppose the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics to treat livestock because of the danger of antibiotic resistance.
History The UCS was founded in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by faculty and students. In 1977, the UCS sponsored a "Scientists' Declaration on the Nuclear Arms Race" calling for an end to nuclear weapons tests and deployments in the United States and Soviet Union [4]. In response to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the UCS sponsored a petition entitled "An Appeal to Ban Space Weapons" [5].
In 1985 the EPA made a significant change in how it arrived at its mpg figures. It reduced its city estimates by 10% and highway estimates by 22%. Due to this comparing the mileage ratings of vehicles in the late 70's and early 80's to today's vehicles gets somewhat distorted.
Same will happen after the 2008 model year when EPA revises the test again to make it reflect modern driving habits.
Expect overall MPG ratings to drop 10-20% across the board, which will make comparing the early 2000 vehicles to te 2008+ vehicles a similar exercise in futility.
I am comparing what people really go back then not the EPA estimates. Remember the 3 cylinder Suzuki turbo Swift ?The EPA estimates is still flawed when there highway driving cycle averages on ly 48 mph.
It is interesting that Toyota actually designed the Prius to the tune of the the current EPA testing to get the 60/51. That is why even most conservative drivers only get 45 mpg as you mentioned earlier.
While President Bush says we have "committed" to hydrogen, others press on:
Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 12, 2006 - JCN Newswire reports that Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) has built a new research vehicle, the Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle (MiEV)*1 for a next-generation EV development project. The electric vehicle (EV) will be used for joint research programmes with power companies that have been working on the promotion of EVs. The power companies will conduct field tests, gather data and evaluate the commercial viability of the vehicle. MMC will provide power companies with EVs and analyse field test data collected by them.
There are two main advantages of the rear-midship layout: increased cabin space and plenty of space for the EV power train. The layout enables the power-train to be placed in front of the rear axle line, which ensures ample cabin space for passengers (4-occupant capacity). It also provides ample space for battery storage, which could achieve the desired daily driving range of a number of customers. An on-board charger allows the vehicle to be changed ordinary electric outlets. In addition to the high practical values, i MiEV displays higher performance levels than the base model in some categories. For example, i MiEV shows stronger torque, quieter noise and less vibration, which are natural advantages of EVs.
They were, when last I heard, far worse off, and that was the Parent Company, not Mitsubishi Motors. Conversely, if GM went belly up, and they won't, just GMAC and DiTech Home loan, would be a several billion dollar corporation.
I asked about bankrupt, because that would severely limit their R & D as well as marketing budgets....
No problem. Perhaps stating your comment more completely would have helped. It looked like sniping.
I asked about bankrupt, because that would severely limit their R & D as well as marketing budgets....
Yes it could. But as we are seeing with Tesla, it can be done for a song. Other companies are tackling the battery technology which would seem to be the major componant. As of today they are going forward.
I have no idea about Mitsubishi's financial state but let's assume you're correct. All the more reason why they'd be the ones to roll the dice and challenge the status quo. I like it.
Hard to find much info on mitsubishi. since the stock price is $1.60 I think it is safe to say they are struggling at best.
I am no expert on the car industry, but it seems to me that the last thing to go is R&D. No other way out of a hole but to come up with products people want to buy. They probably get more free publicity from the Evs than the money they put into designing them.
"Please note that contrary to the Automotive News story of earlier this week, there is currently no plan to sell this car in the U.S.," Mitsubishi spokesman Dan Irvin wrote in an email to CNNMoney.com."
How cooool is that? 65 KMH is not too shabby. Still not CA freeway speed. I would think the state of CA would get behind something like these for urban drivers. Looks like Japan and the UK are interested in them.
REVA Electric Car Company has secured a $2,600 subsidy per car from the government of Japan. Following this, the company is demonstrating its electric variants in select cities of Japan and hopes to ship out cars to Japan in the next two months. This type of subsidy is similar to the one obtained from the UK government. In UK the REVA has firm orders for the supply of 500 cars, the subsidy offered to customers stands at 1,000 pound sterling.
Looks like the Chinese are making a knockoff EV Smart car, like you suggested Chrysler should do. Unfortunately it only has a top speed of 35. Range of 75.
Question: is top speed on an EV something that you can actually use? I would think it might be..unlike an ICE.
Well, if using it for errands, around town, how fast does one need to go? Most local streets are 45 MPH, most are less. How far does one need to go? Even in rural Nevada, in my town, going to the grocery store, Post Office isn't going to run over 20 miles in a day.
There is a place for the current crop of EV's, so long as one had alternate transportation as well....
Comments
How in the world did you ever come up with that? That is so obviously wrong.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
After decades of intense EV/battery development, the Meyers NmG (alias Corbin Sparrow) is the only production EV available, so lets see how it compares in costs (capital and maintenance) to an ICE vehicle. According to the Manufacturer's claims:
1. Range 20-40 miles AFTER 50 discharge cycle "break-in"
2. battery capacity will peak @ ~50 discharge cycles and decline thereafter.
3. 300 discharge cycle battery life
4. motor brush replacement @ ~2 year intervals requiring "break-in" with low acceleration.
5. 12.5s 0-60mph, 70 mph top speed.
6. price $23,900 FOB factory + shipping & taxes.
7. Capacity: One person + "grocery cart" equivalent load.
In my analysis I assume one discharge cycle per day since few people have the ability to recharge at work. Batteries range in price from a "cheap" marine battery @ $100 to Optima "blue tops" @ $185. I've assumed $120/battery x 13 units = $1560 battery replacement cost. Given the break-in requirements, I assume 20mi/cycle for the first 50 cycles and 30mi/cycle for the remaining 250 to battery replacemet for a replacement cycle of 8500mi which should also correspond approximately to the annual mileage @ 1 cycle/day.
Based on the above, in ~2 years and 17k miles the Nmg owner will incur over $3100 expense in battery replacement ALONE (ignoring energy cost) and must also replace brushes and endure a third lengthy break-in cycle. In this period I would not expect to replace more than oil and filters in ICE vehicle!
Now consider capital cost: at 8500mi/yr, 100k miles corresponds to 11.8 years, a reasonable ownership period. I'll assume 90% depreciation in 11.8 years suggesting a capital cost of $23900*0.9/100000=0.215/mi. Adding battery cost of $1560/8500=0.184 results in a combined cost of $0.399/mi, ignoring energy cost and all other maintenance expense (e.g. tires, brushes, drive belt, ....)
40 cents/mile is high for an ICE (for 12yr ownership) INCLUDING gasoline and other costs and for that you have to endure the substantial limitations of the NmG! Where are these EV benefits that some insist exist? Note that battery cost ALONE is 183% of the cost of gasoline for a 30mpg car @$3.00/g! YMMV
I realize this vehicle is no longer available but it is still a legitimate example of what is possible. The Toyota RAV4 EV. MSRP of $42,000. Range of 110 miles. 0-60 in 10 secs. Electronically governed top speed of 80 mph. Still being driven in limited numbers with owners achieving over 100k miles on the original battery pack. Brushless motors. Selling on ebay for $30k if you can find one.
Now consider that these had NiMH batteries. Newer Li-ion chemistry has close to twice the energy per weight.
I get it. You don't like EVs and there is nothing I am going to say to change your mind. I do like EVs. I think they represent the future of automobiles.
There is no perfect vehicle for everyone. Even the most popular vehicle, the Toyota Camry, only accounts for 4% of sales.
Accepting your $42K sales price, that is more than I would pay for ANY vehicle, let alone one of such severe limitations. I think that the NmG would be a neat "grocery getter" for short trips near home, but I certainly wouldn't pay more for it than a full service vehicle (it is, after all, a "motorcycle" under law and does not conform to passenger car standards). It makes sense only for those of unlimited means (and garage space). I don't hink I'm alone. As I've said, to succeed in the market, a product must be comparable to existing alternatives at a competitive price. EVs are not likely to approach that goal in my lifetime.
The two ICE trucks cost me the same to service as the electric trucks and they cost me about 300 a month in fuel each. At the end of 7 years I can expect to spend about 50k in fuel for the two lift trucks If I have to replace all 4 batteries in the electric trucks I should be looking at 10k. that leaves me with about 40k left over for electrical use.
All that long-winded statement is about is that I believe some of the technology is already with us we just need enough people using it to make it profitable. They key point to long term usage for electrical lift trucks in a warehouse is in 110k square feet I can only have one or two ICE trucks because of air quality. The Electric trucks don't pollute the air like the ice trucks do. I agree they are a very long way from making a daily commuter that is pure EV. But I only live one mile fro my little community and once I retire a EV to pop down to the store and post office and eve the lake for a little fishing would be fine as an "extra" vehicle. Maybe even to haul behind the motor home if I were into that kind of living.
The DOT traffic report you are quoting shows just under 36% of miles driven are rural, not within 25 miles of ones home. There is a difference.
Please don't take one statistic and apply it to something else completely.
Again the reason most accidents are within 25 miles of ones home is that most driving is done within 25 miles of home.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Correct. The point remains though that the lighter vehicle would end up having to absorb and redirect more energy. How WELL it does that is obviously a testement to the design engineers.
Something has been horribly garbled this morning.
Gagrice was posting that he would not consider an EV for anything but AROUND TOWN driving due to the safety aspects at HIGHER SPEEDS on the Highway (70+). He was specifying that they would be safe (in his opinion) for low speed (35mph) only.
His point had NOTHING to do with rural use. Or # of accidents within 25 miles of home, or anything else. All he was talking about was using an EV in a low speed (35mph) environment.
After he posted that, you (midcow) made a remark that the majority of the accidents occurred within 25 miles of home (I guess as some sort of odd rebuttal to gagrices opinion that EV's were only suitable for lower speeds).
To which snakeweasel made the response to you that the majority of our driving occurs within 25 miles of home. He was not making ANY correlation to rural or urban roads. ALL he was saying was that (to paraphrase for snake), "Of course the majority of accidents occur within 25 miles of home, that's where the majority of our driving occurs".
How you make the corralary between % of rural miles driven and the 25 miles from home figure is beyond me..... :confuse:
This is all getting so innane that I've completely forgotton what the POINT was......
All of them use this forum. :P
Now I'm just trying to figure out what kinda moro......I mean, 'EV enthusiast'....would want to drive an electric cart on an Interstate? :confuse:
And I agree that for some minority of the population, an EV might serve a purpose, although I doub't that its near 25%.
And even for those who might be able to use an EV as a second vehicle, how many will be willing to pay MORE for a limited service vehicle as compared to other market offerings that serve a broader spectrum of vehicular functions?
MidCow
Oh, I think they are a "perfectly good" solution for more folks than that. I think that a current generation EV would be a "perfectly good" solution for MY needs.
Doesn't mean I want one.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my dietary needs might be a nice chef salad and a lite dressing.
Gimme a steak and a Bass Ale.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my housing needs might be a 900 sf apartment in a public housing project.
Gimme my 3000sf and 3 acres.
A 'perfectly good' solution to my home entertainment needs might be a 25" TV, a VCR and basic cable.
Screw 'perfectly good'. As long as EV proponents beat the "EVs are perfectly good for x% of the driving population", you will get nowhere with the general American public.
sorry about that - rant off.....
I agree, I think that a majority of two or more car homes can use an EV for at least one car with no trouble. How many multi car homes will have all the cars being driven more than 100 miles in one day?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I like to stand an argument on its end, and see if the conclusions still ring true.
If we were talking about a new technology here, one where an engine ran on gasoline, and it didn't pollute, would the arguments some are making about electric cars/carts still ring true? Would they be so energetic in supporting it?
Would anyone honestly consider paying $50,000 for a car equiped like a base Ford Focus, when they could buy a Hybrid for $20,000 less, and cut fossil fuel use in half, and still not give up anything?
This has gone far enough.
If you cannot make post without commenting about other users, then don't make the post.
Future posts with "personal shots" in them will simply be deleted.
My answer is no to both options. This kind of started with a $10k electric vehicle that is very sparse and can seat 4 though probably not in luxury. For me it would be used to drive the 3 miles in either direction that has the stores I do 99% of my shopping in. Being the type of person that never makes a list I sometimes forget what I went to town for and have to go back. A vehicle like the Xebra would fit that need very well. I could buy a $10k whatever ICE car. I would be back to waiting in long lines to get gas and it would cost me 5-10 times what an EV would cost to operate. So my option is to drive my 15 MPG PU truck when I make my multiple trips to the store. Is the gas cost breaking me? Hardly. I just am not going to fall goose step into the vehicle that our government is promoting with the hybrid. I don't believe hybrids are a good longterm solution. I think EVs offer a simpler solution to many of our driving needs. Will people buy into it. I doubt it for the near future.
Sometimes new things have to be taken in stages for the public to support them. IMO, as we have seen in these forums, people once in a Hybrid tend to moderate their driving habits voluntarily, )as opposed to being forced to, which some EV proponents propose doing) and that would further drive down gasoline use.
Another benefit would be to force the EV developers to get real, and speed up their research, and make vehicles people will actually want to buy as badly as they now want to buy ICE's.
But I don't see our government supporting any one technology over another. Tax Credits are given for most anything, and Hybrids are no exception. Neither are EV's.
I think you and I completely agree that in our system, build a better car, and people will buy it.
Hopefully we will see that. I am a skeptic. We have not gained much in mileage over the last 20 years. In fact I believe the fleet average is a little lower than 20 years ago. I think diesel is a simpler interim solution than the hybrid. And you can fill up in back of McDonalds.
Some of it I paste below....
"The fuel economy of today's cars and light trucks is at its lowest point in 20 years. A combination of federal inaction on fuel economy policy and the increased marketing of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans as substitutes for passenger cars have led to this point.
Our nation now faces a number of significant and growing problems that could be addressed through a reasonable but aggressive approach to fuel economy improvements. These problems include increased consumer fuel costs; a growing dependence on imported oil; rising emissions of greenhouse gases, toxics, and smog-forming pollutants; and a fleet that is less safe than it would have been without the massive infusion of today's light trucks.
This report represents a comprehensive assessment of both the technical and economic potential of achieving a safe and fuel-efficient fleet. The analysis is based on existing technologies, many of which are on the road today. The research combined conservative economic assessments with sound computer models to investigate the impacts of significant fuel economy improvements through the year 2020. The study shows that increasing the fuel economy of the nation's fleet of new cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2012 and then to 55 mpg by 2020 can yield significant benefits to consumers, the economy, and the environment without sacrificing passenger safety during a collision. These findings indicate that, instead of looking for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, the nation can tap the ingenuity of Detroit's automobile industry to produce a fleet of safe and fuel-efficient vehicles. For these benefits to be realized, the federal government needs to act now to provide meaningful and continuous increases in fuel economy standards.
Relying on hybrid electric vehicle technologies could bring the fleet to at least 55 miles per gallon. Such a fleet would more than double current fuel economy levels and could save consumers between $3,500 and over $6,500 in fuel costs. Hybrid electric vehicle technologies could enable a family car to reach nearly 60 mpg, while an SUV could cross the 50 mpg mark. A simultaneous move to fuel cell vehicles could lead to a tripling of the fuel economy of family cars and could significantly reduce fuel costs for all drivers."
That will be an issue with future EVs.
Nope doesn't work that way. You have to give the perception that you have a better car. You can sell a POS as long as enough people think the car is great. Now if you had a great car that every one thought was a POS they good luck selling it.
Madison Ave. works on perception not reality.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think it is in limited numbers. According To Benz it was supposed to be test marketed in the US.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And we consider ourselves and intelligent species?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is why the sneakers that are the same type Micheal Jordan uses (or more realistcally is paid to endorse) goes for $150 while the $35 ones right next to them are just as good.
Heck they even have gourmet pet food. :sick:
And we consider ourselves and intelligent species?
In a world where image can be everything I agree.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I place very little value or credence in what they have to say, especially about cars and fuel economy.
Insteresting , I mised the devate which has now been striken from the thread. Oh well!, I guess is was too harsh for my tender rose colored eyes. Anyway, an interesting statement that did stay was a $50K car price; that still seems pretty expensive for the average person. For my demographic , If I get a $50K car for my next car I would chose different than an EV. The second subtle or mayben ot so subtle point was the "good enough dicussion". It makes a lot of sense, everyone wants luxury and economy, NOT JUST ECONOMY. If you go back to the mid 70's when the gas lines hit and everyone first became concerned about miles per gallon there were 50 mpg and higher economy cars. Tat had a radio and AC and that was about it. No power anything; very lightweight ( good economy) and very spartain. I has a CRX HF which esaily go in the high 40s and low 50s in mpg, but is was slow and pretty spartan. Look at the Prius -Nav, smartcard .xeon lights, etc. But the cost approaches $30K and even though it is a high mpg car it is not an economical car. breakeven is 3-5 years after purchase, before any savings.
Now look at EV, in the very very early adopter stage. Development costs and a big decision about chraging infrasturcture. The charging infrastructure appears to be home 115Volt plugin overnight charge, 200-250 mile limit, second car for abouve average income. And initially only the glorified golf carts (Xebra, SamrtCar) will be affordable; the Telsa is not affordable unless you are in the top 1% of income ( I'm not there and I do pretty good).
Good Luck,
MidCow.
from wikipedia ( sometimes accurate, sometimes not)
USC background
Some of the policies that the UCS endorses include controls on pollution, reduction of nuclear weapons, a ban on weapons in space, federal regulation of some biotechnologies, the protection of endangered species and action against global warming. The Union also encourages research on renewable energy, low-pollution vehicles, and sustainable agriculture. The Union does not oppose the use of nuclear energy, but is a proponent of strict safety guidelines. They oppose a cap on tax credits for the development of hybrid vehicles. They are against genetic engineering of livestock and oppose the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics to treat livestock because of the danger of antibiotic resistance.
History
The UCS was founded in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by faculty and students. In 1977, the UCS sponsored a "Scientists' Declaration on the Nuclear Arms Race" calling for an end to nuclear weapons tests and deployments in the United States and Soviet Union [4]. In response to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the UCS sponsored a petition entitled "An Appeal to Ban Space Weapons" [5].
Expect overall MPG ratings to drop 10-20% across the board, which will make comparing the early 2000 vehicles to te 2008+ vehicles a similar exercise in futility.
It is interesting that Toyota actually designed the Prius to the tune of the the current EPA testing to get the 60/51. That is why even most conservative drivers only get 45 mpg as you mentioned earlier.
MidCow
Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 12, 2006 - JCN Newswire reports that Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) has built a new research vehicle, the Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle (MiEV)*1 for a next-generation EV development project. The electric vehicle (EV) will be used for joint research programmes with power companies that have been working on the promotion of EVs. The power companies will conduct field tests, gather data and evaluate the commercial viability of the vehicle. MMC will provide power companies with EVs and analyse field test data collected by them.
There are two main advantages of the rear-midship layout: increased cabin space and plenty of space for the EV power train. The layout enables the power-train to be placed in front of the rear axle line, which ensures ample cabin space for passengers (4-occupant capacity). It also provides ample space for battery storage, which could achieve the desired daily driving range of a number of customers. An on-board charger allows the vehicle to be changed ordinary electric outlets. In addition to the high practical values, i MiEV displays higher performance levels than the base model in some categories. For example, i MiEV shows stronger torque, quieter noise and less vibration, which are natural advantages of EVs.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/10/12/024879.html
They were, when last I heard, far worse off, and that was the Parent Company, not Mitsubishi Motors. Conversely, if GM went belly up, and they won't, just GMAC and DiTech Home loan, would be a several billion dollar corporation.
I asked about bankrupt, because that would severely limit their R & D as well as marketing budgets....
No problem. Perhaps stating your comment more completely would have helped. It looked like sniping.
I asked about bankrupt, because that would severely limit their R & D as well as marketing budgets....
Yes it could. But as we are seeing with Tesla, it can be done for a song. Other companies are tackling the battery technology which would seem to be the major componant. As of today they are going forward.
GM and Ford aren't going to fail IMO.
I am no expert on the car industry, but it seems to me that the last thing to go is R&D. No other way out of a hole but to come up with products people want to buy. They probably get more free publicity from the Evs than the money they put into designing them.
but on a happier note for them:
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b9AE5ABCA-9706-4006-85BB- -62207BEC44F5%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/10/11/mitsubushi_denies_electric_car/index.html?se- ction=cnn_latest
REVA Electric Car Company has secured a $2,600 subsidy per car from the government of Japan. Following this, the company is demonstrating its electric variants in select cities of Japan and hopes to ship out cars to Japan in the next two months. This type of subsidy is similar to the one obtained from the UK government. In UK the REVA has firm orders for the supply of 500 cars, the subsidy offered to customers stands at 1,000 pound sterling.
Question: is top speed on an EV something that you can actually use? I would think it might be..unlike an ICE.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=117128
There is a place for the current crop of EV's, so long as one had alternate transportation as well....