True, there's plenty of nighttime capacity (but remember, more fuel still will be burned), and, in terms of pollutants, power stations do a better job, but it's not as clear in terms of CO2, with lots of electricity being generated with coal, the most CO2-intensive fuel out there.
It's a stupidly low number. I did the math one time and figured that 7.5 kilowatt-hours would give me 40 miles at 60 mph in the Accent. Bigger cars and higher speeds would need more juice. The long-distance cruising is what really hammers the batteries; power used for acceleration is a pittance in comparison, and almost negligible if you have a good regen braking system.
Just out of curiosity, how many watts (or kilowatts, if it takes that much) would it take to charge up a typical plug-in?
As was already posted it is somewhat dependent on the size of the vehicle. The RAV4 EV got about 4 miles per kWh. GM's EV1 did about 5 miles per kWh. However this variance is not as great as in ICE vehicles. For one thing large electric motors are typically more efficient than smaller electric motors. Also, EV's will certainly have regenerative braking. So a good part of the extra energy you expended accelerating a greater mass will be recaptured when you decelerate. So while a Hummer burns 3-4 times as much gas as a Corolla it would probably only use 2-3 times as much electricity.
Most people can buy nighttime electricity for less than 10 cents per kWh so we're talking around 2 cents a mile. Most of the electricity in this country is generated through burning coal or natural gas. So there is going to be CO2 involved. But that doesn't have to be the case. At least it is possible to generate electricity cleanly. Nuclear is one option. Hydro, solar, wind, tidal, geo-thermal are others.
I'm in a big hydro area where they can turn the water flow on and off to generate power (most recent number I can find is 40% hydro - rest is generated from coal-fired plants).
But you're right - Idaho Power runs all night and surely sells the excess production to California.
We could run all the plug in cars off the excess juice if people didn't leave all their stand-by devices plugged in 24/7. :P
power used for acceleration is a pittance in comparison, and almost negligible if you have a good regen braking system
IIRC, don't electric motors develop the same amount of torque across their entire rpm range? So the second that motor turns on, it's putting out its max torque? Versus a car that might have to rev up as high as 4000-5000 rpm or more?
Is that the main reason that acceleration doesn't put too much of a drain on the system?
Oh, they won't do that, people expect that convenience. Me, I would drive right on by any gas station that didn't have pay-at-the-pump, and I do my fair share of shopping in the convenience store too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The pay at the pump stations in San Diego charge a premium on credit and debit. Except for Costco, where I usually get gas. So going in and handing them the cash is the best option for a frugal person such as myself. I refuse to pay 10 cents a gallon or 45 cents to debit my checking account.
No, horsepower stays more or less constant throughout the rpm range. Torque peaks at 0 rpm, and decreases more or less exponentially as rpm increases.
Acceleration doesn't drain the batteries much because it is such a brief event. 150 kilowatts (200 horsepower, and the shape of the hp and torque curves for an electric motor makes the performance equivalent to around 300 hp in a gas engine) applied for 10 seconds is only 0.42 kilowatt-hours, and a regen system puts most of that back in the batteries when braking.
i'm not sure EVs are more environmental friendly when you factor in the production of the energy to charge the vehicles, and you also consider the energy needed to take care of the batteries long-term. maybe the introduction of new capacitor storage technologies may change the equation.
Those who live within 10 miles of work and have sidewalks or bike paths between home and work and who usually go to work alone and do not have another person to drop off or pick up in your commute:
You should look into and seriously consider buying a Segway Personal Transporter.
I use one in Phoenix AZ for my 6.4 mile (one way) commute, and have been using it for my commute daily since March 10, 2006.
It has cost me less than $15 in electricity during that time, and I have ridden it about 2,457 miles, give or take a few miles. As far as cleanliness to the environment, I pay my utility service a $3 per month fee for their "Clean Energy" program so I basically pay for my Segway charges with clean power.
I've been on it in 25 degree weather, light and heavy rain, in severe dust storms, in both darkness and daylight, in 45 MPH winds, on 118 degree days, and it has never failed me (except the one time I let the charge run too low and had to push it 5 blocks. My bad !!!)
For 1-person personal transportation, it's hard to beat. And fun too, and you never stop getting honks and yells and waves. Last week a girl yelled out her window, "Hey, I like your CAR !!!"
And I never get stressed on my way to or from work by all the traffic I pass which is sitting bumper to bumper together, fuming, idling, and wasting gas.
Check it out.....it's a nice, useful extravagance. We all need some of those in our lives.
P.S. Before investing in a Segway, be sure to check the laws and regulations in your city and state regarding Segways. Some places have ridiculous restrictions. Lucky for me that Arizona, Phoenix, and Tempe all allow me to ride on the sidewalks.
I don't mind pay at the pump because I don't have to deal with a cashier who can barely speak English or make proper change and standing behind a million ne'er-do-wells blowing their meager paychecks on lottery tickets and cigarettes.
Yep that is too bad. I wish they could magically strip the price down to about $2K and sell them at Wal-Mart.
They did do something cool with the marketing recently: They made a deal with Sam's Club to sell the previous generation "offroad" model XT online for $3,888.00
That's the best price they ever offered for any Segway at any location as far as I know.
Looks like that deal is over now though - the Sam's Club site does not have it listed any more.
I'd like to see Segways kept off sidewalks. I find them very annoying to dodge around, but they'd be fine for bike paths or shared paths. Walking is better but 6 miles each way is a bit much to ask the average citizen. But anyone who gives up a car for one of these has my admiration. Just stay off my sidewalk please be you bike Segway or motorized scooter (exception, the handicapped with stickers).
It really depends on the person on the Segway. Me, myself, presonally, I give 1000% right of way to anyone else on the sidewalk. The Segway can get out of people's way easily enough and without any issues; it just depends on what the rider wants to do.
For example, yesterday I was coming up on three teenage boys walking on a sidewalk. I needed to pass them. I could have come up behind them, honked my horn, and assumed that they would part and let me pass. Instead, I waited for the next ramp off the sidewalk, went out on the road into the bike lane, passed them, and then at the next ramp got back on the sidewalk.
Another example was this morning I did the same thing for another pedestrian and a bike rider who was riding slower than I was - I exited onto the roadway for short stretches to pass them.
I do that kind of thing all the time. But then again, I'm a 43-yr-old mature adult who has an investment in Segway technology, and I don't want myself or any Segway rider to get a bad name or to be considered RUDE. So I go out of my way to allow other people (walkers, joggers, bikes) the complete right of way.
Any municipality or town which wanted to frame Segway sidewalk rules could incorporate that wording into the laws/rules for Segway riders: "Segway riders must go out of their way to allow passage by any and all other pedestrians or bike riders" and that would solve any potential pedestrian conflict issues.
In a way, it's good that Segways cost five grand. Because if parents could easily and frequently buy them for their teens to use, the sidewalk problems could become an issue.
i'm not sure EVs are more environmental friendly when you factor in the production of the energy to charge the vehicles, and you also consider the energy needed to take care of the batteries long-term.
There's no question that EVs are better for the environment. However they're a long ways from being perfect, for reasons you've mentioned. But within the context of this thread where we are talking about $4 gas is where EVs start to really get appealing. While there may be future shortages of oil and gas the US has an abundant capacity to produce electricity and to expand this production. Even if it's coal, which would be the worst environmentally, from a cost perspective we would never have to pay anywhere near 60-70 cents per kWh, which roughly equates to $4/gallon gas. Even solar power would be cheaper than this and the sun's not going to get more expensive. It's just the non-trivial matter of getting the initial investment down to something that is affordable.
I can see it now. A Segway traffic jam in downtown Phoenix. They will have to paint lines down the middle of the sidewalk to keep them from running into each other. The picture in my mind is out of a science fiction novel with rows of people all in the same suits riding their Segways in perfect unison. Ah it is a beautiful sight :shades: I liked the electric motor scooter the best. I think motorized vehicles belong on the street. Not all folks are as careful as our friend larsb.
the inventor of the segway has a vacation island on the connecticut shore. he mostly arrives and leaves via helicopter. he also has some big wwII wheeled amphibious vehicle that he uses to get to shore. i'm sure it sucks a lot of gas and puts out a lot of pollution. the island does generate it's own electricity using a windmill.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
still, i think there is inefficiencies in the charging and conversion of energy to/from the batteries. also, there's the issue of maintaining / disposing / re-conditioning of the batteries. did you factor those costs in fairly? it's pretty pricey for an EV.
the technology is getting better and more attractive though.
perhaps tiny electric skooters, or better, bicycles. many forward thinking towns are putting in extra-wide "bike paths".
When the gas gets too expensive you can always move to the slum section of the city. Every thing you need is right there...the drug dealer is on the corner, no need to drive anywhere. No need to drive your garbage to the dump either...throw it out the window! Yes, I can see a lot of us living in the slums if gas hits $4 a gallon.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I have an electric bicycle from ZAP. It's just a regular mountain bike with a motor and roller for the rear tire...it has a two-speed motor.
It's really an "electric ASSIST"...you're supposed to pedal and use the motor at the same time, or when you need a burst of speed uphill.
You can really crank on this bike but the range is fairly limited. I'd say after 5-6 miles of vigorous pedaling plus frequent use of the assist, you can notice the battery getting weak.
But if you were going point to point and stopping (like commutting 6 miles to work) you'd get there pretty fast and not all sweated and tired. Then you could plug it in and be charged up for the ride home.
And, unlike an electric car, if the battery gets drained, you just lift the roller and pedal home...the bike is a porker though with battery and motor. Must weigh 40-50 lb easy.
Costs about $750...and when the motor burns up, just strip everything off, put a "normal" tire on the rear wheel and you still have a $200 bicycle.
Nobody said anything about being in the left lane. I stick to the slow lane except to pass trucks. But I will tell you one lesson I have learned from long experience: anyone who gets out on that stretch in the left lane and thinks they are averaging much more than 65 mph is kidding themselves. Traffic in that corridor is so congested all the time now that all I see are people on each other's rear bumpers in the fast lane, perhaps accelerating to 80 for a second to pass on the inside, then slow right back down to 65, and on and on the dance goes...
I wonder when they will put a fourth lane out there on the stretch between Vacaville and West Sac.
But anyway, slowing down does improve fuel economy a lot, more than one might think. With current gas prices, it can literally put a 5-spot in your pocket at every fill-up. In other words, it can save you a lot more money than shopping around for the best gas price just to save $0.20/gallon can...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I just spent two weeks in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and drove three Hertz cars, a Toyota Corolla 5-speed manual, a Fiat Palio 1.4, and a VW Polo 1.6. "Alcool" is about $4 a gallon and gasoline is about $6 or more a gallon. Consider that Brazilians typically earn far less than Americans. So, gasoline in the USA is cheap for the typical American wage earner. Almost all of the cars in Rio are small French or Italian models that aren't sold in the USA. My Subaru 2007 spec.B seemed so smooth, powerful, and luxurious to me after driving those three cars in Brazil. My wife's 2007 Subaru LL Bean Outback seems positively sybaritic.
Penn & Teller did a test of the Toyota Prius in one of their recent episodes. They set two girls up on a blind date with each other (don't worry, the girls didn't mind; in fact, they PREFERRED it!).
Anyway, in this impromptu test, they had the girls accelerate from a standstill, and they got 0-60 in about 12.2 seconds. They also gave the girls two car seats with prop-babies in them, and some luggage to simulate a family of four. IMO it was a lot of crap, so I was impressed that they got it all to fit! Although they couldn't get the hatch to close. One of the girls also said that she usually brings more stuff than that just by herself when she goes away for a few days!
As for fuel economy, they had the girls drive from LA to Oxnard, and they averaged about 44 mpg. That was according to the car's trip computer though, and I don't know how accurate that is. I know sometimes they can be off a bit, compared to the old pen-and-paper method of dividing how many miles you drove by how many gallons it took to fill it back up.
To be fair though, highway mileage (which I'm guessing that trip was) isn't the Prius's main focus.
To be fair though, highway mileage (which I'm guessing that trip was) isn't the Prius's main focus.
The EPA mpg rating for the Prius says that it does better in the city. From everything I've read this isn't consistent with what drivers are achieving in the real world. I believe that the average Prius owner is getting close to 50 mpg on the highway, which agrees with the EPA rating. But only getting around 40 mpg in the city, which is very good but not even in the ballpark of the EPA's 60 mpg rating. I believe the new/modified EPA ratings that are coming out will reflect this.
Don't move to the slum, the slum will probably soon be coming your way. Many inner-ring suburbs are falling into disrepair as their populations age, more affluent folks move to the exurbs taking the tax base with them, and demographics change. Ironically, a lot of inner city neighborhoods are becoming gentrified forcing the poor folks elsewhere - usually to middle class neighborhoods going into decline or inner-ring suburbs.
Pretty much right on.... Americans drone down the highway oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world in respect to fuel prices. I have the rare bonus of not having to commute so I'm always amazed at what I see on a drive to the Baltimore/Washington D.C. area if it happens to be during rush hour. A guy driving to work in a Suburban and you just know he's doing it everyday - then he has the audacity to complain about gas prices changing his "lifestyle"? What an idiot! Try driving around Britain for a year with that kind of vehicle, Monday through Friday.... You better be rich!
NBC News last night had that lady complaining about how gas shouldn't affect ones lifestyle as an American. SHE IS SHOWN IN AN SUV!
I say bring the prices up to record highs and get some of these crybabies in their barges an "international" reality check!
I say bring the prices up to record highs and get some of these crybabies in their barges an "international" reality check!
I agree. I don't know who is responsible for teaching this mindset that cheap, plentiful gas is an American birthright.
The higher the price goes the sooner we'll develop alternatives. Unfortunately we typically only react to a crisis. We're not at the crisis point yet but we do need to be taking action. That being the case the price of gasoline needs to keep going up, way up.
When I make comments like this I am almost always attacked with the same argument. "What about the poor, don't you care about the poor"? If you've ever watched "The Simpson's" it has that same mindless quality as when Maude Flanders would shriek, "will someone please think about the children". Funny thing is these people almost all drive full sized trucks or SUVS, make a decent living and normally could give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about the poor.
I believe the new/modified EPA ratings that are coming out will reflect this.
I think the new ratings are just a smokescreen. I would bet they have not tested 1 in 100 vehicles. The new EPA for the Prius is 48 city 45 highway. My bet is they used a computer program to come up with the new ratings. If you check they are basically a percentage of the old ratings. All cars are rated lower than the old ratings. I know that some of the old ratings were lower than the average owner was getting. Yet with the new ratings they were dropped by about the same percentage as all the rest. They only tested 15% of the vehicles under the old system. Wonder if they have tested any under this new rating system. I imagine they just take the word of the automakers as before. What are we paying them for?
If I thought that raising the price of gas would get a few folks off the road I would be for it. I do not think it will do anything but cause more economic problems than we already have.
"Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory."
That is exactly what they told me in an email. However when I pressed them for which models they had actually tested in their labs, I was up against a wall. They could not tell me. I am wondering if any cars have actually been tested for the new ratings. My argument is thus. If you go to the new ratings site and put in a 2004 Toyota Camry. It shows the old and the new rating. I don't think they went back and tested any old cars. So it is all a guessing game as to what these cars are actually getting under the new test formula.
I'm sure that's all they did, was put in a computer formula. For example, they have "new" EPA ratings going all the way back to 1985! Here's one for a 1985 LeSabre 307, same setup as my grandma's old car. I can guarantee they didn't go out and find an '85 LeSabre to re-test! :P
Interestingly, the "new" rating for this car, 15/22, is about what I'd get with it. But by that time the car had about 140-150,000 miles on it, and was usually limited to VERY short trips, with lots of time just sitting around collecting dust & rust, and not in the best state of tune.
And wow, check out the rating for the 1989 Gran Fury cop package! I had to dog the hell out of mine to get it to get 11 mpg. And on the highway, it could actually break 20 pretty easily.
If nothing else though, the EPA's new rating for the 1985 Silverado 305 is more in-line with what I get out of mine! :P
It does not matter ONE WHIT whether the EPA actually tests the cars or if they just rely on the manufacturer's test results.
(I already did this on the EPA Forum I think.)
The reason it does not matter is that NO CAR MAKER WOULD **EVER** LIE ON THESE TESTS because of the negative press which would result if that ever came to light.
The measurements are just an "ESTIMATE" anyway, to be used to help car buyers measure one car's MPG versus another car's MPG so as to consider that criteria in the decision of which car to buy.
And when you say, "they could not tell me which cars they were testing", what was really HAPPENING is that "they WOULD not tell you" because those records I'm sure are not for public view. Just because an organization is government-based does not mean that every Private Joe Citizen has a right to see every single database result that ever took place.
You can bet your bottom dollar that they are testing new cars at the same rate as the old test - 10%-15% of the cars.
And of course they are not re-testing earlier model year cars - how could that POSSIBLY be done? Those results are most likely a less accurate "estimate" than the ACTUAL TESTS which are occurring on new cars under the new test.
But it does not really matter at all for the older cars because they are not for sale NEW any more and the intent of the EPA ratings system is to assist NEW CAR BUYERS - thus the legal requirement for new car price stickers to contain the EPA ratings but such is not required of USED cars.
The average EPA MPG for the Prius over at gh.com is 48 MPG; so having the new EPA test get a combined 46.5 is a pretty darn close ESTIMATE to what REAL DRIVERS will get.
If my guess is correct the EPA hires a lot of computer geeks that sit around coming up with random figures that may or may not resemble realistic mileage. I doubt this whole change would have come about if not for the horribly flawed estimates on the Prius. They are just telling the public what they want to hear.
I'm sure are not for public view. Just because an organization is government-based does not mean that every Private Joe Citizen has a right to see every single database result that ever took place.
We do have a freedom of information act. If John Kennedy's sex life is made public, I should be able to find out which cars the EPA actually tested. Maybe the Prius is very close now. There are many that are way off. How do you think this will play out with the new CAFE regulations. Cars that were within the CAFE standards are well below. You think that will cause some battles? For example the number one selling car in America is the Camry 4 cylinder automatic. It used to be rated at the CAFE 27 MPG. Now it is rated 24 MPG combined. Will Toyota have to pay a fine on every Camry sold? Same goes for the Accord.
Since you are convinced the EPA is above board. How did they come up with a NEW EPA mileage estimate for the cars back to 1985?
I've interviewed as many Prius drivers as I could over the last year and I'm pretty much convinced that if you drive it like a normal car in a normal world you are going to average 41-44 mpg when you add up a year's worth of miles.
So anyone attempting to justify such a purchase based solely on the gas savings should probably use those numbers.
The same "test" should hold true for any "claims" made by new gas-saving models, electrics, hybrids, veggie-oil conversions or WHATEVER---give them to real people on real roads and let's see what happens in 6 months.
gary says, "How did they come up with a NEW EPA mileage estimate for the cars back to 1985?"
You've got the e-mail contact - e-mail them and ask them directly. I doubt that it's "secret."
Also, I'm sure by going through the proper channels you can probably get someone to tell you yes or no as to whether or not they can give you a list of the cars they actually tested.
Riiiiiight! The car makers would practically sell their soul to Satan if it would save them three cents per car. But they'd never lie about anything, eh? :shades:
You are right and larsb is wrong on this one. With gas headed up the automakers are going to do what ever they can to convince people they have the most economical vehicles. So what if their test is different from the EPA. That could be the brand of gas. If memory serves me correct Toyota tested their Camry V6 on premium for HP ratings and advertised that the car was good to go on regular. All true but they got their hand slapped for misleading data.
Comments
As was already posted it is somewhat dependent on the size of the vehicle. The RAV4 EV got about 4 miles per kWh. GM's EV1 did about 5 miles per kWh. However this variance is not as great as in ICE vehicles. For one thing large electric motors are typically more efficient than smaller electric motors. Also, EV's will certainly have regenerative braking. So a good part of the extra energy you expended accelerating a greater mass will be recaptured when you decelerate. So while a Hummer burns 3-4 times as much gas as a Corolla it would probably only use 2-3 times as much electricity.
Most people can buy nighttime electricity for less than 10 cents per kWh so we're talking around 2 cents a mile. Most of the electricity in this country is generated through burning coal or natural gas. So there is going to be CO2 involved. But that doesn't have to be the case. At least it is possible to generate electricity cleanly. Nuclear is one option. Hydro, solar, wind, tidal, geo-thermal are others.
But you're right - Idaho Power runs all night and surely sells the excess production to California.
We could run all the plug in cars off the excess juice if people didn't leave all their stand-by devices plugged in 24/7. :P
IIRC, don't electric motors develop the same amount of torque across their entire rpm range? So the second that motor turns on, it's putting out its max torque? Versus a car that might have to rev up as high as 4000-5000 rpm or more?
Is that the main reason that acceleration doesn't put too much of a drain on the system?
I think there might be a slight differance between AC and DC motors though.
Makes you wonder why the stations don't rip out the pay at the pump pumps.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Acceleration doesn't drain the batteries much because it is such a brief event. 150 kilowatts (200 horsepower, and the shape of the hp and torque curves for an electric motor makes the performance equivalent to around 300 hp in a gas engine) applied for 10 seconds is only 0.42 kilowatt-hours, and a regen system puts most of that back in the batteries when braking.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/performance.php
You should look into and seriously consider buying a Segway Personal Transporter.
I use one in Phoenix AZ for my 6.4 mile (one way) commute, and have been using it for my commute daily since March 10, 2006.
It has cost me less than $15 in electricity during that time, and I have ridden it about 2,457 miles, give or take a few miles. As far as cleanliness to the environment, I pay my utility service a $3 per month fee for their "Clean Energy" program so I basically pay for my Segway charges with clean power.
I've been on it in 25 degree weather, light and heavy rain, in severe dust storms, in both darkness and daylight, in 45 MPH winds, on 118 degree days, and it has never failed me (except the one time I let the charge run too low and had to push it 5 blocks. My bad !!!)
For 1-person personal transportation, it's hard to beat. And fun too, and you never stop getting honks and yells and waves. Last week a girl yelled out her window, "Hey, I like your CAR !!!"
And I never get stressed on my way to or from work by all the traffic I pass which is sitting bumper to bumper together, fuming, idling, and wasting gas.
Check it out.....it's a nice, useful extravagance. We all need some of those in our lives.
P.S. Before investing in a Segway, be sure to check the laws and regulations in your city and state regarding Segways. Some places have ridiculous restrictions. Lucky for me that Arizona, Phoenix, and Tempe all allow me to ride on the sidewalks.
Takes a City bus 1 hour for my commute, because I have to go out of my way a few miles and I have two 10+ minute layovers in between.
They did do something cool with the marketing recently: They made a deal with Sam's Club to sell the previous generation "offroad" model XT online for $3,888.00
That's the best price they ever offered for any Segway at any location as far as I know.
Looks like that deal is over now though - the Sam's Club site does not have it listed any more.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
It really depends on the person on the Segway. Me, myself, presonally, I give 1000% right of way to anyone else on the sidewalk. The Segway can get out of people's way easily enough and without any issues; it just depends on what the rider wants to do.
For example, yesterday I was coming up on three teenage boys walking on a sidewalk. I needed to pass them. I could have come up behind them, honked my horn, and assumed that they would part and let me pass. Instead, I waited for the next ramp off the sidewalk, went out on the road into the bike lane, passed them, and then at the next ramp got back on the sidewalk.
Another example was this morning I did the same thing for another pedestrian and a bike rider who was riding slower than I was - I exited onto the roadway for short stretches to pass them.
I do that kind of thing all the time. But then again, I'm a 43-yr-old mature adult who has an investment in Segway technology, and I don't want myself or any Segway rider to get a bad name or to be considered RUDE. So I go out of my way to allow other people (walkers, joggers, bikes) the complete right of way.
Any municipality or town which wanted to frame Segway sidewalk rules could incorporate that wording into the laws/rules for Segway riders: "Segway riders must go out of their way to allow passage by any and all other pedestrians or bike riders" and that would solve any potential pedestrian conflict issues.
In a way, it's good that Segways cost five grand. Because if parents could easily and frequently buy them for their teens to use, the sidewalk problems could become an issue.
There's no question that EVs are better for the environment. However they're a long ways from being perfect, for reasons you've mentioned. But within the context of this thread where we are talking about $4 gas is where EVs start to really get appealing. While there may be future shortages of oil and gas the US has an abundant capacity to produce electricity and to expand this production. Even if it's coal, which would be the worst environmentally, from a cost perspective we would never have to pay anywhere near 60-70 cents per kWh, which roughly equates to $4/gallon gas. Even solar power would be cheaper than this and the sun's not going to get more expensive. It's just the non-trivial matter of getting the initial investment down to something that is affordable.
I think you're right---too many Segways just creates another problem.
What we need is a variety of solutions, of which Segway would be one of many.
Other than the one lady in a pickup with her Mom who pulled me over to ask me about it.
Can't really picture any of those downhome Texas folk owning a Segway though, I gotta agree with you there......
the technology is getting better and more attractive though.
perhaps tiny electric skooters, or better, bicycles. many forward thinking towns are putting in extra-wide "bike paths".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It's really an "electric ASSIST"...you're supposed to pedal and use the motor at the same time, or when you need a burst of speed uphill.
You can really crank on this bike but the range is fairly limited. I'd say after 5-6 miles of vigorous pedaling plus frequent use of the assist, you can notice the battery getting weak.
But if you were going point to point and stopping (like commutting 6 miles to work) you'd get there pretty fast and not all sweated and tired. Then you could plug it in and be charged up for the ride home.
And, unlike an electric car, if the battery gets drained, you just lift the roller and pedal home...the bike is a porker though with battery and motor. Must weigh 40-50 lb easy.
Costs about $750...and when the motor burns up, just strip everything off, put a "normal" tire on the rear wheel and you still have a $200 bicycle.
I wonder when they will put a fourth lane out there on the stretch between Vacaville and West Sac.
But anyway, slowing down does improve fuel economy a lot, more than one might think. With current gas prices, it can literally put a 5-spot in your pocket at every fill-up. In other words, it can save you a lot more money than shopping around for the best gas price just to save $0.20/gallon can...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regards,
OW
Anyway, in this impromptu test, they had the girls accelerate from a standstill, and they got 0-60 in about 12.2 seconds. They also gave the girls two car seats with prop-babies in them, and some luggage to simulate a family of four. IMO it was a lot of crap, so I was impressed that they got it all to fit! Although they couldn't get the hatch to close. One of the girls also said that she usually brings more stuff than that just by herself when she goes away for a few days!
As for fuel economy, they had the girls drive from LA to Oxnard, and they averaged about 44 mpg. That was according to the car's trip computer though, and I don't know how accurate that is. I know sometimes they can be off a bit, compared to the old pen-and-paper method of dividing how many miles you drove by how many gallons it took to fill it back up.
To be fair though, highway mileage (which I'm guessing that trip was) isn't the Prius's main focus.
The EPA mpg rating for the Prius says that it does better in the city. From everything I've read this isn't consistent with what drivers are achieving in the real world. I believe that the average Prius owner is getting close to 50 mpg on the highway, which agrees with the EPA rating. But only getting around 40 mpg in the city, which is very good but not even in the ballpark of the EPA's 60 mpg rating. I believe the new/modified EPA ratings that are coming out will reflect this.
NBC News last night had that lady complaining about how gas shouldn't affect ones lifestyle as an American. SHE IS SHOWN IN AN SUV!
I say bring the prices up to record highs and get some of these crybabies in their barges an "international" reality check!
I agree. I don't know who is responsible for teaching this mindset that cheap, plentiful gas is an American birthright.
The higher the price goes the sooner we'll develop alternatives. Unfortunately we typically only react to a crisis. We're not at the crisis point yet but we do need to be taking action. That being the case the price of gasoline needs to keep going up, way up.
When I make comments like this I am almost always attacked with the same argument. "What about the poor, don't you care about the poor"? If you've ever watched "The Simpson's" it has that same mindless quality as when Maude Flanders would shriek, "will someone please think about the children". Funny thing is these people almost all drive full sized trucks or SUVS, make a decent living and normally could give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about the poor.
I think the new ratings are just a smokescreen. I would bet they have not tested 1 in 100 vehicles. The new EPA for the Prius is 48 city 45 highway. My bet is they used a computer program to come up with the new ratings. If you check they are basically a percentage of the old ratings. All cars are rated lower than the old ratings. I know that some of the old ratings were lower than the average owner was getting. Yet with the new ratings they were dropped by about the same percentage as all the rest. They only tested 15% of the vehicles under the old system. Wonder if they have tested any under this new rating system. I imagine they just take the word of the automakers as before. What are we paying them for?
link
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
Interestingly, the "new" rating for this car, 15/22, is about what I'd get with it. But by that time the car had about 140-150,000 miles on it, and was usually limited to VERY short trips, with lots of time just sitting around collecting dust & rust, and not in the best state of tune.
And wow, check out the rating for the 1989 Gran Fury cop package! I had to dog the hell out of mine to get it to get 11 mpg. And on the highway, it could actually break 20 pretty easily.
If nothing else though, the EPA's new rating for the 1985 Silverado 305 is more in-line with what I get out of mine! :P
It does not matter ONE WHIT whether the EPA actually tests the cars or if they just rely on the manufacturer's test results.
(I already did this on the EPA Forum I think.)
The reason it does not matter is that NO CAR MAKER WOULD **EVER** LIE ON THESE TESTS because of the negative press which would result if that ever came to light.
The measurements are just an "ESTIMATE" anyway, to be used to help car buyers measure one car's MPG versus another car's MPG so as to consider that criteria in the decision of which car to buy.
And when you say, "they could not tell me which cars they were testing", what was really HAPPENING is that "they WOULD not tell you" because those records I'm sure are not for public view. Just because an organization is government-based does not mean that every Private Joe Citizen has a right to see every single database result that ever took place.
You can bet your bottom dollar that they are testing new cars at the same rate as the old test - 10%-15% of the cars.
And of course they are not re-testing earlier model year cars - how could that POSSIBLY be done? Those results are most likely a less accurate "estimate" than the ACTUAL TESTS which are occurring on new cars under the new test.
But it does not really matter at all for the older cars because they are not for sale NEW any more and the intent of the EPA ratings system is to assist NEW CAR BUYERS - thus the legal requirement for new car price stickers to contain the EPA ratings but such is not required of USED cars.
The average EPA MPG for the Prius over at gh.com is 48 MPG; so having the new EPA test get a combined 46.5 is a pretty darn close ESTIMATE to what REAL DRIVERS will get.
We do have a freedom of information act. If John Kennedy's sex life is made public, I should be able to find out which cars the EPA actually tested. Maybe the Prius is very close now. There are many that are way off. How do you think this will play out with the new CAFE regulations. Cars that were within the CAFE standards are well below. You think that will cause some battles? For example the number one selling car in America is the Camry 4 cylinder automatic. It used to be rated at the CAFE 27 MPG. Now it is rated 24 MPG combined. Will Toyota have to pay a fine on every Camry sold? Same goes for the Accord.
Since you are convinced the EPA is above board. How did they come up with a NEW EPA mileage estimate for the cars back to 1985?
So anyone attempting to justify such a purchase based solely on the gas savings should probably use those numbers.
The same "test" should hold true for any "claims" made by new gas-saving models, electrics, hybrids, veggie-oil conversions or WHATEVER---give them to real people on real roads and let's see what happens in 6 months.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
You've got the e-mail contact - e-mail them and ask them directly. I doubt that it's "secret."
Also, I'm sure by going through the proper channels you can probably get someone to tell you yes or no as to whether or not they can give you a list of the cars they actually tested.
But like I said -
IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER
BECAUSE
NO
CAR
MAKER
WOULD
EVER
LIE
ABOUT
IT.
DOES
NOT
MATTER
BECAUSE
NO
CAR
MAKER
WOULD
EVER
LIE
ABOUT
IT.
Riiiiiight! The car makers would practically sell their soul to Satan if it would save them three cents per car. But they'd never lie about anything, eh? :shades: