Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: impact is dead
From: stubbs@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Jerry Stubbs)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:20:41 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Computer Science Dept

In article <1993Jan4.164144.4778@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser) writes:
>Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>
>>>>   People won't accept EVs because they have been brainwashed
>>>>into thinking they can't be used.
>
>>>Brainwashed by oil companies, auto manufacturers, and Hitler, right?

    I think many people, including myself, might feel more confident about 
    EV's when there are AC outlets on parking meters and battery swap stations
    near the shopping malls.

>
>Yes, it might.  But my car already costs less to operate and produces
>less smog, overall, than your EV.  If you say I'm wrong, I say prove it.

    There is little here to compare. We don't know if this means less total or
    less per pound of vehicle.

>>>greater than $0.25 (if we can believe that) but far less than $2.  A
>>>Geo Metro would cost you only $0.15 a day.

    For fuel alone.  I don't think wear and tear, depreciation, etc. are 
    included here.


>You IC types?  You IC types?  Actual figures?  Actual figures?
>Don't you know anything about power production?
>
>If you want to see the results of some very good research into this
>matter, may I suggest an article in Car and Driver within the past
. . . . . 
>otherwise I'd tell you the exact copy.  I think Csaba Csere did the
>research and wrote the text.  He's an MIT grad if that matters to you.

    I found an article in March '92, Car and Driver. Written by Pat Bedard, 
    one of the regular editors. About as much depth as the typical 
    U.S.A. Today article, with the same type of little graphics and 
    charts. I don't think there were many real facts about efficiency.
    I didn't find it all that enlightening, except I remember
    one point that I would agree with:

  " . . . electric vehicles are efficient because they have to be. "
  " . . . with the equivalence of four-tenths of a gallon of gasoline . . ."
  
    He went on to explain how EV's are being developed with very high-tech
    frame and body materials, for low weight, ultra-efficient tires.
    These are a necessity for EV's.  A gas car like this could probably
    run on a large lawn mower engine.  But, you'd still have to change 
    the oil, etc, and accept the gradual loss of efficiency as the 
    engine loses compression. The EV will work well enough in this 
    situation, and give other benefits.


>I thought there wasn't much bias, but as some might expect, he concluded
>that EVs aren't as efficient as some think, they are probably going to
>be unsafe due to their weight considerations, they don't save much, if
>any, pollution, and they don't remove the source(s) of the problem.
>That's from memory, so don't quote me.  I do recall clearly that there
>were a lot of facts and figures and neat charts/graphs/diagrams.

     If you're just skimming through an article, any facts and figures
     can seem impressive. I studied them a little, and didn't see 
     much relationship to this thread's issue, or for that matter, his
     article.


>>  EVs don't remove the old clunkers from the road that
>>> are spewing out the majority of the crap anyway.

    There are places where only EV's are allowed because the pollution
    problem is considered that critical.  And some major cities in 
    Europe are following suit, allowing only EV's in their central
    core.


 >>   I'd agree with that, but I don't think the "old clunkers" need
>>to be removed. I have a '67 Volvo that I've retrofitted to fuel
>>injection in an attempt to clean it up.

    This is hard for me to understand.


>>I've noticed that new Hondas spew smoke when loaded going up this
>>hill. These are the '92 models.
>
    I wonder what a '67 Volvo does on this hill.


>>> us much longer than most think because there's reserves that haven't
>>> even been tapped yet and some geologists think that the oil/gas may
>>>actually be able to replace itself.  Even if they don't, there's the
                       --------------

>>>possibility of widespread solar power and alternative fuels. Don't
>>>forget about cold fusion or smaller, safer fision reactors.  Given
                -----------

   This network can be so entertaining!!



>>>time, all these things will develop nicely.  Today's engines burn
>>>cleaner and give us better and better mileage.  What we need are better
>>>urban road systems, less traffic, and better public transportation.  We
>>>don't need knee-jerk reacting, ill-informed, lobby motivated, desperate
>>>politicans telling us or our companies what to do.

    I wonder what the auto would be like without the stimulus of the National
    Highway system, or the anti-pollution laws, and the CAFE standards.
    What would our air transport be like without publicly funded airports 
    and weather and navigation systems. Even the space program pushed 
    technology in these areas much faster and farther, thanks to our
    desperate politicians.


>>EVs ain't the solution to our problems, but it's a
>>hell of a lot better alternative than what we are doing now.
>
>Are you so sure?  Don't you think that the money that'll be put into
>making a mass-producable electric car and the extra $$$ we'll have to
>spend to buy one could be better put to use doing the things I said
>above? 


>We rely on them to transport us to wherever the hell we want to go, in
>as much comfort as we want or can afford, as fast or as slow as we wanna
>go, as often or as little as we like, for a very cheap relative cost
>with little inconvenience, and as safely as ever before.  Put those
>options into your electric car, then let us (and GM) know.

   Personally, I think if a person can only afford one car, it probably 
   shouldn't be an electric one. But it could be a good 2nd or 3rd car
   for many, and at the same time it could have a very significant effect
   on highly polluted, confined areas like Los Angeles.  I don't know
   how they will incorporate bulletproof glass into the design, though.



Newsgroups: rec.autos