posted on January 12, 2003 11:44:18 PM new
If automakers actually wanted customers to buy Hybird/Electric/Hydogen Fuel Cell automobiles, then they wouls stop making them look so ghastly ugly.
Figure it out.
For ijnstance, why can't I go buy a Toyota Corolla with an electric motor or as a hybrid? Why are those choices left to cars purposely designed to be hideous to look at? I mean, how many of you want to purchase a car that passersby fall down from a belly laugh pointing at you in your stupid-looking car?
This news doesn't impress me either. They'll just turn out more Ultra-Ugly cars so that no one will want to buy them!
Oh! The "conspiracy theory"?
OK. If you are in business as an automobile manufacturer, you want to sell your products. Right? And if you put any new car on the market, you're going to make it as sleek, stylish, and sexy as possible and you're going to put some dollars behind a massive adverising campaign to get them sold. Right?
Then why bother to introduce a new car, make it as ugly as hell, and then not drop a dime to promote their existance?
Answer: they don't want to sell them.
OK. If they don't want to sell them, that means that they take a loss, so that can't a correct conclusion ~ can it?
Now here's the Conspiracy part -- what if for every Hideously Ugly Hybrid/Electric/Hydogen car that they produce, the Oil Companies subsidize the automobile manufacturer's costs? And why would they do that? It doesn't take a degree in Rocket Science to figure out who's bottom line will be destroyed if we stop consuming oil as car fuel!
So, IF that Conspiracy Theory is right, why are they doing it? It has to be a gigantic hassle!
a) The call by some government officials and most especially the buying public's outcry for automobile manufacturers to make these cars free them from Oil Company tyranny is met.
b) states like California, which has mandated the use of optional fuel/motive power for automobiles, can be held off by saying, "Look -- we MADE those cars, but NOBODY WANTS THEM! So what're WE to do about it?"
How to test out this theory?
Answer: make the automobile industry offer customers the option for the type of motive power in all of their vehicles. How could they posibly complain about that? Sure, it'd be a bit higher cost to offer Electric Hybrid versus gasoline. But if it cost an extra $2,000 on your next purchase to get the car model that you love in Electric or Hybrid -- would you pay that difference?
ONLY $2,000? Where'd you come up with THAT figure?
Well, there IS such a thing as MASS PRODUCTION and since the cars are starting to be made in Mexico at super-cheap labor rates, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that such things would not add a significant amount to the New Car purchase price.
posted on January 13, 2003 06:14:30 AM new
It's not really about the car being sleek, sexy and stylish. It's about areodynamics and making the car as least resistance to drag on the air that it goes through.
One of the Detroit TV news stations did a report on a lady that owned one of these cars. This was about a year or so ago when gas was about 2.20 a gallon. She said it really doesn't bother her how much gas is, she get about 60 miles to the gallon.
Answer: The current auto market is driven by the large V8 SUV and pickup driver. Currently gas is cheap enough to support this market and hybrid cars are on the back burner.
Answer: ONLY $2,000? Where'd you come up with THAT figure?
The cost of technogoly divided into the number of cars that are going to be produced using that technogoly.
Answer: Well, there IS such a thing as MASS PRODUCTION and since the cars are starting to be made in Mexico at super-cheap labor rates, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that such things would not add a significant amount to the New Car purchase price.
The American automakers, (hourly employees) are union members, UAW. These unions, of course don't want their members out of work and the factories closed. When the factories close, the union membership drops and the union looses money that would have been paid through it's members.
If the UAW member pays 30.00 per month for union dues, and the factory has 1000 employees, that's $30,000.00 per month, and $360,000.00 per year in membership dues per factory. That's why they are not moving to Mexico. Additionaly, the loss of earning power of these people, and the loss of tax base at the local, state and federal level
is lost. A loosing move any way you look at it.
posted on January 13, 2003 10:19:47 AM new
>It's not really about the car being sleek, sexy and stylish. It's about areodynamics and making the car as least resistance to drag on the air that it goes through.
If they'd rather make owners look like idiots driving one in the name of areodynamics, then why aren't ALL cars redesigned to be just as areodynamic and just as ugly? Why? Because those cars wouldn't sell either.
posted on January 13, 2003 02:04:04 PM new
Ferraris are pretty aerodynamic and they're not ugly.
The difference in drag coefficient between a Prius and a Corolla isnt all that great - keep in mind that one of the factors of the Cd is frontal area. For the average driver that spends the bulk of their driving time
on city streets, the fractionally lower Cd is of marginal value.
I believe the "lower drag" is the cover story. I think the real reason for the "Hybrid Look" is just that, to create a "look" that is distinctive and will come to be identified with that type of car and will ultimately make other "looks" dated much the same as the Chrysler Cab Forward and Ford Taurus "look" dated their boxier predecessors.
The hybrids will come in time to be seen as the "progressive" and "modern" thing to drive and THAT will create sales, not technological innovation. The technology may be the talking point, but the "look" will generate the sales. We are a fashion conscious nation, and the manufacturers are creating a fashion - albeit a one that will be hard for many of us to swallow. Anyone who knows anything about car sales knows that LOOKS sell cars, not technology.
10 years from now gashog lincolns will sport this look - some of the new Cadillacs are moving in this direction. As it spreads some clever copywriter or auto journalist will feel compelled to label it- and while "hybrid" makes sense now, I believe it will end up being called the "tech" look, allowing it to be applied to hybrids and their conventionally powered brethren.
posted on January 13, 2003 02:21:34 PM new
Borillar,
I have great news for you! I was listening to Detroit radio station WJR, AM 760 today. The Detroit Auto Show is going on right now and the host of the radio show was talking to a spokesperson from Ford Motors. The conversation had to do with the new hybrid Ford Expidition.
This will have no compromise of power and style. It will get 35-40 mpg in the city. It will be available in this September, and only cost $5,000.00 more than the gas only model.
If you spread that cost out over 3 years then the extra cost would pay for itself.
p.s. WJR is a 50,000 watt powerhouse from Detroit. If you live in the five surronding states around Michigan or in many places in Ontario, you can hear WJR. Also, its one of the oldest radio statiions in the country.
posted on January 13, 2003 02:57:48 PM new
Sorry but over 3 years it does not pay for itself.
I spend about $900 a year for fuel.
So if it doubles my mileage I will save $450 a year - I have to drive it 9 years or so with NO extra maintenance costs for it to break even.
That is not counting any extra costs for interest but also assuming has won't suddenally go to $6/gal. Also one of the things they do to get the mileage is install super low rolling resistance tires. So if I don't spend big bucks for special order tires at full price it will drop 3 or 4 mpg when I wear out the first set of tires.
The batteries cost a lot to replace if they go bad and the current cars don't even use the latest technology - ultracapacitors.
posted on January 13, 2003 03:26:33 PM new
What I would wish Detroit would come out with(an the Oil Corporations would only allow) is a simple inexpensive electric car with a range of only 50-75 miles. It would get me back a forth to work every day on a single charge and I could use my regular gas car if I wanted to take long trips.
Such a setup would save me tremendously on fuel use.
Back during the Oil embargo, there was a company that would convert your car to short-range electric for 1800 dollars plus the scrap they removed(engine, tank, etc.)
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 13, 2003 03:29 PM ]
posted on January 13, 2003 03:36:06 PM new
Thanks for that info, yeager!
I'd like to see ALL Detroit-built vehicles have the new car option of Gas/Hybrid/Electric/Fuel Cell. Not only would it give consumers plenty of choice, but would allow consumers to sacrifice a bit of drag coefficient for sexier looks.
posted on January 13, 2003 03:40:23 PM new
>Back during the Oil embargo, there was a company that would convert your car to short-range electric for 1800 dollars plus the scrap they removed(engine, tank, etc.)
Watch Out, mlecher! I mentioned the same thing here and some posters went Squirrely and began to debate how it was impossible, aka "you're really a liar, etc."
Yes, I recall some conversions along those lines as well. I have told the story of how a customer came by one day, opened his front end on his small import, there were four car batteries linked up to a large electric forklift motor by the looks of it. He said that he got about 150 to 250 miles per charge (I can't recall exactly which) and when he left, he burned rubber for nearly half a block!
posted on January 13, 2003 04:12:00 PM new
Well I wouldn't go that far. 4 car batteries would not be nearly enough to go that far. Calculated amps, watts and such and you would even see it wasn't enough. Consider those electric carts for the disabled. They have two high capacity car batteries and will do nowhere near 250 miles at a fraction of the weight. Those eletric forklifts have much more than four batteries and they won't do 100 miles.
But I just needed 50-75 miles and I think it was 20+ car batteries was what the conversion took. The batteries and motor(motor was light and geared) would weigh as much as all the stuff in the engine compartment.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 13, 2003 05:52:30 PM new
You could extend the range by having a little robot arm with a clamp. sneak up close behind a SUV at the stop light and clamp on his trailer hitch.
Thw way people tail-gate today he'd never notice.
posted on January 13, 2003 06:03:50 PM new
Hmm. If you had to purchase 20 car batteries at one time, what sort of a discount could you get? Car batteries have to be changed about every four years. Would it be worth the expense?
Once again, with a lot of business, I'm sure attention would be made to increase the efficency of electric motors and that of large-scale batteries.
As far as the number of batteries goes, maybe he had more hiden away in the trunk of the car. He didn't show me that and I didn't ask.
posted on January 13, 2003 07:31:39 PM new
The hybrid Civic is almost identical to the gas one, but as Gravid illustrated above these vehicles are dramatically more costly to run overall. And few people will put up with the limitations AND the expense.
posted on January 14, 2003 06:14:23 AM new If you had to purchase 20 car batteries at one time, what sort of a discount could you get? Car batteries have to be changed about every four years. Would it be worth the expense?
Yes, it would be well worth the expense even today. In addition to the fuel savings, it would also save wear & tear on your other car's engine. Its the short drives that tear up a car's engine the most...and the ones that are most efficiently handled by an electric motor. Maintenance problems with your gas car would go way down and it would last alot longer(maybe another reason why we won't see it happen?)
Also, with new battery technology these days, a different battery type would probably be used. The initial expense for these batteries would probably be more, but the life would be greatly extended.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 14, 2003 06:19 AM ]
posted on January 14, 2003 11:28:22 AM new
As far as I've heard, lead acid batteries gives more amps per cubic centimeter than any other substance. But that's been around over a hundred years. Can't we INVENT something that holds a better charge than lead acid? I think that we coulkd if industry was really interested in doing so.
posted on January 14, 2003 11:32:51 AM new
Sure, Gel-cells batteries. Lots of power for the size and weight. But very expensive at present. They are used as battery backups for medical equipment and intrusion alarms.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 14, 2003 11:50:03 AM new
The Insight, Prius, and Civic use NiMH "packs" which are warranteed for 6 years I believe. The price premium on the cars is not recoverable by their fuel savings within that time. If you then have to pay some ungodley amount to swap the battery pack, you might as well drive an SUV. Right now these vehicles are rolling test beds on which the manufacturers are trying to get real-world experience. Before the public accepts them battery density will have to increase, motor efficiency must become better, and prices have to become more managable.
posted on January 14, 2003 12:01:56 PM new
It is all a lie.
What the public needs is a short range electric car. They would be inexpensive. The concept is to have two cars, one gas and one electric. Those short trips to work and store, you use the electric. For those long extended trips, take the SUV. The gas savings would be tremendous and the life of the SUV would be increased. The maintenance costs for the SUV would also be minimal.
Use the electric for what it is most efficient at, short distances and use the SUV for what it is most efficient at, long distances.
But would Detroit accept such a concept: NEVER!
And would Oil Companies accept such a concept: NEVER!
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 14, 2003 12:36:56 PM new
I would be real happy with a small car that had a real small four cylinder gas engine to drive the front wheels and a battery pack and two small pancake electric motors to drive the rear wheels. If it could go 40 to 50 miles on the electric it would cover 80% of my use and the gas engine would take me out of state occasionally and get me home if I ran out of juice. The motor would also probably last me 250/300k miles because of the majority being ran under electric.
If you were in bad weather or needed an extra boost to get down the x-way ramp you could ki9ck both in.
posted on January 14, 2003 12:48:46 PM new
Gravid,
You've just descibed the entire concept as well as the execution of the Insight, Prius, and Civic. The only difference is the separate wheel motors (even more expensive) are replaced with a pancake motor/generator between the engine and transmission.
The only real question is would you spend a few EXTRA thou to do it as oppossed to Europe where you would buy a very small, very efficient turbo diesel, or very high output, high compression small displacement premium fuel engine.
posted on January 15, 2003 03:32:54 AM new
I've been closely involved in the development of three seperate programs to explore the practical use of electrically powered vehicles in delivery fleets.
Nowhere here is there mention of the electrical costs. The equipment to recharge these vehicles, if not aboard and included in the initial cost, can be quite a bit, and there's a power company bill to consider.
Even though each program that I knew something about was partially subsidized by the power company involved (PG&E), their interest was in having the programs appear to succeed so that they'd obtain longterm customers. Their contributions were not open-ended.
The monthly bill for the recharging of as few as 30 vehicles was quite large. Even though that cost could be charged into seperate line accounts and thereby hidden, the average single vehicle consumer would be unlikely to be able to charge that cost off to anyone. The alternative energy credits hardly cover the time it takes to fill in the required blocks.
Isn't using fuel to create electricity 2-3 more efficient than in producing forward motion?
I think that gas engines were determined to be, even the most efficient, 20-30 percent efficient with most energy being given off as heat. But steam turbine engines used to produce eletricity use all the heat they can get their hands on making them much more efficient.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 15, 2003 04:59:23 PM new
My sister owns a Citicar. I drove it several years ago and it seemed like a bit peppier golf cart, but you are protected from the weather - but it's a long way from a substitute for a real car.
posted on January 15, 2003 05:31:22 PM new"The only real question is would you spend a few EXTRA thou to do it as oppossed to Europe where you would buy a very small, very efficient turbo diesel, or very high output, high compression small displacement premium fuel engine."
Absolutely! Let the Consumer make up their own mind! S*T*O*P offering those choices to us with only UGLY CARS! S+T+A+R+T offering that choice to us with regular model cars and don't make modifications that say, "I'm a Jackass driving this! Laugh at me!"
Whatever happened to Capitalism and the Free Market mentality? Let's take this to the marketplace and SEE what everyone will choose!
Me, Id pay an extra $5,000 just to flip off the blasted Oil Companies for good!
posted on January 15, 2003 07:10:16 PM new
Unfortunately Borillar people ARE buying what they want. The average mommy WANTS a 6500lb SUV to take her 1 infant to the FOODKING every day. The reason "sensible" vehicles are not the norm is because now personal choice rules in a cheap oil market. In Europe where taxes artificially subvert the market, people buy the 50mpg diesels.
One way to decrease fuel consumption drastically in the US??? MAke vehicles conform to their actual use. SUVs (except I believe Mercedes & Honda which meet car standards)are called "trucks" by the gov and don't have to meet car standards. If you register it as a car it must meet car standards. If mommy wants to take Bonzo around in an Expedition, she needs a heavy vehicle license. This way contractors can still have the vehicles they need w/o breeding fleets of them driven by clueless people.
posted on January 15, 2003 07:54:14 PM new
Yes, I've also heard this party line from the the Talking Heads on TV, DeSquirrel. Of course, I'm always inclined to be cynical and suspicious of anything that comes out from the media these days, since real journalism has been done away with (two or more creditable sources, proof, smoking guns, etc). I do agree that with low fuel prices and the resistance of our government not to pile on Energy Taxes the way that is with the European model, there is little incentive to change over.
Yet, I truly feel that the Consumers, given a CHOICE of our Favorite Vehicle with alternate energy sourcing (which we don't have right now). If I had to wait four or five extra days to get it made and then delivered to me, I'd be as happy as anyone could be. That way, they don't have to make them and then lose money out on them. That's the 'On Demand Manufacturering' if I remember rightly. Is there any reason why THIS solution isn't even being offered today?
It's not that I want to make a political statement to saving the environment, etc. I am sick to death of th tyranny of the Oil Companies and mechanics. For example, my wife's 1994 Toyota Corolla has 76,000 miles on it. She just got done making a $250 a month loan payment on it. Now, we have to make $250 a month payments to mechanics to fix things as one thing is failing after the other (really, we put the car into the shop every two months and pay $500.) I want to get out from under that mess and have some FREEDOM! Yes, the next time that there's an Oil Crisis in the Gulf and there are SUVs backed up for BLOCKS to gas stations, I'll be driving by and tooting my horn at them and laughing my a$$ off at them!
Then, who ever heard of taking an electric car into the Department of Environmental Quality it's called here, why you get your hydrocarbons checked before registration? There's a small fee and a large hassle out of the way. Without so many parts to go wrong, which they are doing to us right now at ONLY 76,000 miles, I'd rather have an electric car anytime! Even if it cost me an extra $5,000 (new) and I had to wait a few days for Detroit to make it and deliver it to my door.
How about you? Anyone else rather have an alternative in your favorite auto style than straight "cheap" petrolium-based fuel motors?
Would it hurt you to wait an extra 4 or 5 days for them to make it and deliver it to your front door?
posted on January 15, 2003 08:30:26 PM new
You don't have to wait at all. You could bop down to a Honda or Toyota dealer and drive one away. Probably have your choice of color too. As to being less complicated than a current Toyota, I don't see any "alternative" vehicle meeting that statement. Statistically a Toyota w 75000 is among the most trouble free wheeled conveyances on the planet.
posted on January 15, 2003 09:55:38 PM new"Isn't using fuel to create electricity 2-3 more efficient than in producing forward motion?"
Yeah, something like that. But it doesn't matter so much when they're charging more for electrical energy than for petro energy, and in electrical devices there is a continual loss factor whether the device is in use or not. Sorta' like having a gas leak in your garage, it amplifies your usage.
