FWIW, I read somewhere that in real life, the GM electrics got somewhat less than 100 miles on a charge.
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place. >> >> They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the >> EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It >> was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given >> that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still >> in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal. >> Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite >> reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day >> when parked. > > 125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in > many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern > Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will want to > drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far > more useful, but still limited. > >> >> Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125 >> miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300 >> miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't >> satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for >> about 90% of the market. >> >>> The fact that a much later product from another company worked >>> better is >>> irrelevant to the discussion, >> >> Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The >> technology involved is quite similar. > > Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery > tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes > them a lot cheaper to build and support. > >> >>> as is the fact that GM didn't support a >>> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement. >> >> A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the >> electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the >> batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third >> party company products", that's quashing the technology. > > Ah, didn't know that. I agree. > >> >>> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were >>> viable >>> products, they wouldn't have killed it. >> >> Guess you never heard of politics, eh? > > Oh, I know politics. Politics is what stuck GM with the EV1 in the first > place. > >> >>> Part of the issue is that unless >>> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will >>> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception). >>> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade >>> weather. >> >> Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that >> they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven >> one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so >> passionately about them. >> >> On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical >> "film vs digital" debate levels .. >> >> Godfrey >> >> > > I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would > have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the > southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a > commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think > electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually > find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems > with far fewer downsides. > > I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard > charging as battery capacity increases though. > > -Adam > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
