Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Let me guess: you applied there and got rejected, right? Ahh, the highly intelligent and thought out "i know you are but what am i?" response. Then again, no one in their right mind is EVER going to link you and intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Ahh, the highly intelligent and thought out "i know you are but what am i?" response. Hey, wait a minute. Didn't Paul Rubens get arrested while catching a flick in Florida? Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Hey, wait a minute. Didn't Paul Rubens get arrested while catching a flick in Florida? Coincidence? It's a correlation...so it might be conicidence, it might be causal, or it might be related to a third datum that is causal itself. But it means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Ahh, the highly intelligent and thought out "i know you are but what am i?" response. Then again, no one in their right mind is EVER going to link you and intelligence. If you want a highly intelligent and well thought-out response, try posting something intelligent. Oh, never mind. Asking you to post something intelligent or well-informed is like asking a rooster to lay eggs, or Tom to admit he's wrong about something, or the Bills to win the Super Bowl. BTW: why are we ruining this electric car thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 BTW: why are we ruining this electric car thread? You felt the need to spam this thread with your drivel about burning corn stalks and running more power lines as the answer to everything. Then you decided to try and justify your ignorant stance by using a MOVIE as a credible source. Thats when it was ruined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 BTW: why are we ruining this electric car thread? Piss off JSP. Duh. And I admit I'm wrong about something WHEN I'M WRONG. Remember when I referenced an ACE report instead of an EPA report? Know why you don't remember it? Because I said "Oops, my bad", corrected myself, and that was the end of it. There's a lesson for you in that little vignette... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Piss off JSP. Duh. Comes pretty close after breathing, eating & sleeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Piss off JSP. Duh. And I admit I'm wrong about something WHEN I'M WRONG. Remember when I referenced an ACE report instead of an EPA report? Know why you don't remember it? Because I said "Oops, my bad", corrected myself, and that was the end of it. There's a lesson for you in that little vignette... Yeah, I'd forgotten this was originally JSP's thread. As for admitting when you're wrong: you should have done that in our regression toward the mean discussion. I told you about the test/retest phenomenon, which you ridiculed. After 50+ pages of discussion, I found links from Stanford et al which supported what I'd been saying all along. In fact, the Stanford explanation was remarkably similar to an explanation of my own which you'd repeatedly ridiculed. So now you want me to admit that I was wrong? I'm sorry, Tom, but that's just insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 So now you want me to admit that I was wrong? I'm sorry, Tom, but that's just insane. Quite the contrary. I want you to keep being wrong. It's entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Quite the contrary. I want you to keep being wrong. It's entertaining. Yeah. Agreeing with what Stanford, Duke, etc., have written about regression toward the mean sure makes me wrong, all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 ...Lotus Elise... Good post Cincy!... More than 2 watts... I'd say 7 watts! You mentioned the Lotus Elise... That would make sense... That is a VERY, VERY light vehicle... I was reading about it in one of my son's car books... Like I said, the thing is incredibly light weight... Which probably lends to a good electric car? Yet... The tech in the Elise makes it extremely expensive I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 It was a while ago when I saw the movie, but I do vaguely remember them talking about non-GM electric cars. I'll have to see it again to be sure they mentioned Honda, but if I had to bet one way or the other, I'd bet that they did. I'm not saying that GM isn't money-motivated. Neither did the makers of the film. They felt that GM's focus on SUVs to the exclusion of electric cars was greedy, but in a short-sighted way that would ultimately harm the company. Given the way gas prices have gone up in the last few years, the filmmakers may well have a point. I see the California regulatory commission as long on good intentions, but short on wisdom, realism, or competence. Was the capacity of the batteries ever mentioned in this informed and well investigated piece ? I think the batteries that were being used were NiZn batteries. My memory fades but I do remember that those batteries could only handle very short commutes - 10 miles or so. Plus they would have the infamous 'memory' problem which meant you should not charge them until they are near drained. Look, I think the concept was killed because it was technically & practically infeasible - there was no conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 Piss off JSP. Duh. And I admit I'm wrong about something WHEN I'M WRONG. Remember when I referenced an ACE report instead of an EPA report? Know why you don't remember it? Because I said "Oops, my bad", corrected myself, and that was the end of it. There's a lesson for you in that little vignette... *reloads* YOU AREN'T DEAD YET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 *reloads* YOU AREN'T DEAD YET? Remember when you closed this thread? Not only am I not dead yet...try starting a new thread and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Was the capacity of the batteries ever mentioned in this informed and well investigated piece ? I think the batteries that were being used were NiZn batteries. My memory fades but I do remember that those batteries could only handle very short commutes - 10 miles or so. Plus they would have the infamous 'memory' problem which meant you should not charge them until they are near drained. Look, I think the concept was killed because it was technically & practically infeasible - there was no conspiracy. Exactly! That is what I have been saying... But in a practical everyday sense by what is already considered cutting edge in the field and offered on the market today for other applications... I know there is a lot of development that needs to take place though... In the practical world, not that I am really in it where I work, we use electric drive carts all the time (True... A lot MORE tech can be applied to them)... And in my wildest dreams I can't imagine how they are going to solve the shortcomings of a battery... Even our most recent aquisitions have all the latest electronic boards, speed controls, what nots and gizmos to get them to run efficiently and there are still (IMO) major issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Was the capacity of the batteries ever mentioned in this informed and well investigated piece ? I think the batteries that were being used were NiZn batteries. My memory fades but I do remember that those batteries could only handle very short commutes - 10 miles or so. Plus they would have the infamous 'memory' problem which meant you should not charge them until they are near drained. Look, I think the concept was killed because it was technically & practically infeasible - there was no conspiracy. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I do remember them saying something about the range. IIRC, there was some next-generation battery in the works or something, that gave those cars a longer range. There was a special patent on that battery. After GM abandoned the EV1 project, the company which owns those patent rights was purchased by an oil company. I'm not accusing GM of a conspiracy. The electric car either is or is not technically feasible. If it is, some start up will succeed in bringing it to market. And if it's not technically feasible, nobody can blame GM for abandoning the EV1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The electric car was killed for the following reasons (among others)[*] California had passed a law requiring a certain percentage of all vehicles to be zero emissions by a specific date. GM wanted to derail that law, believing it wouldn't be able to meet its requirements. Without functional zero emissions vehicles, it's a lot easier to say the law's requirements are impossible to meet. [*] The electric car was too expensive to produce. [*] Some law would have required GM to stock replacement parts for electric cars in all GM dealerships. It wanted to avoid this burden. [*] GM had elected to pursue a more SUV-intensive strategy with the acquisition of Hummer. It no longer felt it needed the electric car. [ CA rescinded their feel-good law. They had to - no manufacturer could meet what those technology-deficient, self-serving clucks cooked up. Yes - an electric car is expensive to produce. /and any manufacturer could produce a real-world 60 mpg car today - with good crash protection, too. It would weigh 1,500 lb., would have a 1.0 liter engine, skinny tires as hard as a rock and slippery as h*ll when it rained or snowed, would be blown around if there was a stiff wind, and would be constructed of carbon fiber, magnesium, titanium, selected application of high-strength steel...and go out the door with a $35,000 price tag. Auto manufacturers for a long time, have been required to have parts available for vehicles up to 10 years old. There is not a single part that cannot be obtained by a dealership, and usually in 24 hours. It's part of doing business, and they are good at it. GM, like any manufacturer, would sell you lard-on-burnt-toast sandwiches if they could make a buck on it. Same with electric cars. Developing and manufacturing any new vehicle involves hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, labor, testing, setting up supply lines, marketing and so on and so forth. It's not the same as a fast-food company issuing another variant on a hamburger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 CA rescinded their feel-good law. They had to - no manufacturer could meet what those technology-deficient, self-serving clucks cooked up. Yes - an electric car is expensive to produce. /and any manufacturer could produce a real-world 60 mpg car today - with good crash protection, too. It would weigh 1,500 lb., would have a 1.0 liter engine, skinny tires as hard as a rock and slippery as h*ll when it rained or snowed, would be blown around if there was a stiff wind, and would be constructed of carbon fiber, magnesium, titanium, selected application of high-strength steel...and go out the door with a $35,000 price tag. Auto manufacturers for a long time, have been required to have parts available for vehicles up to 10 years old. There is not a single part that cannot be obtained by a dealership, and usually in 24 hours. It's part of doing business, and they are good at it. GM, like any manufacturer, would sell you lard-on-burnt-toast sandwiches if they could make a buck on it. Same with electric cars. Developing and manufacturing any new vehicle involves hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, labor, testing, setting up supply lines, marketing and so on and so forth. It's not the same as a fast-food company issuing another variant on a hamburger... Yes, that law was clearly a mistake. It actually discouraged car companies from going forward with their electric cars, so that they could fight it. Other than the fact an oil company bought up that car battery company, I don't see anything else that's truly suspicious going on. My hope for the future is that entrepreneurial, new electric car makers put all the legacy car manufacturers out of business. This would have several benefits: We'd be getting rid of American union labor, and switching to American non-union labor We'd help our balance of trade by giving companies like Phoenix market share currently controlled by foreign auto makers. We'd get rid of the diseased corporate culture that exists in Detroit firms. Cars wouldn't pollute. If today's cars are as high maintenance as a clingy woman, the electric cars of the future will be as low maintenance as a Spartan man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Had a busy day, so I haven't been able to check...Holcomb's Arm is still being his usual retarded self, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 [*]If today's cars are as high maintenance as a clingy woman, the electric cars of the future will be as low maintenance as a Spartan man. I think it is the exact opposite here... How much more low maintenance can a gas car get now? Oil every 3 months and a tank of gas when you need a fill-up... ME personally, I follow the rigid plan because I care about my ride... Sure once you reach the "service life"... A lot more goes in maint. wise... But now heck, you can buy a car off the lot and just drive, gas, and oil (even that I suppose you can push, but don't advise) the heap to 100k without a problem! Electric cars, IMO, are far more tempermental... Even when the batteries are running at full capacity... I brought up how at work our boards, speed controls always seem to be acting up... Temp flucs... All kinds of needless jazz... I even suggested just cutting our carts and stapping a 8 Hp small engine to the things... Heck... Just replace the electric carts/tuggers with quad ATV's or what not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts