Gas Rage In Staten Island

Jasper Janssen wrote:

That small-car is gonna be weighing in at 400-750 kilos depending on how
much safety features are built in (1000-kilo cars have gained about 200
kilos worth of cages, airbags, and crinkle zones over the past 20 years),
if it were a gasoline powered car.

No... 500lb max... and it could be a lot less. All that safety
equipment is much less helpful in a light vehicle that is traveling at
modest speeds (30-40mph max)... I'd vote to get rid of it. The most
important factor in making them safe is to make it so they don't have
to share the same lanes and roads as the big trucks and SUVs. On any 4
lane road you could split the outer lane in two and make it only
useable for vehicles under a certain size (say 500lb) with a 35mph
speed limit. On two lane roads you could have a wide "bike" lane for
bikes and light vehicles.

Engine weight probably goes down a bit,
since a 30 hp or so electric motor is fairly light

8hp DC motor would be plenty... and no gears are needed. These things
produce max torque at zero rpm.

Horsepower for a max speed at car scales, much like
bike scales, is dictated by aerodynamic loss, not rolling resistance or
weight.

Actually, in regular cars at 60mph it is close to an even split (50%
aero, 50% rolling). At lower speeds the rolling resistance and weight
are more significant... especially when you consider how weight effects
acceleration. The rolling resistance of road bike tires is very low,
plus the weight is low. Also the air resistance of the typical riding
position is very high... so bike riders are a bit unique in how they
are so dominated by aerodynamics even at low speeds. In a light and
low-powered vehicle aero would be pretty important at 35mph, though.

However, 75 km range is going to take up some serious weight

Range certainly is a limiting factor when your energy source is so
heavy, but 30-40 miles is not unreasonable. Electrathons typically go
over 30 miles at a good speed with only a single 60-70 lb lead acid
battery. A more comfortable and road worthy vehicle should be able to
do that with 2-3 times the batteries.

A crude version that is in the ballpark is shown he

http://www.nevco-ev.com/gizmo-specs.html

I'd prefer a more aero shell and less weight, power, batteries, etc...
but that gives you some idea.

Here is another:

http://www.sparrowelectriccars.com/index.html

I like the basic design, but I think they ruined it by trying to make
it freeway legal. Something cheaper, lighter, and slower would have
made more sense, IMO.

The Wogster wrote:
www.cloudevscooters.com

Check out the scooters on that page and the Ego2. Normally carries 50lb
of batteries and goes 23 miles at 23mph. I know somebody who has one,
and that is pretty accurate.

Now double the batteries in series (100lb total), and you have a range
of at least 40 miles at 23 mph... and twice the power (voltage is
doubled) if you want to go fast. Now lets give it a light and aero
velomobile type frame and shell, which would make it considerably
faster than 23mph with the original power output and 40 mile range...
and the ability to go faster yet if you don't mind a range penalty. It
shouldn't need to weigh more than 200-250lb total with batteries.

This isn't high tech stuff. The Ego only costs $1100 and it is quite
low production. Imagine how cheap they could be if 50,000 per year were
made. I think $2,000 with a nice aero frame/shell and extra battery
would be easy... that could even be the deluxe model.

Ron Ruff wrote:
Per D. Sørensen wrote:

Ron Ruff wrote:

On the individual transportation side, lightweight, simple, cheap, and
efficient electric vehicles (30-40mph, 30mi range, 500lb, $2,000 if
mass produced), have been possible for a very long time. I think it is
a stretch to get many people out of an SUV and onto a bicycle (and into
the weather), but a small and simple car seems like it should be very
viable for city travel.

I don't think that vehicles that small, slow and with such a short range
will be very popular. This one on the other hand with 65mph top speed
and 75mi range is popular he
http://www.eutopia.no/Pivco.htm


Do they truly have a 75mi range in regular driving? Seems like a ton
(literally) of batteries would be necessary. How many are being used
right now? Any more info?


I googled some more, and found that the official site only claims
a range of 85km (53miles): http://www.think.no/content.php?id=10
Not quite a ton: the entire car weighs 940kg, which is a little
heavy for a small car: http://www.think.no/content.php?id=14
They built 1005 cars, and except for those destroyed by Ford,
I think all of them are in use. They aren't making them anymore,
but there is a waiting list to get a second hand car. I haven't
driven one, but I see them on the road all the time, and they
don't seem to have any problem following the speed of the traffic:
I have driven behind one in 90km/h up a small hill. Here are some
pictures: http://www.think.no/content.php?id=60#

Per D. Sørensen

The best answer is to reduce consumption, and that isn't that
difficult.

Oh, yes it is! It's called The Tragedy of the Commons effect: No
politician dares mention the need to conserve because it would be the
kiss of death for his political career. All his opponent has to do is
say we can instead solve the supply problem by drilling more wells and
building more refineries, and he gets the votes. After all, the
politicians aren't even willing to require the manufacturers to make
more economical cars, because people just won't vote for a politician
who wants to take away their freedom to choose what to drive, so a
fortiori they are not willing to make anyone reduce their consumption..

Please note that I don't like this situation, but it's the truth.

wrote:
The best answer is to reduce consumption, and that isn't that
difficult.

Oh, yes it is! It's called The Tragedy of the Commons effect: No
politician dares mention the need to conserve because it would be the
kiss of death for his political career. All his opponent has to do is
say we can instead solve the supply problem by drilling more wells and
building more refineries, and he gets the votes. After all, the
politicians aren't even willing to require the manufacturers to make
more economical cars, because people just won't vote for a politician
who wants to take away their freedom to choose what to drive, so a
fortiori they are not willing to make anyone reduce their consumption..

Please note that I don't like this situation, but it's the truth.


The higher the price goes, the less consumption there is, which reduces
pump sales, causing the oil companies to reduce prices, to increase
sales, which increases need, which puts pressure on the supply, which
increases prices.

W