Hybrids are a horrible scam they just play off peoples beliefs that they are the solution. Just think about it...hybrids merely delay the problem, and in all reality they aren't getting superior gas mileage.

Also your "theory" is my belief. The market just isn't there for electric cars. The site that made a huge deal about the cars being destroyed was just propaganda.

Technology for electric cars is good but the cost is shit (for now)...just ask your self, what makes an electric car practical? It's the battery life and right now the only battery's capable of lasting long enough to be practical are extremely expensive (unless practical to you means every 3 miles you need to recharge ). Then take into account the cost vs performance...trust me there is no market. America wants fast/big/powerful cars...and if they're clean/more efficient thats good too!...thats your real market.

 

Snoochies you are right they "invented new batteries" so it's going to be more then a few years before they can make them cheap enough to mass produce them. I mean honestly who is going to pay $60,000 for a battery+a car? Not to mention our infrastructure isn't set up for electric cars.

 

First, hybrids DO piss me off because they're unecessary. The technology's there for a long running electric car...they're just TRYING to keep us dependent on oil.

But as to it being propoganda...not that it couldn't have been doctored....but I saw the footage of them flying over the "EV graveyards". Actual stacks of EVs that were flattened and piled on top of flatbeds. THEN I saw more footage from a CA tv show where they went to see what a car shredder does. They accidentally stumbled upon some Honda EVs that were in line to be destroyed. BRAND NEW cars getting fed into the shredder.

I don't think it was propoganda. But it doesn't really matter. There are men out there who are running "conversion garages" where you can have any car you want converted to electric.

 

I didn't question whether or not the event happened...it was propaganda by the way it was presented. When you said they "where willing to over pay" that made it propaganda to me, because unless these people have $75,000 to spend on a low performance car I'm not seeing it. Also the "and in some cases prying it from the cold dead hands of the owners" was also a nice touch.

Also I'm sure most car companies recycle "concept cars" that didn't make the company's standards.

 

Well, LA was set up. They had charging stations downtown so people could charge while they were at work. And the average american drives 29 miles to work so that's plenty of milage to get home and charge up there. Not to mention that they're now made to be compatible with any 110 outlet so you can charge anywhere. There's the bargain basement lead batteries that get the standard 60 miles. The Nickel/metal batteries can get around 100 miles/ charge. The lithium/Ion ones you're talking about ARE pricey....but they'll still be working when the doors are falling off the car.

 

I said "nearly". These people FOUGHT to keep their cars. GM took them anyway. And yes, some of them were willing to overpay to keep their cars. People like Mel Gibson who has plenty of money to throw away tried to pay to keep his. GM took it anyway.

And in what other case (other than faulty parts that require a recall due to danger to the consumer) have you ever heard of a car company recalling ALL of a particular model when owners WANTED to keep the car?

I'm sure most companies do recycle "concept cars". But not in the case of the EVs. I saw footage of these cars at the shredder. Perfectly good cars. The reason they gave the man at the junk yard was "they're uninsurable".

I saw these cars shredded into dime size pieces. Now perhaps they plan to melt that stuff down but as far as actually trying to recycle parts......that's not what these companies did.

 

Yes I was referring to the lithium batteries, however I had no idea there where cheaper batteries that offered that kind of performance. Not to mention until I see proof of the other batteries afford ability/performance I doubt I'll believe it. Not questioning your word but I'm not one to just accept something with out having proof.

Also even if that is true LA alone is not a big enough market...Hell I know most Texans "wouldnn be cauut deed in one of dem panzy electric wanna be cars" not trying to generalize Texans as retarded... but there are more then a few who meet that criteria.

 

And the lithium batteries are VERY expensive. The guy who modified the cars said he couldn't see a big market for it until the price comes down but they'll outlast any car on the road today..lol...However, the Lithium ones get over 200 m/charge.

I fully agree that there is a LARGE portion of America that wouldn't dare drive an electric car. But shouldn't there be the OPTION? I mean if there was an (equally) affordable electric car on the market, available to anyone who wanted one...I truly think that if everyone who WANTED one could HAVE one it would greatly offset those who didn't.

I can't show any proof for this stuff...this is all from a documentary I saw. And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I happen to believe a large part of this info is true...but that's me. And I'm gonna spit out another statistic from the documentary that I have no evidence to back up and I'm not sure I believe myself: It takes 50 electric cars to burn through enough electricity to create the same amount of pollution caused by ONE combustion car....Now I don't know if that's true or not. But even if it's exaggerated and it only takes 10--that's a LOT better for the environment.

 

Bush and Blair were riding on horseback on Dubya's Texas ranch when the come across a sheep with its head stuck in a fence.

George jumps off his horse, drops his pants and proceeds to give the sheep's ass a good seeing to.

He finishes up and then says to Blair.... " Come on down buddy...it's your turn."

Blair looks a little sheepish and says...." Do I have to stick my head in the fence too? "

 

Yes there SHOULD be an option sadly companies are only interested in money. The infrastructure is built around cars that run on gas. The technology for gasoline cars is already there and they don't have to gamble on producing electric cars.

Trust me I am a HUGE electric car supporter but I can see why its not going to happen for a while. Hopefully I'm wrong though I'd really like for us to stop being so damn dependent on fossil fuels. Not like we're going to have a choice though...I've heard and keep in mind this is only something that I've heard...but- "the optimistic people say we have a 40 year supply of fossil fuels....the pessimistic people say 20". I don't know about you but both those numbers represent a very harsh reality coming in the not-so-distant future.

Also I would believe the statement in regards to electric cars...even if its exaggerated they will be far superior to what we have now.

 

That depends quite a bit on how the electricity is generated. In France, much of it is nuclear, and the statement might well be correct. In the U.S., it's not so clear cut, since a lot of electricity is generated by burning coal or oil.

I have sympathy for your point of view, Snoochies...I'm just not convinced that one car company, not even the LARGEST car company in the world (which GM no longer is, BTW), can stifle the introduction of innovation to that extent.

And they key is not whether the technology exists, but whether the price is competitive or perceived by consumers as worth it, given the performance of the vehicle.

This whole story is reminiscent of the thing about how GM, Firestone and others conspired to eliminate trolley lines (the Pacific Electric "Red Cars" in Los Angeles, etc.) in order to promote the use of buses and automobiles. The truth is, trolley lines in those days were almost all private business and were not profitable, particularly after World War II. They had been losing riders and revenue long before that, though. This was before the federal government began to subsidize public transportation in the 1960s.

The trolley lines may have gotten a push, but they were all going to be belly-up soon anyway without some form of public subsidy.

 

Very well said. =)

 

Do I dare to enter into the discussion here in this thread and thus reveal my political leanings for all here to see?





Nope. :mrgreen:

 

Well, the first paragraph is what they were referring to with the 50 electric cars vs. 1 combustion vehicle. That's based on purely coal produced electricity. (but as I said, I don't doubt that is an exaggeration)

I'm not swayed by the performance. Seeing how aggressively the owners fought to KEEP their cars is nearly enough to convince me that they were a good product. And it's all a matter of supply and demand. The reason electric cars cost so much is because they aren't mass produced. And they aren't mass produced because the cost keeps the demand down. It's a horrible cycle. If electric cars were introduced to an assembly line type of production the cost would come down greatly. After all, they're comprised of nothing more than a motor (which only needs a few bearing or brushes replaced should something go wrong), the steering components (steering column, wheels, axels, etc) and the batteries.

To me, being able to get only 100-150 miles/charge is fine. I rarely drive out of town. And they could still HAVE gas powered cars around for rental or whatever for long road trips. But for a day to day vehicle I think electricity is the way to go. It's the same reason I'm considering getting a moped. I can use that for my in-town sort of trips and then use my car for longer excursions.

And if you add in the rising fuel costs (and as Dan pointed out the limited availablity of fuel in the long run) I don't think we'll be able to afford gas powered cars much longer. I also think that was part of the problem when the electric car was "mass produced". Gas was only like $1 back then. Where NOW it would cost you something like 60 cents/"gallon" (based on mileage) to run an electric car. 60 cents wasn't a HUGE savings compared to a dollar. But compared to 3 dollars and up it's a pretty big difference!

 

The second time around Florida went to primarily computerized machines to clear up the voting scandal.
The thing people did not realize was Bush was the default vote.
You had to manually clear that vote when you entered your selections otherwise you voted for Bush.

 

Just realized I went off on the whole car thing and didn't actually respond to the OP. Just like the majority Bush is a pretty awful leader and extremely unintelligent.

The rest of the world didn't like America to begin with...it doesn't help that Bush represents the morons of country quite well.

 

I read a funny article yesterday about him giving pretty much the antonym of clemency (might have been amnesty) as its definition.

 

I'm not sure I can get this to come up, but this is what I always thought Bush's message to the American Public was.

 

We better watch out this thread is the President Bush Thread, but those idiots in the CIA will read it as: "President Bush THREAT" and come charging in with machine guns.

 

The CIA On A Porn Site. So That’s Why Our Country Is Like It Is!