Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Car — 20 Year Lease, Free Fuel For Life
ruphus13 writes "The race for a hyper-fuel-efficient car is on in a big way. Now, Riversimple has tried to leverage the knowledge of the masses to bring its vision to reality soon with a car that gives the equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon. 'The idea to build an open source car isn't a new one, but you've got to give vehicle design company Riversimple credit for originality. The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds. If you agree to lease one for 20 years (yes, 20), Riversimple will throw in the cost of fuel for the lifetime of the lease...The team decided to release the car's designs under an open source license in order to speed up the time it takes to develop the vehicle while also driving down the cost of its components.'"
The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
FTFA:
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
I have wished for open standard products for a long time, things like riding mowers where parts could be reasonably modular - like plugging in a video card into a PC, it doesn't care if it's nvidia, ati, or other. If nothing else than to keep the manufacturers honest when it comes time to repair things but also for cheaper ugrades/accessories as well as just less overlap in redundant but uninterchangeable parts.
OTOH, this car seems like vaporware, while produts like the Aptera are going to be unaffordable (unlike the Tesla) and which will have hybrid and electric available seem much more closer to market and probably could use a push to get it there. The car exists too and isn't just on the drawing board:
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=1104622
In the name of perpetual eco nonsense...
:)
I dub thee:
"The CawFin"
Well I guess that means they aren't planning on marketing this in the Northeast, or anywhere that there's occasionally snow on the ground. I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out. Seriously, why lease a car for 20 years? And what'd the lease payment be? Not to mention the fact that you could probably just buy the damn thing (or maybe even a nicer car) using a 20 year car loan and cover the fuel out of pocket for far less than what you'd pay these jokers. Effectively locking in the cost of fuel for 20 years may sound attractive, but in practice it's more likely a win-win for the company --sure, you don't pay extra when fuel prices go up, but you also miss out on the downward fuel price fluctuations. The company is certain to make more money from you than you'll get out in fuel in any case, since if the prices are such that the deal would seem to work out in your favor, the company will just go bankrupt.
Finally! Parity between vehicles and pedestrians.
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
The eco-friendly vehicle will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells and made from carbon composites.
Hydrogen fuel cells are extremely far from production. Carbon fiber modeling software is some of the most closely-guarded stuff around, and without some good stuff this thing is a very small rolling coffin. I don't know whether to decry it for being a deathtrap, or to be relieved that it will NEVER, EVER actually happen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Urban Car weighs just 772 pounds (350 kilograms), can reach speeds of 50 miles (81 kilometers) per hour, and has a range of more than 200 miles (322 kilometers).
While my Jeep may be heavier, it too on a full tank of gas has a range of 200 miles, and can reach speeds of 50 MPH. And it won't struggle on a hill and I can take my groceries home. I'll be more interested in a car like this that would more practical for the family life. But it is interesting that the engineers will soon post the entire design on the wiki, and anyone can lease the it for free, modify it, and manufacture their own vehicle. 40 Fires Foundation is a forum to develop energy-efficient cars using an open source approach.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Take a look at the sketch: The front wheels are so small that the body scratches the tarmac!
A 20 year lease sounds like a dumb gimmick.
But you could drive the car in a climate that gets snow and salted roads - the body is carbon fiber - no rust!
It looks similar in size to the G-Wiz, an all-electric car which can only be legally driven in the UK because it's not classed as a "car", it's a "quadricycle". Quadricycles are basically thought of as a four-wheel motorcycle, so there are almost no safety requirements.
There is little to no chance of these being legal to drive in an US state, other than those that allow "neighborhood vehicles", like golf carts and Japanese Kei-class cars - here in Ilinois you can drive those on streets that have a maximum speed limit of 35 MPH, but no faster.
I especially recommend Clarkson's G-Wiz review. The G-Wiz is beaten by a table in the drag race test. Golf carts move faster and are roomier.
Putting moderation advice in your
[1] and had this upheld in court when some, rather miffed, lifetime members challenged it.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
700lbs? 1/2 the weight of a SmartCar? An enclosed go-kart.
20 year lease? You mean I'm still going to be making payments on this thing in 2029? Gimme a break.
Hydrogen fuel cell? And we refuel it where?
I don't care how green it might be (if it ever comes to pass), but locked into payments and a design for 20 years is just silly.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
A 20 year lease sounds like a dumb gimmick.
But you could drive the car in a climate that gets snow and salted roads - the body is carbon fiber - no rust!
Not everything can be made of carbon fiber. The metal parts (engine, exhaust system, etc) will still rust. Plus, 20 years is a very long time to commit to a car. Lots of expensive components tend to wear out over such a long period. We're supposed to believe that the company (which has zero track record building, selling, and maintaining cars) is even going to be here after that amount of time?
Of course, based on the fine article, it rapidly becomes clear that this is a vaporware economic model for a vaporware car design. This isn't a plan for designing and building a car --it's a plan for getting media attention for the design firm. As such, it's been successful.
I don't buy into the whole ecology BS. But my 1991 Jetta is a piece of engineering magic. Still runs fine, gets good mileage, and is rust free. Burns a little oil and needs the head gasket replaced, and the body shows the assorted dings and nicks that a 19 year old car will get. I look forward to driving it 15 years from now, as If anything goes out, it is easily and cheaply replaced or repaired.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
And every one of those cars has a couple of dings and dents in them. Dings and dents that become gaping holes in carbon fiber bodies. gaping holes that drastically degrade the vehicle's aerodynamics, which in turn have an outsize impact on the vehicle's fuel efficiency. While it's true that there are plenty of cars that are still going after 20 years, none of those cars are the lead models of an entirely new and untested design.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
Nice try for putting words in my mouth. My concern is whether the damn thing will still be running in 20 years, or whether the company which is supposedly paying for all your fuel will be around for 20 years to make good on its side of the bargain. If I had any reason to be confident in both of those points, I'd be all for purchasing this kind of rollerskate (provided that the price made sense, of course). Based on the cursory descriptions presently available, which do not address these issues at all, I tend to the conclusion that this whole thing is more PR fluff than substance.
Having said that, I owned an 88 Corolla before that which was nothing but trouble, but I think I'd put that down to not knowing much about cars when I bought it.
The link in the Slashdot abstract, to http://ostatic.com/ causes Norton Security to throw a fit about no fewer than _164_ drive-by downloads on that site. What an unfriendly link to provide. Serves me right for attempting to actually read the article.
Car analogy please.
Except that steel isn't the only metal that corrodes. Copper does as well, especially in a salt environment. Electric hub motors still wear out, whether the electronics need replacement or due to corrosion or other wear and tear, including the bearings. Just because it has fewer moving pieces, doesn't mean it's going to last 20 years maintenance free.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
This generally doesn't equate to "as much fuel as you can use." If you read the fine print on these type of statements they often mean "1 per ." When I was a kid I won a "years supply of mac n cheese." This turned out to be a coupon book with 12 coupons in it which could be used one per month. I believe Chik-fil-a did the same thing with their 'years supply' of sandwiches. They just provided 52 coupons for one sandwich per week.
So maybe you'll be allowed one fill-up per month.
That's 127.543112 kilometers per liter (or roughly 8 times as fuel-efficient as a Joe Average car).
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
The business model of making carts that can be rented for 20 years is the exact opposite of the current car industry's business model: the car industry of today makes cars that are not exactly reliable and long lasting. They don't have any interest to, because they want you to buy a new car every 5 to 10 years. They also want to make a ton of money from spare part sales.
But if you design a car to be reliable and with cheap spare-parts, that is also fuel-efficient, why that's the best thing one can do for the Earth, car-wise.
I wish these dudes good luck.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The Smart ForTwo weighs over 2.5 times as much (1880 lbs.) in large part to the hardware required to pass those crash tests.
How well do, for example, motorcycles pass crash tests?
I bought a used car because I can buy twice the car (performance/safety/features) for half the price of the current model. Not because of CO2 emissions or the price of fuel or being "Green". I wanted a BMW M3 and couldn't afford the current model, but could afford one with 45k miles on it.
You've obviously never tried to convince someone that they should buy a used car. The most common responses I've heard:
"if the car was still good, the previous owner would still be driving it." or
"I don't want someone else's trash." or
"Why don't you wear used clothes?"
"The technology/fuel efficiency/safety/whatever in this years model is better than the previous year...."
Doesn't matter if the car has 20k miles on it and a manufacturers warranty good for up to 75k miles.
That's the point. A lot of the 'ecology BS' is just about spurring people to use good engineering, as opposed to the bullshit 5-year lifespans people are willing to put up with on most appliances. It doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint.
'Ecology BS' is just a question of looking into the far long term (be that a decade, a few decades, or a century) and deciding what the result of a given action will be. Some of them (global warming) remain a little questionable. However, looking at a city like L.A., the pollution reduction benefits of such a car would easily pay themselves back in medical bills.
Assuming, of course, the population didn't double in response to the relieved pressure, which is probably a pie-in-the-sky assumption.
I read through the article and a lot of blogs covering Riversimple. Here's what it looks like under the hood. It seems too early and preliminary for adoption. "Open Source" seems to have been employed purely as a buzzword to generate interest. Most of the detail is actually at the 40 Fires foundation website which will probably release design schematics. Their FAQ answers questions I had in mind and is a good place for a starting read. The codename for this car is Hybran. The EU welcomes Hydrogen cars as a strong "Green" alternative.
If you do compare it to other initiatives like OSCar, you would find this option from Riversimple probably at a better stage of adoption. But until they unveil their prototypes (16-Jun-2009 is not far) and manufacturing goals (however they intend to go about it,) consumers will be skeptical about adoption. They first have to hit a note on consumers _wanting_ it or _needing_ it before proposing an attractive business model. Most of the prior comments reflect that we are not yet ready. Design momentum on OSCar seems to have stalled in the year 2006.
In contrast another vehicle release earlier this year happened in India with a lot of buzz about a $2,500 car, the Nano from India. This car _can_ do more than 56 mpg on Gasoline. It isn't green, but you can grab one, drive one and feel much safer than the electric counterparts that roam about the cities. This car went through at least 2 yrs of testing because the average consumer was scared about safety. The adoption was further slowed down by slow manufacturing response from Tata Motors.
India has allowed an Electric car (REVA) to be used within City limits (for road safety and range concerns) manufactured by Reva. The vehicle (a modest 4 wheeler) which comes in multiple flavors has low adoption rates in cities which allow it. This car through evolution has been heavier than India's top selling gasoline small-car the Maruti Suzuki 800cc 4 seater, and offers lesser range within a city. It has a very short range of 80-100km and requires battery packs to be replaced every two years (or depending on usage.) From June, 2001 the adoption has been very slow. During July, 2008 at least 260 Reva's (multiple models) were sold which is a record high. The Reva is priced at a one time price tag of close to $6,500 with an installed set of batteries. These have to be replaced at about $1000 every year. There's some comprehensive information and links on the Wikipedia Article (Reva). The cost has been a factor in slowing down adoption added to the fact that electric charges are required almost on a nightly basis. India has welcomed the car with reduced parking charges and several cuts. The G-Whiz model sold outside India is far too pricey ($12000 in Chile) and does not enjoy these environment friendly regulatory benefits.
For crowded cities in India where pollution is a heavy problem, Electrical cars with limited range for office commuters who'd prefer some shade (where public transport is a little inconvenient with timings) has received early adoption. i would presume that countries facing rapid development and growth rates will have to take this more seriously. Scaling public transport infrastructure has always been a challenge in many developing countries owing to a myriad of reasons. The basis for creating indices to track air pollution is outlined quite well in this paper (PDF) from
No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
gallons are a bit more than 4 liters, if I remember correctly, and a pound is about half a kilo.
How much are gallons and pounds in the metric system?
A gallon is either 3.78 L (US) or 4.55 L (imperial), and a pound is either 453.6 g or 1.17 EUR.
Steampunk!!
The Smart ForTwo weighs over 2.5 times as much (1880 lbs.) in large part to the hardware required to pass those crash tests.
How well do, for example, motorcycles pass crash tests?
Motorcycles don't. You get into a wreck with another vehicle, you die. We refer to motorcycle riders as "organ donors" in the US.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
I live in the US and we just went for a little trip from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin. Round trip with side ventures and a little driving around Madison came to over 800 miles.
That's just a couple of neighboring states. I drive 30 minutes at 60 MPH to get to work and that is all within city limits. The suburbs and exurbs and much further away.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
How much is it? Just because it's open source and free doesn't mean it's....free. No, wait..
300 miles per gallon = 127.543112 kilometers per liter
Burning diesel of course.
Leasing the most solid, well-engineered, reliable car in the world for 20 years would be a horrible idea. Cars are rarely reliable past 5 years lately, and a 20 year old car is very likely to be off the road. This is a 1.0 product at best, from an unknown company-- who really thinks their car will still be on the road after 20 years?
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
My Latin is not too good. Could you help me out with the translation? Something like, I am--or we are?--always in ____ (faecibus == poo?), only the depth varies.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Welcome back to Sir Clive Sinclair's infamous three wheeled washing machine that British people know and love - as long as we don't have to use them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Back in the day, cars needed periodic tune-ups to keep going properly. Regulation was passed mandating that cars had to be designed so that they would not need tune-ups like that anymore. Automotive manufacturers screamed that it was impossible, and that it would put garages out of business, then buckled down and did it when the regulators didn't bend.
Similar laws could be made today demanding a twenty-year expected lifespan for regular cars, excluding accidents. Since much of the environmental cost associated with a car comes during its manufacture, this would have a distinct ecological benefit. Since the manufacturers don't otherwise have much incentive to build long-lasting cars, preferring to frequently sell short-lived cars, this might end up being the only way to make it happen.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite
I guarantee that the vast majority of that 700 pound weight is made up of steel and copper. The body is the least of your worries in a salt environment.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years.
That's because in a salt environment they are. The measures needed to preserve a car in those areas generally involve keeping it in a garage for the winter.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Anybody remember the monorail episode of the Simpsons?
How about those companies we've read about that were "just on the verge" of mass-producing flying cars that anybody could buy?
Sorry, I guess I'm too cynical, but I'll believe that this idea is for real when I see them being driven down the street on my way to work in the morning. Pie-in-the-sky ideas are a dime a dozen, it seems. It sounds nice, and if it had at least a couple hundred miles range and I could fit my bicycle or four bags of groceries in it, I'd consider being on-board with it -- but I've been fooled before, like everyone else has, and I'm going to have to consider it to be the Duke Nukem Forever of transportation until I can walk into a showroom and arrange a test-drive of a production model.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
My God do we ever have the same problem up here. I live in Alberta, Canada, and I swear to god everybody drives either a giant pickup truck, or a land barge that gets passed off as an SUV. I think that if people would stop thinking about how a change in transportation will be so god damn inconvenient and instead, tried to think of how they could change/alter a few points of thier life, then they would find that this isn't such a bad idea. I have to drive to school, work, and anywhere else I want to go because I live in the county, no mass transpo here, and this car would be most excellent. Now, I didn't RTFA but I do not believe this vehicle will be very expensive, over a 20 year lease we'll say, and you have a cheap little car to get you to work and back, while your stupid wife drives a beached whale, talks on her cellphone, and hopefully doesn't kill anybody bringing Timmy to soccer, or going out with her equally stupid friends who form a fucking convoy through the town. As for the trucks, yes I know they are needed for oilfield work and a crapton of other duties, but why do I see enormous lifted f-350 diesels in the parking lot of Toys R Us with one person in it? Oh yeah because you cannot find a dirt cheap tiny car that's worth a shit in the woods. Lets hope this little thing changes that at least.
I think this is why society now sees most cars becoming lighter, with less metal, having airbags, and more and more airbags for side, rear and ??? crash protection.
There is simply no way to have a really big heavy vehicle,using all that metal to keep occupants feeling safe, that gets fantastic fuel mileage.
Acceleration always uses more fuel/energy if the item has more mass.
I think a very light car of the future that gets great mileage will crush like an egg, but have lots of airbags for occupant safety.
One comes to mind that has been in the news lately: Scion IQ. But historically: Mini and such.
Society will always need some big heavy stuff, like to haul commerce, but I think most commuters really do not need an SUV-class sized vehicle.
The hard part, for most Americans I think, is that a lot of self-image of having status, being independent, started in the 1950's with Eisenhower, interstate act, and big cars of the age.
To this day we see people declaring their pride and self-status with Big Luxury Cars and Big Luxury SUVs. It is the value system imprinted on generations of car buyers: bigger is better
It is only as traffic, crowding, and smaller and smaller available parking become limiting factors (perhaps in more European cities now?) that people will shift.
Not because they want to, but because they are forced to.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
My Latin is not too good. Could you help me out with the translation? Something like, I am--or we are?--always in ____ (faecibus == poo?), only the depth varies.
We're always in the shit, only the depth varies.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I've observed that high-efficiency/electric vehicles tend to be very cramped for anyone of above average height. The sketch does not assure me that this car would be any different.
I have got to get one of these! Equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon is well worth a 20 year lease. Hells, bring this one to America and show the oil ripoff artists a thing or two.
You can actually build a workable vehicle from carbon fiber and ceramics nowdays without using any metal at all. The biggest problem is how to you repair such a vehicle when it's damaged? Is it even possible? What about recycling the materials? Both steel and aluminum are easily recyclable, thus reducing actual energy costs associated with the manufacturing of the parts but cutting out the mining process.
What I'd rather see is the push to design a vehicle that's as close to 100 percent recyclable as possible. The other issue is to design such a vehicle to be as easily repaired as possible. This means it'll be butt ugly but I feel that something that can be easily repaired (modular components) can also be easily upgraded to improved performance levels just like a PC can be.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
"How well does a bike work in the rain?"
I love it, only on slashdot. Mod parent up for being a true geek! Only a true geek who doesn't do daylight or weather query whether bikes work in the rain.
For your information, pretty well. Stopping distance is slightly longer and like motorbikes and cars, performance is somewhat reduced.
People who use bicycles in wet weather handle the rain by using "coats". They put their luggage in waterproof containers which keeps the rain (a type of "weather") off the contents.
I cycle to work and back, 8 miles each way, any weather apart from ice and heavy snow. You put on a coat, and waterproof trousers. Gortex is a wonderful invention. Waterproof panniers keep my laptop nice and dry. No problem.
Some people wear specialist cycling clothing, I just use my walking gear.
I'm guessing you're not much of an outdoors kind of person.
I suspect you are a moron then. No seriously. I'm an american too and I ride, however, it's not practicle when it's raining, it's damn uncomfortable when it's below 60 degrees F, and I can't go to the grocery on it unless I make ten trips, I can't take the family on one, so what's the point except for enjoyment? Other people think it's dangerous because they read in the newspaper or watch on the news "fatality accident, motorcycle verses car, drive of car walks away with minor scratches". Now that's not the TV of newspaper promoting it wrong, it's them reporting the news. It's not the job of the TV or news paper or any media outlet to tell people to like motorcycles. It is their jobs to run advertisements as well as report the news.
BTW, what TV show tells people that motorcycles are dangerous?
This SUV is safer craze isn't something that was little more then a promotional gimmick, it was started and perpetuated with old timers complaining that the cars are crap and don't protect you like their '72 impala did or they saw on TV or in the news, fatality accident, SUV driver walks away. The fact is that you are safer in an SUV then you are in a compact car in most common accidents.
BTW, what's wrong with a mother looking to protect herself and her family? That's human nature and basic animal instinct that drives survival of the fittest. I'm all for killing someone who might kill me, and no, I'm not a bad person for believing that because I don't want to be dead over some hippy idealist rant. I also believe you are confusing wanting to be safer with wanting to injure someone else. The two aren't exclusive. Tell me, do you seriously want to be injured just as much as someone else or less? It goes against the very grain of self preservation to want to be injured more then you have to. So when you phrase the question "do you want to be injured as much as someone else or safer at their expense", the majorty of people are going to say safer and ignore the rest of your comment. Even if you attempt to tell them that their safety means someone else will be injured more, they just want to be safe. It takes a moron to volunteer for injury in order to match someone else' injuries when it can be avoided in the first place.
What happened in the 90's was more like the larger and safer cars left over from the 70's were shot and people who knew what it felt like to have some steel between them and the first person to the accident scene couldn't stand the small cars. I know several girls right now who drive pickup trucks, not because of some marketing scam, but because it's what their dad drove and it what they learned how to drive in and they are comfortable with them.
You may think large cars are small dick vehicles, but it's more likely then not that you are attempting to compensate for your own size by ragging on others. A real man doesn't have to bring up dick size at all. And just because you do or don't need or want someth
But does it run Linux?
What license would this be released under? Will there be a fork project?
don't you realize that, being Open Source there will be much more peer-reviews, and lots of people contributing for addressing bugs and instabilities, thus drastically reducing crashes and downtimes?
The even releases will be stable enough that they will have very high uptimes and rarely crash - when compared with closed-source cars, so they won't even need crash testing (that will be done on odd releases).
Besides lowering insurance costs due to less crashing, it will also do so by being less prone to theft, since - you know - it will have less vulnerabilities which could allow break-ins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population
Add that up, of the 21 million people in australia, 13 million live in the top 5 cites, all on the coast. Keep going to the top 10 to 15, and mostly farmers, and mine related population is left. So all those not in denser areas than the US drive cars. So living there you surly new you had already proven yourself wrong?
Wait, so instead of using the vehicle they need for work anyway, people should have a second vehicle built for them?
There aren't many ways you could justify that without sounding like a prius-driving, organic-food-eating, tree-protesting hypocritical smug-factory.
It's been a long time.
That's right - exactly 127.543112 kilometres/litre. Will those who can't get that last millimetre per litre be able to get their money back?
Remember kids - significant digits are important, even if it just means you don't have to type those last 6 digits. In the case of 300 miles per gallon, there might just be one significant digit there, in which case 100km/l is just fine.
(begin rant)
It reminds me of annoying Reuters articles where they simply put (km) after some large mileage figure (and vice-versa), instead of bothering with any significant digits. For example - "the 7000-mile (km) journey across the ocean was long and arduous." There's a lot of difference between 7000 miles and 7000 km. Assuming the 7000 mile figure is the original value, is the margin of error that big in the story that you can get away with a 3000km-plus error? If that's the case, why even bother putting the (km) in? Most readers, if they wanted to convert units, would end up with a wild-assed guess that's probably closer.
(end rant)
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
If I had written 127km/l someone else would have replied "Actually, it's 127.543112km/l". And that someone could have been you...
The whole "SUVs are safer" thing was a pile of crap. It managed to make the oil sheiks rich, and their buddies in Washington (recently departed), but it hurt the inhabitants and the planet.
SUVs are dangerous because they have a higher center of gravity than cars. Add the powerful engines and you have a recipe for rollover. So while an SUV is safer than a compact car in a head-on collision, head-on collisions just aren't all that common. SUVs added more deaths from rollover than they saved from their dead weight.
Plus the weight was a zero-sum game. SUV to SUV is like compact to compact. You win if you're the only SUV; you lose when everybody else has one. And you lose when the compact handles better, evades the collision, and the SUV rolls over while trying.
I bought a used car because I can buy twice the car (performance/safety/features) for half the price of the current model. Not because of CO2 emissions or the price of fuel or being "Green". I wanted a BMW M3 and couldn't afford the current model, but could afford one with 45k miles on it.
Absolutely. When I bought my car, buying used meant I could buy a Lexus IS with a powerful engine and all the extras you get in the high end of the car market. And she only had 60k kilometres on it.
If I went to buy brand new, the same amount of money would have got me a functional sedan but with pretty much the bare minimum in performance and features.
They have no idea how much fuel will cost 20 years from now. Therefore, they have no idea whether offering free-fuel-for-life leases will be highly profitable, or financially ruinous.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
An "open-source" car opens some interesting legal questions. Hot rodders and customizers can legally build cars that haven't been crash-tested, haven't undergone long-term emissions system durability testing, etc. and register these one-of-a-kind vehicles for highway use (in most US states). Open source designs mean that many people or small companies could be building the same car, no one maker in quantities that exceed the legal threshold for a volume-produced vehicle, but cumulatively in volumes that would require undergoing the rigorous test regimes.
How will the law deal with distributed authority and decision-making of open-source designs? Who would be responsible for performing the tests? Who would pay for it? Who will ensure that all the manufacturers using the design build it to the same specifications as the versions tested? Who will be held responsible in the inevitable product-liability suits?
I think the safety issues can be greatly alleviated by adjusting the laws that cover right of way and collisions : A driver who hits a pedestrian is always considered "at fault". I'd say the driver of a significantly heavier vehicle should also always be considered "at fault". I doesn't mean the lighter vehicle driver doesn't get some fine for criminal behavior, like failure to signal or speeding, but the heavier vehicle's driver always gets much worse, and crimes by the lighter vehicles driver are not germane to insurance awards.
We must also institute a lifetime ban from driving for any person involved in an accident with a lighter vehicle. So you never drive again if you hit a pedestrian in this 700lb car, you hit this car in a normal car, you hit a normal car in a heavy SUV, etc. I don't necessarily mean fender benders, but real accidents, but definitely any accidents involving significant damage or injuries, even whiplash. Just don't let the people who cause problems drive, period.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Good point. I'd mod you up if I wasn't replying to you.
.AU favouring salary sacrifice for the car's expenses). A well made, well maintained car is barely worn in after 3 years.
I have never bought a brand new car and never intend to. It seems much wiser to have someone else pay the biggest part of the depreciation, which occurs at the start of the vehicle's life (in fact the greatest depreciation occurs in the 2 minutes while you drive it off the lot).
I buy cars which have just come off their first lease period (typically 3-4 years because of the tax structures here in
Like you I perfer German performance cars (Audi S4 FTW!).
And as you point out, this strategy is very "green" without even trying.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
I live in an area with close to the sea, with snow in the winter, salted roads etc. I don't know about American cars, but at least European and Japanese ones nowadays all have zincked underbodies and beams. Even in this environment, they last almost forever. E.g. my fathers car at the moment has done about 250000 km during almost 10 years, and close to no rust.
Before the zincked cars were common, the trick was to regularly spray a mix of tectyl (a sort of rubberized anti-rust compound) and diesel oil on the underbody. The car smelt like an old tractor, but it wouldn't rust. :)
You can actually build a workable vehicle from carbon fiber and ceramics nowdays without using any metal at all. The biggest problem is how to you repair such a vehicle when it's damaged? Is it even possible?
Yeah, sure it's possible. Same way as repairing glass fiber structures.
What about recycling the materials?
Crush it and use as filler material, I suppose. Extra brownie points for printing a glossy brochure bragging about your recycled carbon reinforced cement.
It sounds like you've never leased a car before. Maintenance is paid for by the leasee, not the leaser. So they would not have to pay for the repairs, you would.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
What I'd rather see is the push to design a vehicle that's as close to 100 percent recyclable as possible. The other issue is to design such a vehicle to be as easily repaired as possible.
That would be a Checker Cab. Unfortunately, they are no longer made.
Every component can be replaced quickly and easily, including the engine and transmission.
Yes, I'm nostalgic for Checker Cabs and I can't stand 90%+ of all cabdrivers.
Thanks. I agree, btw.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Although I have my doubts about the rise of the "open source" car, this does hint at the direction that the automotive industry is heading.
Much like the major players in semiconductor industry are going "fabless," it appears that the next wave of automakers will also separate their manufacturing operations from their sales and marketing efforts.
The new owners of Saturn have opted to operate the company in this manner, and there are already a few factories in Europe that build other companies' vehicles on contract.
Although we'll have to see how this plays out, it does appear that this could improve agility and flexibility within the industry, thus promoting innovation.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
It is a funny idea that in order to get the car, you need to sign a lease for 20 years. It is a shame it isn't true. What is true is that we at Riversimple will aim for the cars to last for at least 20 years. And we will only lease cars, not sell them. But we intend to offer a variety of leasing packages. For example, someone might sign up to a two or three year lease, at the end of which they can return the car or extend the lease. If they return it we'll offer it for leasing by someone else at a lower rate - effectively it goes into the second hand market. The point of leasing not selling is that we create a business model which encourages longevity - we will build our cars to last.
But it's not pointlessly. The point is that you already own that vehicle.
The problem is you folks don't think. How much fuel do you think it takes to create tonnes of plastic, steel, glass, and various semiconductors?
The energy required in manufacturing a vehicle is about 73GJ[1], and a litre of gasoline contains about 32MJ of energy[2].
Assuming 14.5 combined mpg(16.222l/100km), assuming a regular car will get about 35mpg combined(6.71l/100km), this means You'd need to displace 23,985km to justify the energy expense of creating a second car.
So this sounds great, right? You pay back the energy cost in just one year, then after that you're good.
Wait, do you hear that? (OBJECTION!)
Ah, these are rig workers. They need their trucks to get to far-off work sites. Most of them work 3 weeks on 1 week off or schemes like that because of just how far-off their work sites are.
Well, suddenly they've got a much smaller window of opportunity to displace truck miles with car miles. You're looking at 4 years before the car breaks even, energy-wise. Economically, it will never break even. Even over the entire (10 year) effective life of the vehicle, you're only going to displace another 2300l or so of gasoline. Therefore, it barely makes sense from an environmental perspective (And in the grander scheme of things, the extra space for all these extra vehicles will contribute to urban sprawl, causing more pollution than any single truck), and simply doesn't make sense from an economic one(You never make back the cost of the vehicle)
It's been a long time.
Guess I hurt the ego of the user 'sumdumass.'
Well, sumdumass, I do not put moron into my user name...
You may want to read "Culture of Fear" not that I did; because I get it, but you do not.
I take risks when on the road with selfish pricks in compensation cars and large coward mobiles with the latter tending to be more aggressive in their hogging of the road. I am not afraid; but I am careful because I am aware of the danger while others need extra protection because they either can't handle it or want to be care free (at the expense of others and their own pocketbook.) I don't need a study to be told that SUV drivers are more aggressive, careless, and less road conscious, I've observed it.
I suppose that one has to be a moron not to carry a gun around with them everywhere because some nut may have one? I suppose one has to be a moron if they do not have the biggest nuclear weapon stockpile? Never mind, don't suppose you see the connection.
Stop rationalizing and wake up. Why do people spend so much mental effort backing up positions they didn't put any effort into formulating??
Non-specific generic stats are sooo useful..(sarcasm)
Cars are transportation; I never lost sight of that. Its not a toy or a recreation vehicle or a helmet.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In my high school days I heard the story of a device that would give a Volkswagen Beetle 200mpg. It appears that the device was bought by and oil company. Can anyone confirm this?