Slashdot Mirror


GM, NHTSA Delayed Volt Warnings To Prop Up Sales

Lauren Weinstein excerpts the most interesting part of a BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact. While it might be unsurprising that GM was reluctant to shout out safety warnings that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was as well, and for the same reason: "Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the 'fragility of Volt sales' up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA."

344 comments

  1. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't have the Government criticizing a Government Motors product now, can we? Especially if it's GREEN!

  2. Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Funny

    RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away. :-(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Ohhhh shit by grqb · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is getting blown way out of proportion.

      See this article for another view: http://www.economist.com/node/21541395

      Specifically the last paragraph:
      "What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new."

    2. Re:Ohhhh shit by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's true. My gasoline-powered cars catch fire all the time.

      You are half-right, though. From what I've read the Volt's battery is supposed to be drained after a crash to ensure it can't catch fire... which must be great fun for people who are responding to the accident.

    3. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh I know. Just like I know that nuclear power is actually relatively safe. But the fact is that electric cars (more specifically giant lithium batteries) are a technology that people are antsy about, and now there's been an accident (fully preventable if they followed the instructions of course), and a cover up. What do you think's going to happen?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Oh hydrogen, that's much more practical! A gas that escapes through solids and has already burned a zeppelin-shaped black mark into humanity's consciousness.

      Electric cars are NOT shit now and would be less shitty than ICE vehicles given a decade or two of development. I'm not sure we'll ever see that now. But enjoy jacking off to your anti-environmental victory.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Ohhhh shit by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

      RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away. :-(

      Conspiracy? Please. Try reality.

      There's no conspiracy here against electric cars. Compared to gas powered vehicles, they suck. It really is as simple as that. The technology for electric cars just isn't there yet, no matter how hard you wish it. It wasn't a conspiracy that the EV1 failed, and it's not a conspiracy that newer electric cars still stink. There is no laughing fat man in an expensive suit, lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills that's preventing electric cars from taking off. Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:Ohhhh shit by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1, Troll

      Unfortunately it will take a better company than the welfare case GM to build one that is any good.

    7. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It was a conspiracy FOR electric cars that backfired. I know there's no conspiracy against them (unless I count the spewings of people like yourself, for whom extreme range is the only worthwhile trait of an automobile).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Ohhhh shit by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electric cars are NOT shit now

      Yes they are.

      and would be less shitty than ICE vehicles given a decade or two of development.

      Electric cars have had more than a century of development and they're still hopelessly inadequate compared to ICE cars. That's why our great-grandparents dumped electric cars as soon as the ICE came along.

    9. Re:Ohhhh shit by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      How is wanting hydrogen cars anti-environmental when they are far greener than these battery cars both to make and refuel?

    10. Re:Ohhhh shit by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I think he meant the conspiracy in TFA. That is, the fairly scandalous cover up of a safety hazard by a government agency to shore up a company's sales.

      I wonder which low life official got a corporate back hander for that one.

    11. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they are something between "far off" and "impossible." Like saying "I'm glad we got rid of this wind farm, better to work on cold fusion anyways!"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hydrogen, that's much more practical!

      Well yes, it is.

      A gas that escapes through solids

      Hydrogen doesn't "escape through solids" any quicker than gasoline evaporates out of your tank, you blithering idiot.

      Electric cars are NOT shit now

      Really? Show me a good electric car at a price and performance comparable to the equivalent gasoline car. Show me a good electric vehicle that doesn't take hours to charge. Please, do. It's O.K, take your time.

      The few remaining problems with hydrogen are all solvable. The long term problems of batteries are not, unless we suddenly discover a super conducting material with an energy density that would put a thermonuclear device to shame whilst at the same time being safe and not requirement a horrendously dirty manufacturing process and we upgrade the entire electricity generating and distribution network to support millions of people plugging in their 100kA charging circuits for a quick top up.

      Let's us all know if you see anything like that ever happening.

    13. Re:Ohhhh shit by Amouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      to me it isn't so much as because it's "new" but rather because it is delayed.. in a normal car wreck if you have a fire it happens then.. not 3 weeks after the car was repaired.

      I'd agree there is zero worry if it takes a puncture of the battery pack to cause this as that should be caught in inspection before it is sent out as repaired. what does bother me is the chance of it happening with the battery pack only experiencing a physical shock with zero outside indicators of damage. I want to know the real % chances of that happening.. if it is 50% then we have a problem.. my bet though is this isn't really an issue..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    14. Re:Ohhhh shit by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I think part of the reason it was blown out of proportion was that a cover-up attempt was made. Had they come clean immediately and made the point you just made, the story would have died out almost immediately.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    15. Re:Ohhhh shit by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't cars be fusion powered in 20 years?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    16. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it impossible? I suggest you Google "Honda FCX".

    17. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen doesn't "escape through solids" any quicker than gasoline evaporates out of your tank

      Depends on the tank (and gas cap seal) I suppose, since it escapes faster than helium:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Gas_and_plasma_phases

      Really? Show me a good electric car at a price and performance comparable to the equivalent gasoline car. Show me a good electric vehicle that doesn't take hours to charge. Please, do. It's O.K, take your time.

      Do I get to compensate for the additional cost of gas that the ICE car requires? If so, I'll put forward the Mitsubishi i, which can charge to 80% in half an hour with a quick charger and costs in the low-$20k range. Compare with any other tiny economy 4-seater.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "extreme" range is the only worthwhile *design goal* of a transportation device, in general, so long as the requirements of the passengers is met. How's that spewing anything?

    19. Re:Ohhhh shit by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's true. My gasoline-powered cars catch fire all the time.

      I've only had one catch fire, and it wasn't even in a wreck. The difference between gasoline cars catching fire after a wreck and electric cars catching fire after a wreck is that the gas car will burn immediately, while it will take a week for the electric car. Nobody has died in an electric car fire (yet), but a lot of people have died in gasoline fires. Look at Pintos and Crown Voctorias.

    20. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric cars that backfire.... you're funny!

    21. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Why do you say range? Why not top speed, cornering ability, acceleration, wade depth, shinyness of paint or any other arbitrary metric?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen doesn't "escape through solids" any quicker than gasoline evaporates out of your tank, you blithering idiot.

      Really?

      Even with thermally insulated containers it is difficult to keep such a low temperature, and the hydrogen will gradually leak away. Typically it will evaporate at a rate of 1% per day.

      Your car leaks like a sieve.

    23. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A handful of concept cars with performance comparable to an electric. But the cars are no problem compared to the "hydrogen economy" they require.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need an "electric car", we need an "electric society" that understands that the cheap energy fiesta is coming to a close. Chemical energy generously brewed for us for free by Mother Nature for millions of years, all gobbled up in less than two hundred years.

      We need to change our social model. The "100% employment (doing what?), urban sprawl, car-for-everything model" has to change.

      That's HARD, though, so most Asperger's geeks will tend to cling to visions of human ingenuity overcoming all odds, or revive the dead, shambling zombie-like corpses of Space Age fantasies.

      Not gonna happen.

    25. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      More than a century of development? They were basically forgotten between the late 1800s/early 1900s and the '90s.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only get to add the cost of the gas to the ICE car if you also factor in the cost of the electricity and the price of installing that high-amperage circuit to charge your Mitsubishi i on the quick charger. Now how does the math stack up for you?

      I wont even bother to mention the fact that the ICE car can drive much further on a tank than you can on your 80% charge, and the ICE can fill up in 2 minutes instead of 30. Because that would be a really cheap sho...oh, wait.

    27. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's offtopic, but Aptera went defunct a few days ago and they're the ones with the better design. How does a 200 mpg diesel (Gen0) sound or a 120-mile range EV for under $27000 (Nissan Leaf MSRP - $35200) with the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle and a top speed of 100+mph? It was a commuter car for the masses.

      GM's bailout cost over $20B while Aptera was seeking $0.15B in funding. Aptera was denied and closed last week.

      Aptera Employees Destroy Futuristic Vehicles After Shutdown.

      WTF guys?

      Someone should buy Aptera's assets and reboot the company. It goes up for sale on Dec 20th-21st.

    28. Re:Ohhhh shit by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Because "range" is what you engage in transportation for - to get from A to B.

      Speed isn't really important, because it's capped by speed limits anyway, so as long as your car can reach the speed limits, who cares?
      Cornering ability is mandated by law - if your car sucks so hard at cornering, it won't get approved to drive on public roads. As long as it meets the minimum standard, who cares?
      Acceleration is likewise unimportant for the actual purpose of transportation. As long as it's not totally ridiculous, having a poor acceleration will increase the length of your journey only a miniscule amount
      Wade depth is unimportant while you're driving on roads, which is what these vehicles are designed for
      Shiny paint is unrelated to transportation, and can be serviced by an afterrmarket

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    29. Re:Ohhhh shit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Range? Because I drive 600 miles on a semi-regular basis, with my family in a fully loaded sedan. No Electric Vehicle comes even reasonably close to this.

      It isn't arbitrary metric, it is a real world metric. Top Speed (Assuming you mean 150 MPH, not 35MPH) is not a real world metric, when was the last time you drove your car at its rated top speed (top gear, petal to the metal)?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    30. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      far greater fire hazards than electric cars

      Until a large fleet of electric cars has appeared and aged in the real world, anyone claiming to know the relative fire hazard is a shoveling bullshit.

      Stop accepting and promulgating bullshit.

    31. Re:Ohhhh shit by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's true. My gasoline-powered cars catch fire all the time.

      You are half-right, though. From what I've read the Volt's battery is supposed to be drained after a crash to ensure it can't catch fire... which must be great fun for people who are responding to the accident.

      A more pertinent question is whether the responders feel safe using the jaws of life on an electric car. Unless every emergency responder is required to learn where the various power conduits in every vehicle are located, or unless industry standardizes locations on a vehicle, you could add a bit of extra shock when you're trying to tear someone out of the car. So far there's relatively few models and most keep all of the high current stuff all under the hood, but it's not impossible that the battery will be up front with individual electric motors per wheel, or a motor in the back, or perhaps the electric heater might be located in the passenger compartment...

    32. Re:Ohhhh shit by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Show me a good electric car at a price and performance comparable to the equivalent gasoline car.

      Well, to be fair, Hydrogen cars are going to be 'electric'. You don't BURN the hydrogen, you use a fuel cell.

      This is one issue most people conflate. 'Electric' vs 'Hydrogen' is like 'Internal Combustion' vs 'Gas'. They aren't always the same things. We need more cars like the Volt in the sense that the propulsion is electrically powered. We can provide that electricity now via on board gas generators and switch to batteries or hydrogen fuel cells when they mature but we need to get the cars 'running' on electricity first. Doing both together is going to be a longer and harder process because the battery tech isn't there nor is the hydrogen fuel distribution system.

      I'm a big fan of hydrogen and think it is the best answer long term, but we should focus initial efforts on making the fleet capable of operating electrically.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    33. Re:Ohhhh shit by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      as a serious question, is the quick charger carried with the 'i'? Because the biggest problem with electrics right now besides fueling 'times' is places capable of offering such a quick charge.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    34. Re:Ohhhh shit by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.

      You mean like hydroelectric? (171,000 people dead from one accident, if you didn't click the link. I believe that is at least one order of magnitude more than have died, in totum, from nuclear accidents.) Other hydroelectric dams could kill at least that many again if they fail. Hydro failures are generally even more catastrophic than even the worst nuclear disasters have ever been. They also produce far more power than other renewable sources.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    35. Re:Ohhhh shit by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Electric cars are NOT shit now

      Yes they are.

      and would be less shitty than ICE vehicles given a decade or two of development.

      Electric cars have had more than a century of development and they're still hopelessly inadequate compared to ICE cars. That's why our great-grandparents dumped electric cars as soon as the ICE came along.

      Electric cars are shit only if you mean they are "the shit". http://www.teslamotors.com/ Just because some companies make less than stellar electrics, doesn't mean all do. News flash, many (most) companies make gas cars that are shit as well.

    36. Re:Ohhhh shit by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      How about turbine powered electric generators (pick your fuel) which run a dedicated electric vehicle system. There's only so much more efficiency you can squeak out of the ICE these days. One could add a battery/capacitor system to run it off the grid for shorter trips. Jaguar made a pretty awesome prototype along these lines a few years back.

    37. Re:Ohhhh shit by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      A Tesla costs more than twice as much as the Elise on which it's based without the performance. Why is it the shit?

    38. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      accident (fully preventable if they followed the instructions of course), and a cover up

      Provide reference and links or its only hearsay.

    39. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handful of concept cars with performance comparable to an electric. But the cars are no problem compared to the "hydrogen economy" they require.

      And electric cars are no problem except for the non existent electric economy they require.

    40. Re:Ohhhh shit by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nailed it. Replacing our entire infrastructure to generate, store, and transport hydrogen is the trick. So is the question of our source of hydrogen - it could still be oil based for a while. Our catalysts for splitting water aren't quite ready for industrial scale yet IMHO. Best plan I've seen so far is to dedicate a nuclear reactor to the provision of electricity for a catalyst assisted electrolytic splitting of water. I suppose you could do the same with a dam, but I bet it'd be easier to build a new nuke plant these days than it would to build a major dam.

    41. Re:Ohhhh shit by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      More than a century of development? They were basically forgotten between the late 1800s/early 1900s and the '90s.

      Yes, because they were crap in the 1800s and nothing has changed to make them less crap today.

    42. Re:Ohhhh shit by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      If the Three Gorges Dam failed I think they said it would kill a few MILLION...

    43. Re:Ohhhh shit by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      It was a commuter car for the masses.

      It was a Reliant Robin for the 21st century, except it cost more than a Honda Civic.

    44. Re:Ohhhh shit by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      Many of which electric cars fail at too. They are poor at top speed (lower continuous peak power, typically limited by battery discharge rates and thermals) and cornering ability (heavy - look at a Tesla vs. Elise). They're way more costly, because batteries are expensive. And they're not going to get cheap, because lithium ion batteries already have economies of scale. EVs have great off the line acceleration and are quiet, but that's about all that's going for them.

    45. Re:Ohhhh shit by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      How are they "hopelessly inadequate"?

      Do you mean "in all possible scenarios", or do you just mean in your own, limited opinion?

      They are excellent for short range commuting from a home base, especially a commute with traffic, they are terrible for hauling your boat across 6 states.

      Just because you personally can't see them as useful does not make them hopelessly inadequate.

    46. Re:Ohhhh shit by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Emergency responders have been trained with regards to where the high voltage cables run from the battery pack to the motor (or motors, as is the case with the Toyota hybrid systems). The cables are bright orange, and are automatically disconnected from the high voltage battery pack by physical contactors upon a sufficient impact.

      http://barryfeinstein.com/InTheNews/2011/11/12/avoiding-electrocution-dedham-firefighters-learn-hybrid-ropes/

    47. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is happening to you? You're becoming well-informed and rational. I guess until the next Space Elevator/Mars Colony story comes along, then suddenly we're in the Star Trek level of technology again.

    48. Re:Ohhhh shit by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      IIRC something close to 90% of people need a range of less than 40 miles/day. Most people will be making 600 mile trips less than once a year and could easily be serviced by a rental or the average US households second vehicle. You could replace about half of all US cars or more with electric vehicles without preventing households from making those rare long distance trips.

    49. Re:Ohhhh shit by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      Right, but how many variations are they expected to learn. Presumably electrical vehicles are a growing market.

    50. Re:Ohhhh shit by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      to me it isn't so much as because it's "new" but rather because it is delayed.. in a normal car wreck if you have a fire it happens then.. not 3 weeks after the car was repaired.

      Right, I'd much rather have the fire break out while I'm trapped unconscious and injured in my vehicle immediately following an accident.

    51. Re:Ohhhh shit by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the electric fire will not start right away so if it gets toed to a garage for repairs it could catch fire and torch the cars next to it. If the car is brought home the house could be burnt down along with the people in it. GM and NHTSA's reluctance to even warn owners of the potential danger is criminal if anything had happened. It's not that they are new that is a problem it is that they can catch fire at will after an accident, with a gas car you know that once the car has cooled down there is no fire risk.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    52. Re:Ohhhh shit by N3Bruce · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that Electric Car development was at a standstill for oh those many decades between the end of the 19th century and the 1990s. Development of the Technology for electric cars has continued, the power electronics that goes into today's electric cars is closely related to that used in forklifts, golf carts, and other industrial vehicles that have been widely deployed for decades. Batteries have always been the limiting factor for developing an electric car that can compete with the range and duty cycle of an ICE powered vehicle. The development of Lithium batteries for electronic devices with several times the power density of previous Lead-Acid, Nickel-Cadmium, and Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries has brought us closer to a practical electric vehicle, but we are not quite there yet. Yes you can go a hundred miles or so with your 800 pound battery pack (if you go easy on the lights and A/C or heater) instead of 25-40 in the EV1 days, but the hard facts are that 110 pounds, or about 15 gallons of medium chain liquid hydrocarbon fuel (gasoline) in the fuel tank of my Accord will take me about 450 miles on the open highway, and 375 miles in rush hour traffic, with the headlights on, and the heater, wipers, and the stereo all going full blast. I don't want to have to worry about running the battery down if I have to take an extra service call, or have to buck a 30 mph headwind on the way home. If the electrics can deliver even a 250 mile range, that would go a long way toward making them a viable alternative to the ICE.

    53. Re:Ohhhh shit by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't cars be fusion powered in 20 years?

      4 years from now, actually. And they'll fly too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    54. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that damming is what's currently causing a horrendous problem in Manitoba these days:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Winnipeg_algae_threat

      Considered to be the worst algae problem of freshwater lakes on earth.

      If you look into David Suzuki's report on Lake Winnipeg, he goes into detail how hydro dams are basically causing a signficant portion of the problem.

    55. Re:Ohhhh shit by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      That's why the issue is handled within the vehicle. Hard enough impact? Physically isolate the battery pack from the rest of the electrical system. Jaws of life to your heart's content.

    56. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric cars are NOT shit now

      Yes they are.

      Nuh uh.

      Do I get a +4 Informative now?

    57. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the other difference is that the battery requires the operator to rely on an active safety system to 1) be operating and 2) be correct.

      Because there aren't any other operator noticable symptoms, as there is quite likely to be in a petrol/diesel failure.

      So.. if the active safety isn't operating, how aware of this is the operator? Is the active safety correctly reporting a problem? False positives will burden somebody (likely the owner in no small part) with the replacement costs of the battery. False negatives will burden the operator with.. well.. a burning car at seeming random.

      So, while I have no particularly great fear of hybrid/EVs .. pretending that the failures and risks of both conventional and electric are similar is a stretch. And then the numbers from that economist article by the .. GP? .. are funny stuff. Battery powered/assisted vehicles are by far the minority of vehicles on the road. So, yeah, a bunch more conventional vehicles are going to catch fire than electric vehicles .. just because there are more of them available to catch fire. something like 2.25 million hybrid/electric vehicles ... compared to 250 million combustion engine passenger vehicles.

    58. Re:Ohhhh shit by Spoke · · Score: 5, Informative

      My primary car is an electric car, the Nissan LEAF. The price is comparable to other cars and the ride quality and low noise while driving is better than just about all vehicles out there except luxury vehicles. Fuel costs are half the price of the most efficient gas car on the market, the Toyota Prius at about $0.04 / mile compared to $0.09 / mile. Compared to your typical gas car fuel costs are 1/4 to 1/3rd the cost.

      Top speed is over 90 mph, more than fast enough for any public highway and seats up to 5 passengers comfortably. Instant torque when you press the accelerator can't be beat by any internal combustion engine.

      The only drawback is somewhat limited range and long recharge times, but after 6 months of ownership it's only prevented me from using the LEAF once - but with a DC quick charge station in some strategic locations it wouldn't have been an issue.

      Electric cars are here now - Nissan has sold over 20,000 LEAFs so far this year - the best selling EV in the world - and they still don't offer it in all 50 states here in the US.

      Will the current crop of EVs work for all people? No - and I certainly wouldn't recommend the LEAF for those that don't. There are plenty of hybrids out there that get great fuel economy and the plug-in hybrid Volt is a great way to minimize your gasoline consumption if you suffer from range anxiety.

    59. Re:Ohhhh shit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away. :-(

      The volt isn't an electric car, so it's OK.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Ohhhh shit by Amouth · · Score: 1

      me too.. rather than when it's parked in my garage while i'm asleep or away from the house .. when an accident happens you have first response units - you have everyone on the lookout for a dangerous situation.

      people get hurt not because of a danger - but because of lack of awareness.. when people become complacent and ignore the danger then people get hurt.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    61. Re:Ohhhh shit by slapout · · Score: 1

      No, Marty went back in time again and messed that up.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    62. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who die in fires in Crown Victorias would probably have been killed by the impact in a normal car.. How many other cars will burn if you hit them from behind with a pickup going 80 MPH?

    63. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Range? Because I drive 600 miles on a semi-regular basis, with my family in a fully loaded sedan. No Electric Vehicle comes even reasonably close to this.

      Then maybe no EV currently on the market will meet these specific needs. That doesn't mean that no EV currently on the market meets *any* needs. It also doesn't meant that every EV designed in the future needs to try to meet *every* use case. If what's currently available doesn't meet your needs, simple: don't buy one.

      Anecdote: one of the dudes I work with has a large family; when he goes on trips, they take the Suburban. That doesn't mean he's stupid enough to drive that gas hog to work every day.

    64. Re:Ohhhh shit by gregulator · · Score: 2

      Ahh, funny you mention the Pinto.

      It was no more fire prone than any other car at the time.
      The Pinto also had lower Fatality rates than similar cars of the era.

    65. Re:Ohhhh shit by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.

      Really? You want a new technology to match or beat EVERYTHING of the old tech right now, including the price? If everyone had your attitude, we'd still be using CRT TVs. The first plasma displays were ridiculously expensive and performed worse than CRTs (worse contrast ratios).

      But over time as people began to adopt them, R&D and economies of scale improved so that their performance as well as price improved. Its an iterative process fueled by the gradual increasing support of the new technology. Electric cars cannot match ICE cars now at every metric. No new tech can, cars or otherwise.

      But electric cars could easily have a place in society. Most daily driving IS short distance runs. Even most commutes are under 50 miles one way. And many households have more than 1 car. Its conceivable to own 1 electric car for the daily short runs and keep the gasoline car for the occasional long distance hauls. I think as a whole, gas consumption would be reduced significantly. I know for my situation, it would be reduced 95% at a huge cost savings.

    66. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My primary car is an electric car, the Nissan LEAF.

      You over paid for a Nissan Sentra. There is a sucker born every minute.

    67. Re:Ohhhh shit by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Yes, but now that we're all aware that there's a delayed risk of fire, that risk can be managed appropriately. I have no doubt there will be cases where a battery puncture goes unnoticed and leads to fire that kills someone later. There are also cases where fuel hoses fail, generally without prior warning, and spray gasoline all over a hot engine block. Both events are theoretically preventable, and can be managed with proper inspections, but we all know mistakes happen.

      Having personally been in an accident which ruptured my fuel tank and left me unconscious until the paramedics arrived and woke me up with smelling salts, and having seen more than one accident with passengers literally pinned inside, I'd much rather take my chances with an event I can mitigate -- a future fire -- than one I can't.

    68. Re:Ohhhh shit by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Two main differences:

      1. You can go in and clean it up without worry the very next day.

      2. You can adequately plan for the failure condition, no dwellings in the river basin down river. Or at the very least, build high ground for people to escape too.

      You simply can't do that with nuclear. Unless making an area of 100 sq miles off limits to residential zoning seems reasonable.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    69. Re:Ohhhh shit by tsotha · · Score: 1

      If the Three Gorges dam had a catastrophic failure it would kill far more than 171K people. The real difference is, I guess, once the water recedes you can rebuild everything and go on. What bothers people about the potential of a nuclear accident is the amount of time the site could be unfit for human habitation.

    70. Re:Ohhhh shit by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      Range, refuel/recharge time, payload, and cruising speed are the critical parameters for any transportation system.

      Range, because people sometimes want/need to go farther than down to the corner drugstore, or across town to work and back home. Not too many years ago, I was routinely driving daily round trips between West Fort Worth TX and North Central Dallas, moving from one apartment to the other. It was easier for me to do several trips in an old station wagon, than pack everything and call movers. There were also periods where I was driving from DFW to Austin (about 180 miles) every Friday evening and driving back on Sunday.

      Refuel/recharge time, because people sometimes want/need to go WAYYY farther than down to the corner drugstore or across town to work and back. Some years back, I had to drive from Dallas to Colorado Springs, stay three months, and drive back. A few years ago, I drove from Austin to Huntsville AL (700+ miles, according to the airline). If you can refuel quickly, that's a long one-day drive. If you refuel overnight, after 100 miles, that's a week of travel time.

      Cruising speed, because people sometimes need to go quite a ways in a reasonable amount of time.

      Payload, because people sometimes need to haul a fair amount of stuff along with them, when they drive quite a bit farther than down to the corner drugstore or across town to work and back. Some guys have to be able to haul girlfriends and SCUBA gear for two people. (I know, this is Slashdot, but there is a Real World out there...)

    71. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well if I never drive more than 50 miles between having the car parked at home overnight, why should I care about range if it's more than that? Same as any other spec.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    72. Re:Ohhhh shit by Cosgrach · · Score: 2

      Did Aptera destroy vehicles during the shutdown? Yes. However, the press has made it to sounds like it was employees going mad at being sacked. Not true. I can quote from the Aptera news letter that I received earlier this morning:

      The bodies in question were not slated for demolition because on any ill will or malice from any member of the company present or past. These particular 2e's were defective and/or obsolete development properties that no longer had any value to the company. We destroyed the bodies because they were unsafe for use as a vehicle -- with high potential for loss of life if they were involved in a crash. (This is evidenced by the upper body and lower skins separating from each other on impact.)

      While the company often engages in technology sharing with academic institutions (area elementary, middle and high schools, universities and museums, we never released vehicle assets that had the potential of being misused and resulting in physical harm or loss of life.

      Contrary to the stories that have been written recently, there was no destruction of company property during the closure of Aptera. It is appalling how low journalism in the internet age has sunk in pursuit of sensationalism. In fact, our employees exited the building honorably and professionally. The accusations that have been made to the contrary are insulting and demonstrate the kind of uninformed defamation that diminishes the all of Aptera's efforts and undermines the work of everybody committed to perpetuating clean transportation.

      Finally, there are currently seven prototypes of the Aptera 2e concept inside our former headquarters in Carlsbad, Calif. These prototypes reflect every generation of Aptera vehicle body ever created, from the very first tested concept vehicle (built by the founders) to the most recent prototype that was campaigned at the Automotive XPRIZE. An eighth prototype resides at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Incidentally, none of these vehicles have been damaged in anyway.

      Fucking journalists. Always trying to make it out to be more than what it really is.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    73. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Are you a poor kid in Africa cranking an OLPC? We have electrical energy networks everywhere already. We have no hydrogen production facilities or gas lines anywhere

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    74. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I was never a "space nutter" as you call them, I just disagree with your anti-space-exploration views and hardcore hyper-pessimism.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    75. Re:Ohhhh shit by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and the don't burn gas.

      If could afford one, I would get one. I drive 30 miles a day.

      My wife drives have that, most days.

      I would also keep my minivan for longer range and camping.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    76. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be some seriously good shit you smoke.

      Meanwhile, back in reality, electric motors have become significantly improved just in the last decade, let alone the last two. And that's largely because of advancements made for hobbyists. As with most underdeveloped technologies, the cure is more funding.

      As with most users on /. these days, you posts contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion and is factually invalid. What a surprise.

      Slashdot sucks again.

      Thanks for your active effort to make us all as stupid as you.

    77. Re:Ohhhh shit by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Electric cars are NOT shit now and would be less shitty than ICE vehicles given a decade or two of development. I'm not sure we'll ever see that now.

      The problem is the battery, and batteries have been in development continuously since the first electric car in the 19th century. Of course there is some exciting battery tech on the horizon. We may have it tomorrow or it may be a mirage and stay on the horizon.

      Electric cars will not be mainstream until they have the performance characteristics people are used to from ICE cars. Batteries simply do not have the same energy per unit weight you find in a tank of diesel or gasoline, and the best car makers can do now is a car that's severely limited. They're fine as a commuter second car, but as an only car they just don't work for most people.

    78. Re:Ohhhh shit by ardor · · Score: 1

      Their range is enough for most commutes, which tend to be rather short. This is especially true inside major cities.
      I agree that batteries appear to be a dead end. I hope for breakthroughs in the supercapacitor segment. It also involves much fewer hazardous materials.
      But consider that the fuel cell is an overall game changer. The electrical engine is vastly superior to the ICE, energy storage has always been the actual problem of electric cars. But with the fuel cell, you can actually use existing gasoline as the energy source. This decouples the actual engine from the energy source; should other energy sources become viable, all that is needed is a different kind of fuel cell, or some new fancy supercapacitor etc. Right now, cars are pretty inflexible - when gasoline becomes overly expensive, you can throw away the engine, which often means throwing away the entire car.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    79. Re:Ohhhh shit by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      The area wiped out by the Banqiao Dam accident was ~ 34 by 9.3 miles (over 300 sq miles), and created temporary lakes as large as 4,600 square miles, flooding thousands more. It would be easier to have a 100 sq mile safety zone around a nuclear plant, then to have no dwellings down-river from a dam. Especially since dams need to be built in specific areas. Nuclear plants have certain requirements too (water for cooling, for example) but are much more flexible where they can be built.

      Cleanup is easier, true. You even have a nice flattened surface to rebuild on.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    80. Re:Ohhhh shit by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      First of all, if you're in an accident where you're incapacitated, it's probably not the sort where you're going to park your car in the garage afterwards. But putting that aside...

      First responders aren't going to help much if there's a fire in the situation I described (not uncommon) when it takes >0 minutes to get there... usually >10. It's much easier to manage an even *before* it occurs rather than while it's occurring. As I said in another post, now that everyone's aware of the risk, we won't park our punctured battery EVs in the garage, the same way we don't idle our ICE vehicles in the garage with the door closed. FFS, I can't believe people are actually arguing over this.

    81. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! What the world needs right now is to wait until electric cars are BETTER than gasoline fueled cars. When that happens the cars will sell themselves. And, as we all know, all products are kept in the labs until every last problem is sorted out. /SARCASM

    82. Re:Ohhhh shit by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      "Other"? Nuclear is not renewable.

      Here we go again. What's with you nuclear apologists always trotting out the number of deaths to show why you think that nuclear power is safe? Number of deaths is NOT a good measure of safety. If we instead talk of land rendered unreclaimable, nuclear is the worst. Thanks to just 2, just 2 accidents, hundreds of sq km of land is unfit and unsafe for decades, and perhaps centuries. No other power generation method, not even filthy old coal, has done that. People can flee. Land can't.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    83. Re:Ohhhh shit by ardor · · Score: 1

      The problem with electric cars has always been energy storage. This technology segment sucks overall, not just for electric cars. Just look at smartphones, laptops, tablets. Battery is always the problem.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    84. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no places to charge an electric car.

    85. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Links for what? Well we've got a source for the accident and cover-up in TFS, so here's one about it being preventable:

      http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/

      They didin't drain the battery after the crash as the manufacturer recommended. This is the electric car equivalent of draining the gas from a crashed car.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    86. Re:Ohhhh shit by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except I don't think it's true.

      "Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the "fragility of Volt sales" up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.

      "NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert," he said, according to industry website"

      A) Joan Claybrook hasn't been with NHTSA since 81
      B) That blurb really makes no sense where it is in the article. It looks like it was added later. Sloppy writing, to say the least
      C) The got her gender wrong. Again sloppy. Maybe a typo.
      D) The writer makes everything alarmist, and intentional uses alarmist phrasing.

      Conclusion: I can't really trust the author or this article.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    87. Re:Ohhhh shit by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't. The question is whether enough of the population have your use-case to make the cars viable. It seems not. I'm like you - I rarely drive more than 20k a day (yay for short commutes). However, I drive 200k a day when we go to visit my in-laws. While a car with a short range is suitable for my day-to-day needs, it's not going to handle edge-cases. And it's more economical to have one car that can handle both, than two cars for specific situations.

      The other thing that does matter is recharge time, as that has an impact on how important range is - if it takes 5 minutes to refill the tank, you can do that in the middle of a trip. If it takes 5 hours, not so much.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    88. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Without the performance? It accelerates MUCH harder and has nearly the handling and top speed (although the fact that the Elise comes with performance tires and the Tesla comes with eco-tires widens the handling gap). Range is lower but who cares about that for a sports car.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    89. Re:Ohhhh shit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I don't own a credit card, can't rent a car.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    90. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In no way is this being blown out of proportion.
      GM, owned and controlled by The Regime, rushed out a car that noone wanted with technology that noone cares for without massive subsidies on both ends of the market, now has that same "halo" car to be unsafe in crashes. And its not unsafe immediately, but for some unknown reason later. Their best guess is to drain the battery coolant system and hope.
      I wonder, if this happened to Toyota.......

    91. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Actually this survey found that 82% of Americans (possibly the most driving-happy population) drive less than 40 miles per day:

      http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/48-of-consumers-interested-in-purchasing-a-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicle

      That suggests that today's electric cars could be useful for most people. If you only drive long distances occasionally it could be practical to just rent an ICE car for the few long-distance drives.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    92. Re:Ohhhh shit by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      From the look of the article (which is pretty non-specific) it asked respondents to estimate their average driving distance.

      This isn't what matters. What matters is "What would be the longest distance you would want to drive during a day?". Like I said, it's the edge-cases that make a limited-range vehicle impractical, not the day-to-day cases. It doesn't matter if you drive an average of 40 miles a day, if twice a year you drive 100.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    93. Re:Ohhhh shit by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      I've owned a Panther (Grand Marquis), and you wouldn't believe the abuse that thing could take. A Civic totalled itself rearending me at a stop light, managing to break the bolts retaining the plastic bumper cover.

      Besides, how many of those Vics were police cruisers hit on the highway?

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    94. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could save a ton of money just buy an ICE car in the first place.

      Why do electric vehicle advocates turn their brains off?
      So lets take the scenario where everybody buys electric car. Why would auto makers still produce ICE cars? Where will you rent a ICE from when they are no longer being produced. How will people makes trips beyond their cars range then?

    95. Re:Ohhhh shit by Super_Z · · Score: 1
      • - Electric cars have lower operating costs. Nissan estimates 5 year operating cost for the Leaf will be US$1,800 versus US$6,000 for a gas car.
      • - Modern electric cars have the same passenger room as regular cars. Take a look at the Renault Fluence Z.E. or the Opel Ampera.
      • - Modern electic cars can easily reach and exceed the speed limit. A Shelby Aero EV can reach 208mph (albeit for a short period).
      • - Electric cars can have great range using e.g. a QuickDrop system to change to fresh batteries in appx. 3 minutes. Fast Charging is also an alternative, but is rumoured to actually wear out your battery faster.
      • - An electric car has currently a higher sticker price and a higher TCO than a gas car. This is offset by a low center of gravity, extremely few moving parts making them a breeze to service and the warm fuzzy feeling you get from driving an BEV.

      I test drove a Nissan Leaf this summer and it was actually a great drive.

    96. Re:Ohhhh shit by Amouth · · Score: 1

      if the risk is only for "punctured" batteries then i agree this is fud and nothing but media sensationalism (which it is a good bit no mater what).

      What interests me .. is to find out that there is a chance that a non punctured battery that experienced shock can catch fire later, and the chances of that happening would be of concern to me. That is something worth having a discussion about..

      other than that.. this is "stabbing an electrical storage device might not be in your best interest, news at 11"

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    97. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Why would auto makers still produce ICE cars?

      For the same reason they make U-Haul vans and trailers? Whose brain is off here?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    98. Re:Ohhhh shit by sincewhen · · Score: 2

      I think it is also partly the invisible nature of radiation.

      You can watch a dam burst, you can see a flood coming, you can see the smoke from a chimney, and believe (probably wrongly) that you can react or avoid the consequences.

      But with nuclear radiation, you don't know it is there, you don't know how much dosage you have received, and what it will do to you.
      I think people fear the unknown more than the known.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    99. Re:Ohhhh shit by tp1024 · · Score: 2

      Rebuild everything as they did in the richest country on earth in New Orleans?

    100. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "risk can be managed appropriately" How?

      By buying a brand new battery pack for what would have been a meaningless fender bender. How much do those cost again?

    101. Re:Ohhhh shit by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      Extreme range is why I prefer to drive my old 1 ton 4x4 on long drives. It will take me ~800 miles with the 57 gallons it holds. Even my old '68 full size with a big block will get me ~400 miles on a tank. Back when I had it, my '63 Falcon would get just shy of 500 miles on the highway. Means fewer stops and less aggrivation. Newer vehicles don't offer that. Fuel economy isn't much better, but for the little they do improve MPG they decrease fuel tank size, which negates the benefit of a slight MPG increase.

      Give me a compact car (Falcon sized, not modern uncomfortable death trap sized) that gets 40-50 MPG and has a 16-25 gallon tank and I'll be thrilled. Oh wait, I can get that with a early '60s Ford Falcon, which gets 32-33 MPG from the factory, but adding an overdrive transmission and doing a proper engine build for economy using some modern techniques and parts.. And still have a nice looking vehicle that's simple and cheap to own and operate.

      I see nothing in the new economy car market that competes with that, especially from electric vehicles. Maybe their time will come, but I don't see EV as anything practical except in a major matro area, where (I find) driving is more expensive and more aggrivation that public transportation or walking.

    102. Re:Ohhhh shit by russotto · · Score: 1

      Speed isn't really important, because it's capped by speed limits anyway, so as long as your car can reach the speed limits, who cares?
      Cornering ability is mandated by law - if your car sucks so hard at cornering, it won't get approved to drive on public roads. As long as it meets the minimum standard, who cares?
      Acceleration is likewise unimportant for the actual purpose of transportation. As long as it's not totally ridiculous, having a poor acceleration will increase the length of your journey only a miniscule amount

      Few want a minimum standard car. Nobody wants a minimum standard car that costs more than a lot of more capable models.

    103. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose brain is off here?

      Your's is.

      So I should rent a U-Haul to go on a vacation? U-Hauls are based on the best selling consumer vehicle, the pickup truck. If everyone buys electric vehicles all the pickup Trucks will be electric. All you U-Hauls would be electric. Why would automakers produce ICE cars.

    104. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instant torque when you press the accelerator can't be beat by any internal combustion engine.

      Sorry, that is overstating things. While I am a fan of the instant torque from electric motors, I can guarantee a high output, large displacement V8 also has "instant torque". That's why I drive vehicles with those engines! Very entertaining.

    105. Re:Ohhhh shit by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be a bit more discriminating in your criticisms. Electric drive is awesome. It's way, way better than ICE. No gears, no hunting around for sweet spots in the RPM/torque characteristics, smoother power, far quieter, instantly starts, much more durable, simpler, cheaper, smaller, lighter, needs much less maintenance, and no smelly, polluting, unhealthy exhaust from a tailpipe. Railroads have been using diesel electric engines for decades, for many of those reasons. Having personally used an electric mower (plugin, no battery), I don't want to go back to the combustion engine mower. The advantages are so worth the big disadvantage of being tied to an extension cord. I've worked out ways to cope with that; it's not that bad.

      The batteries are the problem with it all. The gas tank is by far the simpler, cheaper, faster, and more durable energy storage method. If we ever get batteries or fuel cells sorted out, the combustion engine will very quickly become a quaint relic of the past.

      Or perhaps we could figure a way to electrify our roads. Works for subways.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    106. Re:Ohhhh shit by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      As opposed to when your "repaired" vehicle is trying to take you home from work (causing another accident), or worse when you're on your way somewhere to get laid. Wait...this is /. - so yeah, what about when you're on your way to work?

    107. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Automakers would produce ICE cars to fit specialty needs. Long-haul trucking, for example, won't be able to switch to fully electric for many decades. Thus the U-hauls (and the base of every U-haul I've seen is closer to a truck than a pickup). Range-extended hybrids at least will still be around until electrics can outperform every aspect of ICE cars (which might not be that long, but the point stands).

      Many specialty vehicles are in production today that are only needed in relatively small numbers. Offroad vehicles (not soccer-mom SUVs), high-performance track cars, vehicles with arctic-ready engines, utility trucks that can drive on train tracks or have tow rigs in the back, all produced to meet specialty needs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    108. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny to see a Nissan Leaf being towed to the new owner's home because there isn't enough range to make the trip ...

    109. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the base of every U-haul I've seen is closer to a truck than a pickup

      You need to look closer because not only are you brain damaged you are also blind.
      http://www.cherryscreations.com/used-uhaul-truck.jpg
      http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c178/Sprite1/0825154544_01.jpg

      All specialty vehicles in the same class that you would rent from a consumer car rental company (police cars, taxi cabs, etc..) are based of consumer models.

      Many specialty vehicles are in production today that are only needed in relatively small numbers. Offroad vehicles (not soccer-mom SUVs), high-performance track cars, vehicles with arctic-ready engines, utility trucks that can drive on train tracks or have tow rigs in the back, all produced to meet specialty needs.

      And all those vehicles come with specialty price tags or have engines based off production cars. A car rental company would never be able to afford a fleet of specialty made rental vehicles.

    110. Re:Ohhhh shit by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I only know of two places (aside from home) I could charge an electric car, Just my workplace, and the shopping center nearest my house.

      aka 99% of the trips I make.

      Now, it's the 2 hours drives I make occasionally to visit my friend that I'm not sure I could make, but there are places to charge, if I had an electric car (which I don't)

    111. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be unreasonable at all to call a pickup that size a truck. Is the Chevy Kodiak pickup a regular production pickup too?

      And all those vehicles come with specialty price tags or have engines based off production cars. A car rental company would never be able to afford a fleet of specialty made rental vehicles.

      And among all the car rental companies on the planet, there couldn't be a market for even 1 or 2 ICE models? And I'm sure the higher production costs would just cripple them too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    112. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only know of two places (aside from home) I could charge an electric car, Just my workplace, and the shopping center nearest my house.

      aka 99% of the trips I make.

      Now, it's the 2 hours drives I make occasionally to visit my friend that I'm not sure I could make, but there are places to charge, if I had an electric car (which I don't)

      I know of zero places I can charge my car. There are no charging stations at my apartment. There are no charging stations at my work place. There are no charging stations at the shopping centers.

      Where are all these magical places to charge my car going to come from?

      Now lets say all these fictional charging stations existed? How are they going to handle billing? How are you going to prevent people from unplugging your car? Who is gonna build all the infrastructure to build all these charging stations?

    113. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be unreasonable at all to call a pickup that size a truck.

      Doesn't matter what size it is. It is based off a consumer model with a consumer engine. It would be electric under the scenario everyone owning an electric car.

      And among all the car rental companies on the planet, there couldn't be a market for even 1 or 2 ICE models? And I'm sure the higher production costs would just cripple them too.

      So will only be able to rent one or two models of rental cars? Because currently Enterprise has 14 different classes of rental cars. Of those 14 classes rental car companies sell their used vehicles when they are finished after a year or so. They would not be able to see their special ICE models.

      Plus where will you buy gas to power this fictional rental car? Everyone has an electric car, gas stations will go out of business.

    114. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the issue is handled within the vehicle. Hard enough impact? Physically isolate the battery pack from the rest of the electrical system. Jaws of life to your heart's content.

      I hope not because worse then shorting the battery is punctoring the battery pack

    115. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nissan estimates 5 year operating cost for the Leaf will be US$1,800 versus US$6,000 for a gas car.

      Except it cost's $10,000 more than the car it's based on.

      - Electric cars can have great range using e.g. a QuickDrop system to change to fresh batteries in appx. 3 minutes. Fast Charging is also an alternative, but is rumoured to actually wear out your battery faster.

      None of which exist. Where are you going charge it when you are not at home?

    116. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      One or two ICE rental cars might fit the bill. I guess future ICE models will use diesel like the long-haul trucks, so you can fill up at any gas/charge station (which will retain at least one pump for each of those for a while, since there will still be old cars and hybrids around)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    117. Re:Ohhhh shit by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, funny you mention the Pinto.

      It was no more fire prone than any other car at the time.
      The Pinto also had lower Fatality rates than similar cars of the era.

      Overall it was comparable to other sub-compacts. Looking at rear end impacts though, it had a much higher fatality rate due to a strong propensity of rupturing the gas tank.

    118. Re:Ohhhh shit by fluffy99 · · Score: 2

      How is wanting hydrogen cars anti-environmental when they are far greener than these battery cars both to make and refuel?

      Hydrogen powered cars are a pipe dream primarily due to the poor volumetric energy density. Per pound, it's about 3 times more energy dense, but even at dangerously high compression it takes up 6-times more room. You simply can't safely store enough energy in the vehicle to get a decent range. Think a leaky battery is bad, try popping a contain at 10,000 psi. I won't even get into the lack of an existing distribution infrastructure.

      Hydrogen (compressed at 700 bar = 10,153 psi )
      123 megajoules/kg 5.6 megajoules/liter

      Gasoline (petrol)
      47.2 megajoules/kg 34 megajoules/liter

      Don't forget that the bulk of Hydrogen today is produced by cracking natural gas and throwing away 30% of the energy in the process. Nuclear power might help, but then you're going nuclear->electricity->hydrogen. Might as well just use the electricity to begin with.

    119. Re:Ohhhh shit by tsotha · · Score: 1

      After the collapse of the New Orleans dam?

    120. Re:Ohhhh shit by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen is just an intermediate form of energy storage, and a very poor one at that since it takes up 6x as much room as an energy equivalent amount of gasoline. Why not just take the electricity or natural gas that is the original source of the hydrogen and use that?

      What we really need is better battery technology so that electric vehicles have a decent range. Good luck finding an electric charging station halfway across Montana.

    121. Re:Ohhhh shit by trawg · · Score: 2

      They might suck for you, but there are those of us (like one of the people that replied saying they have a LEAF) who would love to be able to buy an electric car today because they perfectly match our requirements.

      I'm happy to admit they're not for everyone. I know people that live an hour away from the office and commute every day. One of them is in my office (here in .au), one of them is my uncle who lives in Pacifica, CA. Both of them live where they do because they like the location and don't mind the driving.

      However, their ability to have that lifestyle comes from the availability of cheap gasoline. As gasoline gets more expensive, the option to have a 200km round-trip commute starts vanishing.

      I live less than ten minutes walk from my office. I have had my (petrol) car since 2003 and have only recently cracked 30,000km. The only place I drive that is far away is to the beach, which is around 100km away - in range of most electric cars, as I understand it.

      The cost of petrol for me is basically insignificant but if I could get a nice electric car I would happily do so because my driving requirements more than easily fit into its specs.

    122. Re:Ohhhh shit by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Because we are so rich we should build shiny new slums?

      Hint: Slums are the leftovers. Poor people don't get to choose where they live.

      We rebuilt the important parts of New Orleans, the bulk material port and the oil terminal, in time for the fall harvest and in six weeks.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    123. Re:Ohhhh shit by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      But plenty of people would like a minimum standard car that reduces their running costs by a decent proportion, and optionally assuages their green-guilt.

      Thing is, electric cars won't even delivery that.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    124. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The car with the most reports of 'unintended acceleration' is the Ford Crown Victoria sedan. The car with the fewest reports of 'unintended acceleration' is the Ford Crown Victoria Patrol Car.

      With trivial differences, they're the same car.

      Hmmm. Driver error, just maybe, kinda sorta perhaps? Y'think?

      AC

    125. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last weekend, actually. Currently living in Germany.

    126. Re:Ohhhh shit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Newer cars are designed to break for safety. By crumpling up the deceleration experienced by the passenger when they hit something is lower. Unfortunately it also means that there will be more damage to the car and thus higher repair cost too.

      On a related note the reason that cars have started having higher bonnets (the US calls it the hood, the bit covering the engine) is because of European safety regulations. When a pedestrian is hit by a car the initial collision with their legs is very survivable, it is when they body rotates and slams their head against the bonnet that they are killed. The bonnet is only sheet metal and buckles, but then meets the top of the engine block and stops hard. The solution was to increase the gap between the bonnet and the engine, which is why modern cars are the shape they are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    127. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason I'm antsy about them is the bloody cost. Wayyyy too expensive for me.

    128. Re:Ohhhh shit by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, funny you mention the Pinto.

      It was no more fire prone than any other car at the time. The Pinto also had lower Fatality rates than similar cars of the era.

      Overall it was comparable to other sub-compacts. Looking at rear end impacts though, it had a much higher fatality rate due to a strong propensity of rupturing the gas tank.

      There's a strong propensity for most vehicles to rupture the gas tank when driving in reverse on a limited-access highway

    129. Re:Ohhhh shit by T5 · · Score: 1

      In regards to the Nissan LEAF, the base price is just over $35,000. There are tax incentives that bring this figure down somewhat ($7,500 federal, plus possibly state and local tax breaks - yet more government subsidies), but add back the $2,000 home charger and you're back into the $30K range for a compact car (typically a ~$20K segment) that would only seat 5 smaller individuals comfortably for short distances. In this regard, the very limited range of the car is a blessing.

      And I just love how the technological limitations of EVs have been magically transformed into a new psychological condition known as "range anxiety". Sub 100 mile range, reduced range in intemperate conditions, reduced range at night, severely reduced flexibility with route planning, virtually no supporting infrastructure for not-at-home charging, long recharge times, and a 50% initial price premium do not a neurosis make.

      I'm glad that the LEAF works for you. It just doesn't work for enough of us from a variety of angles to draw the kind of investment that it would take to overcome many of these issues. There's approximately $1T in petroleum refueling infrastructure in the US alone. That's a lot of J1772 and JARI/CHAdeMO charging station investment (money that could go to improving battery/fuel cell R&D instead of feeding a handful of 1st gen plug EVs), not to mention the upgrade to an aging, outdated electrical grid to support the additional load. Even then, patience and significant planning will be necessary within the limits of current battery and charging technology.

      Please don't take this wrong. I'd really love to have an EV (Fisker Karma - drool, drool). The instantaneous torque, reduced fuel costs, potentially reduced negative environmental impact, and various other advantages of an advanced EV would be exciting. But, for me, it's got to have at worst a 300 mile range and at most a 15 minute recharge available nearly anywhere I travel to have a broad enough appeal to justify the additional investment that will make a battery-based EV viable. The EV price premium has to be significantly cut as well. Nothing on the horizon that I've seen comes close to this.

    130. Re:Ohhhh shit by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      I know, but it's kinda ridiculous how they get damaged in low speed collisions, where nobody would get hurt at those speeds...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    131. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. This is a Volt. You get all the danger of the battery, PLUS all the danger of petrol.

    132. Re:Ohhhh shit by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Can DC kill you?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    133. Re:Ohhhh shit by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of thousands killed is bad, but: with hydro, people die, and that's that.

      Not so with nuclear: It keeps going and going.

      With nuclear you have to have trust in humans, and especially politicians and corporate executives, for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. You've never doubted their absolute integrity, right?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    134. Re:Ohhhh shit by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Right up untill the release of all this CO2 and other crap from coal renders the entire surface of our planet unfit for human living conditions. And that doesn't even require an accident; just time.

    135. Re:Ohhhh shit by Specter · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Your Pip-Boy 3000 will automatically detect and tabulate all of that information.

    136. Re:Ohhhh shit by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      For Direct Current (DC): P=I*V=I^2*R=V^2/R. P is power, I is current, V is voltage, and R is resistance.

      And since power corrupts, and corruption leads to sin [citation needed], and the wages of sin is death, I think the conclusion is that DC can kill you.

    137. Re:Ohhhh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in theory, even quicker than AC. The myth or concept that DC can't hurt you or kill you comes from the fact that most peoples experience and usage of DC power is small voltages like car batteries and wall warts. Those run typically under 20 volts and can not typically even be felt if grabbed. The fact that it is under 20 volts is why you did not die, not because it was DC. In the US military, the voltage where they considered it a risk was 30 volts. They assumed 0.1 ma through your heart was a potential lethal does and worst case your body resistance could be as low as 300 ohms (sitting in salt water, sick, open wounds etc) and since I=E/R so 30 volts is the magic number. Some use other numbers but they are all in the ball park.

      Not spel cheked or proof read, deal with any errors.

    138. Re:Ohhhh shit by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't think Crown Vics would have been so popular with police if they caught fire easily.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    139. Re:Ohhhh shit by operagost · · Score: 1

      Try reading that post again. He also cited speed (admittedly, not much of a problem anymore), passenger space, sticker price, and operating costs. Besides, even if range was the only problem, it's a big one. Although I guess a range of only 50 miles would be acceptable if it didn't take so long to recharge. People expect to refuel in minutes, not hours, and I feel that is reasonable. Cars are supposed to be versatile vehicles, and it only hurts the populist greenie cause if you suggest that people have a second car in the garage because the efficient every-day commuter would take all day to get to grandma's house 100 miles away owing to its recharging needs on the way.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    140. Re:Ohhhh shit by operagost · · Score: 1

      You're sounding rather like a limousine liberal here. Buying an electric car is not a cost-saving move right now, because the initial cost is higher, and this combined with a very expensive battery replacement after about five years eats up any energy cost savings. So that means you're asking middle-class Americans to eat cake by renting a car (or taking a train) and leaving their expensive electric at home-- whereas they could have simply purchased an economical ICE or hybrid car in the first place.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    141. Re:Ohhhh shit by operagost · · Score: 1

      Most people will be making 600 mile trips less than once a year and could easily be serviced by a rental or the average US households second vehicle

      Let them eat cake!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    142. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Most regular electric cars have a range of around 100 miles now and can do an 80% quick charge in minutes.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    143. Re:Ohhhh shit by operagost · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, I can get that with a early '60s Ford Falcon, which gets 32-33 MPG from the factory

      There's absolutely no way a 1960s Falcon could get over 30 MPG with even its stock I6 engine. NONE. Even if you put in a modern fuel-injected 4 cylinder DOHC engine, the aerodynamics would make it difficult. You would probably need to add an air dam, lower the ride height, and go to a modern manual trans to squeak it out. It would make more sense to modify the trunk of a modern compact to allow a larger gas tank.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    144. Re:Ohhhh shit by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Just a minor correction on the U-Hauls, most of their fleet is the large trucks but there are some that are based off of consumer trucks. Everything that is a 14 footer or larger is based off of something like a F550 (large commercial dump truck) or larger. They do have some smaller vehicles like the 10 foot truck which were rare when I worked there bu those were based off of the small Toyota pickup and they also have standard 1/2 ton pickups of F150 size and a cargo vans that are E150 sized. Most of the smaller vehicles like the 10 foot enclosed trucks, pickup trucks, and cargo vans are local use only.

      Totally agree with you on the specialty vehicles, especially on the true offroad vehicles. My biggest beef is with the soccer moms driving them is they believe they are invincible when the roads are icy because they have 4 wheel drive. This also has seemed to have made lots of 4WD vehicles kind of weak as people want them to be more like a car and less like a truck. Try finding a new 4WD truck or SUV (excluding Suabaru) on the lot that has a posi let alone locking differentials, or has manual locking hubs now days. A perfect example of invincibility was last weekend I was driving in my Jeep in a storm where the snow had melted and then refroze on the road and I was being reasonable and driving 30-35mph on a major road who's normal speed limit was 50. I had tons of people in SUVs flying past me until I would come up to curve or intersection and frequently they were off in the ditch or involved in an accident with another vehicle or stationary objects. I was glad I have a tow chain as I cleared 3 intersections of vehicles all so I could get home. All of them said they had all or 4 wheel drive but it didn't do anything.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    145. Re:Ohhhh shit by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You would have been the fucking idiot in the 1880s saying "Benz, you dumb shit, why did you make this run on gas? Where am I going to get gas? Some magical fictional place? Who is going to build all of this?"

    146. Re:Ohhhh shit by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      The battery pack in most well-designed electric vehicles (The Tesla Roadster, the Nissan LEAF, etc) is well-armored against punctures in a collision. The Chevy Volt has some.......failings in that department.

    147. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A big factor is that all the clueless drivers in 4WDs think that they have lots of grip because it feels hooked up better than a 2WD (especially if the car has traction control which keeps them from feeling the first bit of slippage), but they don't realize that by driving at speeds close to what they would do on a dry road, they're pushing it right near the limit, so when they finally push past the limit the loss of traction is dramatic and pretty much unrecoverable.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    148. Re:Ohhhh shit by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Don't expect much more efficiency from a turbine than from a reciprocating piston engine. The best turbines run at about 60% efficiency and the best reciprocating piston engines run at about 50%. In both cases they are about the size of a house. For smaller engines reciprocating piston is more efficient but not as flex able on fuel. Years ago Chrysler tried to make a turbine powered vehicle and had a number of problems (not related to reliability). This was back in the days when Chrysler corporation was know for good engineering and making a quality product.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    149. Re:Ohhhh shit by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to name one that can quick charge in minutes without specific, and expensive, high capacity recharge equipment that has a guaranteed range of around 100 miles.

      BTW the leaf is 30 minutes with their special 480v recharge station and the EPA is only getting 73 Miles on a charge so don't use that as an example.

    150. Re:Ohhhh shit by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      Wrong... '62 Falcon brochure and MPG

      My '63 got right around that in normal highway driving, not MPG squeezing driving. It was a plain jane bare bones two door post car with a 144 straight six, 3 on the tree with no syncros in first, no power steering, no accessories or options. I rebuilt the carb, gave it a tune up, and adjusted the timing curve to get more timing while slightly leaning out the mixture. Very basic tune to increase MPG and power, not an all out thing for sure. I never did strictly city stop adn go driving but in normal 50/50 driving it got mid 20s and over 30 MPG on the highway.

      With an Aussie head ported with an Offy intake, header, dual exhaust, mild torque cam, raised compression to around 9.5:1-9.7:1, possibly an Autolite 2100 carb with the small .98" venturi, and misc other performance and MPG tweaks I could see a very efficient engine making very respectable HP and torque numbers for a small six. With a '60s vehicle not encumbered by emissions requirements you can make an engine very efficient where newer engines will be federally mandated to comply with various emissions laws that are a detrmiment to MPG. Regardless, couple this with a T5 trans and rear gearing around 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 and I can easily see 40 MPG at 65-70 MPH, more if driving at granny speeds.

      As for aerodynamics... They're not as bad as you'd think just because they're small and don't have nearly the frontal surface area of a midsize or full size which are taller and wider. Aerodynamics aren't that big a deal at legal speeds in the States (55-65 MPH here on the east coast), at least not compared to having an efficient engine in a light vehicle with an efficient driveline.

      One of these days I'll get another Falcon and turn it into a real MPG machine. I've been looking for a couple months now waiting for the right car for the right price. When I do it, it'll be my daily driver whenever there's not snow on the ground and should save me a good amount in fuel.

    151. Re:Ohhhh shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      None right now can quick charge without the high-voltage quick charge station of course. But you don't have even a slow gas pump that can fill your car from a 110v or 220v socket. All the charging ports (including quick-charge ports) are standardized now, any electric car made in the last few years will have the standard ports.

      The 2012 Fit will just reach 100 miles. There are more expensive electric cars that will do it easily (like the Tesla S).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    152. Re:Ohhhh shit by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      So in conclusion your statement that "most" electric vehicles can go 100 miles and recharge in minutes is completely false.

      A small number of very expensive electric cars can as well as a yet *unreleased* model from Honda.

      Recharging "in minutes" can only be accomplished with specific and expensive chargers that are NOT commonly available anywhere but perhaps the owners garage.

      Sorry if I'm coming across as an ass but the reality of EVs is nowhere close to what you portray it to be and it's time some reality get injected into the hyperbole surrounding these vehicles.

    153. Re:Ohhhh shit by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      In tests the Pinto ruptured the gas tank every single time in rear end crashes as slow as 30mph, often resulting in a fire. Most vehicles did not do this. This was due to a design flaw that had nothing between the tank and the bolts sticking out on the rear differential, which most cars had. Yes the problem was real.

      Ford caught so much grief because the it came out that they knew about this flaw and decided the potential cost of lawsuits was lower than the cost to recall and fix the issue.

    154. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Except batteries, power electronics, electric motors... Minor stuff.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    155. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Electric cars are the only ones with legitimate complaints about current battery tech. Consumer electronics suffers from metrosexual marketing departments trying to turn everything into a fashion accessory, and not putting a decent amount of battery, as in mass and volume.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    156. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh, I didn't see any objective drawbacks except that it didn't sound like a V8. Typical american consumers.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    157. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Yeah, with even less range, and plenty of maintenance.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    158. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      It ran on alcohol, also.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    159. Re:Ohhhh shit by ardor · · Score: 1

      So you would gladly return to the bulky and unwieldy handhelds from the '80s and '90s? 3 lbs are not decent. HANDhelds should not tire your arm. Besides, you are forgetting about power density here. More battery mass/volume does not automatically mean higher power density.

      But hey, here are some cellphones for you, manliest of men: http://www.lifelounge.com.au/resources/IMGTHUMB/Cell-clutch.jpg http://www.oaktreevintage.com/web_photos/Telephones/Radio-Shack_17-1003_Portable_Cell_Phone_Web.jpg

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    160. Re:Ohhhh shit by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      My dad had a 1G analog cell phone - it was quite manageable. It was late '90s. I'm not saying have it be 3 kg, but some manufacturers go off the deep end and that bothers me, it's as if most of them did, and that bothers me more.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. Which car company do you work for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

    1. Re:Which car company do you work for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm..that's a quote from Fight Club.

    2. Re:Which car company do you work for? by Miseph · · Score: 1

      DING DING DING!

      We have a winner!

      Congratulations sir, you recognized the quote. You should be receiving your cookie by mail in 6-16 months.*

      *In the unlikely event that your cookie arrives, it is not advised that you consume it: all cookies have been exposed to Ebola virus.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  4. sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Volt sales have been far below expectations. GM badly bungled the execution of this vehicle, making a tin-can low quality econobox into a $40K car that nobody wants. Really, did anyone expect otherwise from GM? Just wait for the real cars of this type from Toyota, Nissan (leaf) and others, and you won't have to pay $40K for a $20K car and it'll be more reliable. The US auto industry has been incapable of producing a half-decent vehicle for decades now.

    1. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hear Europe has a ton of diesel vehicles a ton with much better fuel economy. We can trust GM to not screw up diesels right? I mean how hard can it be. People have been making diesel engines for a hundred years.

    2. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by trout007 · · Score: 1

      How did the sales make themselves wet?

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by syousef · · Score: 2

      GM badly bungled the execution of this vehicle, making a tin-can low quality econobox into a $40K car that nobody wants.

      They should never have let this guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F - design the thing

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US auto industry has been incapable of producing a half-decent vehicle for decades now.

      Oh C'mon! I got a 20 year old Crown Vic that still goes like a raped ape

    5. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More then just incapable....unwilling, deliberate. GM had a functioning car 15 years ago. I'm to believe that technology has progressed so much that now they can't make one? More then just Wagner needs to be fired from that company.

    6. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European diesel vehicles can't pass US environmental standards.

    7. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but with a little work they can. AND, they will still be more economical. Also a hell of a lot more reliable.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    8. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by GungaDan · · Score: 2

      VW, Mercedes and BMW would take issue with that (incorrect) assertion. The sole reason most manufacturers don't sell their diesel cars in the US (this includes GM and Ford) is the perception that Americans won't buy them. A lie that should have been put to rest by the success of VW with their newer common-rail TDIs.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    9. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Is GM, a company that's been around over 100 years, truly this incompetent? Or is this whole progression -- design, execution, tax credits, coverup, part of a larger plan?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just perception, mostly wrong from those I've spoken to about the fuel. But unlike Europe, the US doesn't discount the price at the pump, even though it's still substantially cheaper than Europe.

      TV is another matter. Real men drive oversized pickups, with Hemi lumps that guzzle petrol like a high performance car. But, in a pickup, you'll grow to 6' 6", lose 100lb of flat, gain, 120lb of muscle and some strange, never seen in real life, stubble. Checkered shirts are an optional extra.

    11. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by shuz · · Score: 1

      I am still waiting for the day when a small Nissan style diesel pickup truck is available in the US. Cars and SUV's both would benefit and meet a lot of efficiency goals in the US if there were diesel options. The number one, imho only, negative issue with small block diesels is that they have poor low speed acceleration and would cause way to may people to be good drivers. I find that my diesel has much better high speed acceleration compared to gas based due to the fact that my car doesn't have to downshift to gain extra torque so I don't lose overall power when stepping on it at 65 to get around that annoying SUV kicking up rocks at my freshly waxed paint job. Diesel also is far less likely to cause a giant fireball in a crash. The pressure required for it to instantly combust is higher than the tinsel strength of the fuel tank. Try holding a lighter up to a puddle of diesel fuel. It will burn but it takes a lot of heat and a bit of time and it does not burn quickly. Don't try the same with Kerosene (jet A) or Gasoline.

      --
      There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    12. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They can and do. The problem is that the standards are somewhat incompatible, so it's very difficult to pass both at the same time, but not hard at all to modify an EU to pass the US, you just have the additional costs of two manufacturing lines.

      This is according to the plans of the Big 3 in trying to protect themselves from foreign imports, and is a direct harm to the consumers and breathers in the US.

    13. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      European diesel vehicles can't pass US environmental standards.

      False. The current diesels on sale in European models *do* pass the US environmental standards.

    14. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      I hear Europe has a ton of diesel vehicles a ton with much better fuel economy. We can trust GM to not screw up diesels right? I mean how hard can it be. People have been making diesel engines for a hundred years.

      I'm not sure whether you're implying that American car makers just suck in any case, or if you're making that case that American car companies are suppressing electric car sales. Since so many are assuming the later, I'd like to address that argument in the context of your example.

      OK, assume for a second that A)Europeans make better cars in general, and B)European diesel cars prove a conspiracy by American car companies to stifle non-gasoline car sales.

      Where are the European electric cars, then? Why aren't the streets of London, Berlin, and Paris dominated by electric cars?

      Europeans don't drive electric cars because they don't have sufficient electric car technology either.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    15. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can put out fires with diesel - it doesn't like to burn at atmospheric pressure.

      I drive a turbo diesel minivan that gets 53 mpg (44.1 US mpg) and find it very nice to drive - the performance stigma that has been attached to diesel has been mostly eradicated with modern engine designs and clever turbo and engine management computers. You get similar performance to petrol engines but much better mpg and you can tow yourself along in traffic by just lifting the clutch. The extra torque is lovely.

    16. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Well it was SUPPOSED to be a joke for those that know history. GM did bring out a diesel car and fucked it up so bad it left a bad taste in consumers' mouth. Which is a large reason Americans don't want diesel cars.

      I constantly have to put up with "Can you get up to high way speeds", "How do you get around in the winter", etc.

    17. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      That must be a recent development. If it's true I would expect an up-tick in diesel sales in the United States. EPA standards have most definitely limited the market for diesel engine cars in the US.

    18. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      diesel pretty poison crap. Even the filtered European fuel.

      However, what will happen is they will come to the US, people will see it gets worse mileage and scream the american company's aren't any good and never take into consideration a gallon in Europe is the same as a gallon in the US.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by geekoid · · Score: 0

      With the addition of spew carcinogens out the pipe. Yes, even in ultra low sulfur mix.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That assumes equivalent fuel purity. Do they pass with american diesel?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have mentioned pickup trucks. Pickup trucks disprove your point because huge Diesel pickup trucks are even more manly than huge gas powered pickup trucks.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well that is a shame, because one of the two reasons I have not bought a new car recently is that there are no diesel powered manual shift sports sedans available. Well, other than the VW Jetta or whatever it is. The other reason is that, like 95% of Americans, I can't afford a new car, but unlike most Americans, I don't buy things when I can't afford them.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    23. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Well it was SUPPOSED to be a joke for those that know history. GM did bring out a diesel car and fucked it up so bad it left a bad taste in consumers' mouth. Which is a large reason Americans don't want diesel cars.

      I constantly have to put up with "Can you get up to high way speeds", "How do you get around in the winter", etc.

      Ah, I see. And I understand. My family had one of those craptastic GM diesels (specifically, the Oldsmobile 98 with the 350 V8). When I drove it, it did indeed feel and act like a badly-tuned big rig.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    24. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Jukeman · · Score: 1

      I had one of those in the 80's, I only had small problems with it, went plenty fast, great mileage, always started in the winter ( if the block heater was used). drove it for 80K mi. over six years, even solved the fuel gel problem. I live where it gets very cold sometimes, it never let me down. GM's lack of support was it's biggest problem and other owners thinking it was a gas engine, diesels are different.

    25. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      and want to be......... a lumberjack!

    26. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      My engine meets US diesel regulations, if you prefer an alternate source of locomotion (bear in mind I pay $8 per US gallon for fuel, so I'm all for it), then please talk to your congressman about greener options.

    27. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jafac · · Score: 1

      We can trust Shell to screw up diesels though.

      In 2001 - a gallon of diesel fuel used to be on-par with a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Now, in 2011, a gallon of diesel is easily more expensive, in some regions, as much as a dollar more per gallon than premium unleaded gasoline. The increased fuel efficiency of diesel no longer makes good sense.

      I know that there are a lot of good reasons why this should NOT be the case, but unfortunately, the fuel distribution industry has decided to price car-driving consumers out of the equation.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    28. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      The price of diesel went up when they were required to remove most of the sulfur.

    29. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by mirix · · Score: 1

      Although the horrible gas 350 conversions GM made in the late 70's / early 80's left a horrible taste in america's mouth, They own Opel (or did, not sure how that came out of the whole restructuring thing). Opel makes good passenger car diesels.

      However, GM never seems to handle this right. Recently they brought over one or two models to the US under saturn branding (astra).
      This is the usual formula they follow:
      1. Delete diesel option, optionally delete efficient euro gas option also. replace with inefficient american made V6. (not in this instance, just diesel drop).
      2. Install soggy ass american suspension, slushbox, cheapen up interior materials.
      3. Make the outside uglier, add saturn badging.
      4. don't profit.

      I would think if they brought over the Astra and Vectra as-is they could compete somewhat with VW Golf and Passat, hell, they do in Germany.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    30. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by fluffy99 · · Score: 2

      With the addition of spew carcinogens out the pipe. Yes, even in ultra low sulfur mix.

      Citation needed since you're full of shit. Diesel produced more carbon in the output (the black cloud you sometimes see) but it has far less toxic components than burning gasoline. That's why diesels don't require a catalytic converter.

    31. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      diesel pretty poison crap. Even the filtered European fuel.

      However, what will happen is they will come to the US, people will see it gets worse mileage and scream the american company's aren't any good and never take into consideration a gallon in Europe is the same as a gallon in the US.

      Diesel emissions are still less dangerous that gasoline emissions.
      http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html

    32. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually the diesel cars over here have usually depending on the size of the car a performance of 4-6 liters per 100km.
      Not to shabby, but the newer ones have some hybrid techniques in like stop automatic which turns the engine off if you come to a standstill and
      brake energy recovery. That is without being hybrids. The table turns around at long distances where hybrids fail and where the power consumption of hybrids go way up. Then the diesel is more efficient.

      They are not in the same ballpark as a real hybrid but not that far off either for short distances. The downside is newer diesels have exhaustion filters in which need
      10-15 minutes of driving at constant speed (60-80 kmh) to clean themselves out in regular intervals, which is a problem for people who use their car simply in stop and go situations (like going small distances for shopping)

    33. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      You should answer, if the car can cope well on a german Autobahn with no speed limits then it also can run on shoddy use highways :-)

    34. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by adolf · · Score: 1

      I can tow myself along in traffic in my gas-fired car just by lifting the clutch, too.

      It's not a function of available torque, but rather of the reluctance of the computer running the show to allow the engine to stall.

      The diesel engine's management does this by increasing fuel, and the gasoline engine does it by increasing both air and fuel, but the end result to the user is the same: Pick an appropriate gear, ease out on the clutch, and the car goes forward.

      Meanwhile: Here, diesel fuel costs more than gasoline. When I bought gas a couple of days ago diesel was at posted at $3.78 and gas at $3.12.

      I'll leave it to you to make your own cost-per-mile comparison between your own turbo diesel minivan and a similar gas-powered model.

      But just to pick an example, here's what I can glean from VW's American website:

      Jetta TDI 2l turbo diesel: 42MPG highway
      Jetta GLI 2l turbo gas: 33MPG highway

      The TDI has more torque, the GLI has more horsepower. Peak torque is in about the same spot on the powerband. They both should behave similarly in normal road-going duties, and they both cost roughly the same to buy.

      According to these numbers, the TDI costs $9.00 to go 100 miles down the highway, while the GLI costs $9.45. So the diesel is a bit cheaper, but not by much.

      Things look slightly worse when comparing to a lesser engine, such as the perfectly-adequate 2-liter normally-aspirated gasoline 4-banger in the Jetta S, which burns $9.17 every 100 highway miles and costs $5k less than the TDI.

      The diesel will go further on a tank of fuel, but then it might also have to go further because not every gas station here offers diesel.

      So, yeah. Modern, small diesel engines are awesome little things -- there's no doubt about that. I'd love to have a TDI engine in something, just to tinker with and satisfy my hacker curiosity.

      But in terms of saving money, where I stand? It's really not so clear-cut.

    35. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just as full of shit.

      Less toxic components? How about particulates? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust#Particulates

      No catalytic converter? If you REALLY like asthma, I guess, otherwise not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#For_diesel_engines

    36. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Diesel is more expensive in the UK too, but it's still much better in terms of cost per mile than petrol. It's why more than 50% of regular cars on the roads are DERV burners.

      Helps that the road tax is cheaper for diesels due to lower CO2 emission too.

    37. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      It's not the computer, either. My old Mini (the Austin kind, not the BMW kind) could be made to move without using the accelerator too. It didn't have a computer. It barely knew what electricity was.

    38. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Don't worry GM already did screw up diesels in cars in the 80s which is why getting most people to buy a diesel in the US is so difficult. The US manufactures got spooked because of the crap they made that no one wanted so there isn't a real demand so they probably won't screw them up again. The people who experienced VW, Volvo, and Mercedes diesels of that era love them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    39. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      There have always been engines with really good low end torque. Diesels are probably the most notable but the old inline 6 engines that use to be put into trucks have tons of low end torque. My jeep has a gasoline 4L inline six and puts out all of its power on the low end and is great for pulling stumps (yes I have done this) and also does wonders for pulling dumb asses out of ditches. Granted it only gets 20 mpg US but then it only gets driven 3,000 or so miles a year. Some of the more modern diesels are a riot to drive, this past summer I went and took a test drive of one of the new BMW diesels and those are quick, you want low end torque (quick starting acceleration) you have it.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    40. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, the current line of VW diesels are the same, tuned for a more sporty response, it feels like you get kicked in the back when you put your foot down and the turbo comes in.

    41. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Lies. I offer you the BMW 335d sedan producing 265 HP, 425 lb-ft torque, and gets 36 mpg. Granted it doesn't come with a manual but it is a 6 speed auto and you can probably put it into sport mode for tire boiling fun like with my 540i with the sport package. I would suggest waiting a few years, used BMWs are really cheap because no one wants a used one but every one I have bought has been really good (the previous 2 were taken out in accidents that were the fault of the other drive). I would hardly call a VW Jetta a sports sedan my wife has a Jetta and I think it sucks hard. It is on its 3rd alternator, 2nd starter, 4th water pump, second radiator, 3 set of brakes, 3rd valve cover gasket but only has 95,000 miles on it. Part of this is because my wife beats on it, stomps the brakes, and only drives short distances. Still compared to my 540i which is on its 3rd set of brakes and second water pump (everything else is original) but has 227,000 on it it does suck.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    42. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Which is why we are starting to see some of the diesel euro models from BMW, MB, and VW come back into the US. I don't know if Volvo is shipping diesels here or not and don't feel like looking it up but I wouldn't be surprised if they are.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    43. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out it was Oldsmobile (one of the many defunct divisions of GM) that screwed the pooch with the diesels in sedans in the 80s. Even people who didn't own one have experienced their craptastic quality by being stuck behind one or near one when trying to accelerate, they were basically giant pollution factories.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    44. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      They weren't conversion but really poorly engineered engines that were meant to use existing parts. The blocks and if memory serves cranks were not reused but other parts from gasoline engines were. The engine was a giant disaster that Oldsmobile should have never done. Lots of people think that the Olds 350 diesel is just a converted Chevy 350 but it isn't.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    45. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Is GM, a company that's been around over 100 years, truly this incompetent?

      yes

      Or is this whole progression -- design, execution, tax credits, coverup, part of a larger plan?

      Don't assign to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    46. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by adolf · · Score: 1

      Well, sure. Just because it has a carb doesn't mean it's going to automatically stall just because you engage a gear and let the clutch out...

      I think my main point, which I didn't spell out very well, is that these new-fangled engines (like the M50 in my not-so-new 325i) control idle speed automatically with a feedback loop, whether fueled by gasoline or diesel.

      My BMW wants to idle at around 600 RPM when properly warmed up, and it has extra parts which allow air to bypass the throttle body in order to get that done. If things vary from 600 RPM, it either opens or closes the Idle Air Control in an attempt to stabilize engine speed.

      The IAC isn't very big, so the amount of air it allows into the intake manifold is rather limited, but it's enough to keep moving even up a bit of an incline without touching the loud pedal.

      On newer-fangled engines with such things as fly-by-wire throttle, or a modern diesel (which has no throttle) the feedback loop can be implemented completely in software.

      A carb doesn't act like that. It's got a couple of fixed idle settings, at most, and no feedback loop to allow allow those settings to directly relate to engine speed.

    47. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Lies. I offer you the BMW 335d sedan [bmwusa.com] producing 265 HP, 425 lb-ft torque, and gets 36 mpg. Granted it doesn't come with a manual but it is a 6 speed auto and you can probably put it into sport mode for tire boiling fun like with my 540i with the sport package
      How is it a lie to say that there are no Diesel Sports Sedans with manual transmission other than VW? You say the BMW 335d is one, but doesn't come with a manual transmission. Well, then, it is not a Diesel Sports Sedan with a manual transmission, is it? Go to autos.msn.com and go to the "Help me choose" page. Choose "sedan" and "diesel". If you expand your search to all price ranges, it will come back with 5 models. The VW Jetta and Passat, which both have a manual transmission available and the BMW 335d, Mercedes E-Series and S-Series, none of which come with a manual transmission.
      I feel your pain with the VW. Somebody here at work has a VW diesel. He does get great gas mileage, but he has had to have somebody jump start him several times in recent weeks. It seems that the VW diesels are not very reliable.
      This does not bode well for the Audi A4 TDI, which is coming next year (and has been coming next year for at least 5 years). It uses the same engine, from what I hear as the VW.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    48. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Don't assign to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence.

      Agreed, but at some point mere incompetence starts to seem unlikely.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    49. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The engine in my euro GM car (Opel Astra) is made by Isuzu. Some other Euro GM diesel cars has engines made by Fiat. Very few GM diesels in Europe has GM made diesel engines, they do exist, but they tend not to be very good.

      So no, they've not screwed it up ;-)

    50. Re:sales dampened themselves: the car sucks by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Diesels are great (I drive one myself), but saying that they get better fuel economy than the Volt is overstating it a bit (particularly if you're talking about overall economy, including city driving where the volt gets "infinite" fuel economy because it gets recharged from the grid).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by onyxruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How does a crackpot theory like this make the front page? What's next JFK assassination theories or little green men tucked in freezers in Area 51?

    Just a little bit of professional editorial work, that's all I ask.

    1. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you working in the Volt area or in another G.M. department?

    2. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a real person, not an astroturfing drone. I just happen to be a real person that is tired of crap conspiracy theories. This is supposed to be a geek site, not an x-files are real site!

    3. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The summary is only referencing a BBC story. You don't get anymore mainstream than the BBC.

      Slashdot is a news aggregator, and you can't really blame them for taking headline tech stories from probably the largest news service in the world.

    4. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Calling this a "crackpot theory" is just plain naïveté. All of human history, including American history, is rife with this type of corruption.

    5. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two things to note about this story. First, it's reported in the BBC. That's a very good sign that it actually happened as the BBC story said it happened. Second, there's huge incentives for the Obama administration to play softball on this issue, namely, that General Motors is a favored company due to its bailout status and because electric vehicles are a pet project as well.

      However you spin this "crackpot theory", it remains that the Obama administration has a peculiar list of priorities which often show up in ugly ways.

    6. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a real person, not an astroturfing drone. I just happen to be a real person that is tired of crap conspiracy theories. This is supposed to be a geek site, not an x-files are real site!

      BBC presents evidence this is real. Since you're calling them liars, let's see the counter-evidence.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But the article is complete crap. Well below the BBC standards.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except there isn't any proof.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? The statement about a cover up makes no damn sense, none at all.
      But yes, Obama called up bother agency and personally said to cover it up because there wouldn't be any damn risk in doing that.

      Moron.

      I might as well say Bush covered up Toyota's issues; which would be as stupid as your psot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? The statement about a cover up makes no damn sense, none at all.

      From the article in question:

      It now appears the fire hazard was first discovered back in June, when GM first heard about a fire in a Volt that occurred some three weeks after the vehicle had been crash tested.

      Yet, almost five months went by before either GM or the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told dealers and customers about the potential risks and urged them to drain the battery pack as soon as possible after an accident.

      So how do you explain a five month delay in a way that makes sense to you?

    11. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That BBC does not exist any more.

    12. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      yeah, I'm tired of people thinking *I'm* the crazy one because I don't want to believe in some far-out idea.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    13. Re:Can we get a /crackpot bin for crap like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're astroturfing voluntarily on your own dime and you even believe the lies you're redistributing?

      Nah, just trolling. I wouldn't want to send a fellow human into a psychotic spin. I believe you are a decent and kind human being. There is always someone in this big world of ours that will listen and take your side. Peace & Love.

  6. Not surprise by Government Motors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you think that since the NHTSA possibly delayed the report because the governement actually owns a good chunk of GM? Hmmmm....

    1. Re:Not surprise by Government Motors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A comment that's anti obama and/or anti socialist. You will be modded troll.

  7. government should have sold its shares already by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and took the loss to get it off the books. Then perhaps we could have been freed of these shenanigans. I know, I know, yeah it would have tanked the share price and cost other investors money but those investors purchased their shares knowing full well that government had no long term investment need.

    Instead we see politics as usual. From having GE (no taxes, many WH meetings) agree to buy a large number of these cars, we have the Toyota witch hunt earlier this year (even NASA's help could not find fault), and we have the battery issue where three batteries caught fire (one three weeks after a wreck, one a week after a simulated wreck, and one hours after a simulated wreck)

    We have GM sitting on nearly thirty billion in cash, hell they should buy their shares back. Oh wait, they are sitting on it because there is a fear they won't be able to properly fund the pensions for certain unions.

    The reason this battery issue is important is not just to those driving, but to those in the accident with these cars and those responding to the accidents. Whether they are first responders or the wrecker crews. I would have to assume there is a large amount of technical documentation for hazardous waste clean up, hell we freak out over diesel spills can you imagine full penetration of one of these battery packs?

    Another Administration and no real change; unless you count whose pockets the money goes in, it always comes out of ours.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:government should have sold its shares already by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      can you imagine full penetration of one of these battery packs?

      We're getting pretty close to rule 34 territory with that statement.

    2. Re:government should have sold its shares already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government wiped the bond holders of GM with 37 cents on the dollar without any judicial oversight of the bankruptcy. Anyone who invests any money in any company that this administration wants to seize illegally had better not whine when the government decides to steal their investment again without due process of law. The GM "bailout" wasn't a bailout, it was Obama seizing value owned by bondholders pure and simple. The rest of the corruption after that is an attempt to make GM look profitable so they can say they "saved jobs".

    3. Re:government should have sold its shares already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, except the dig at unions. Why shouldn't they have to maintain their obligations? Why is it that we poopoo a person who files bankruptcy but corporations are free to bail on any "burdensome" debt that arises?

  8. Fireproof, I guess by cstec · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, every other vehicle on the road is made of granite and thus incapable of catching fire...

    1. Re:Fireproof, I guess by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Usually when you crash your car and it's going to catch fire it happens relatively soon. With the Volt it can look fine after a crash and then a few weeks later burst into flames in your garage.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Fireproof, I guess by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      You think this is bad? Just wait until they find out that for some cars, no crash is needed.

      To quote Ted Nugent (as I love to do) "Spontaneous Combustion"!

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  9. Excuse me? by Howard+Roark · · Score: 1

    Just where does it say "a minor impact?" For the battery to start a fire, it has to be punctured, and that is no "minor impact." In addition, the fires that occured in the NHTSA test happened days and in one case weeks after the crash test.

    Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.

    The only place a Volt will catch fire is in the scrap yard after it has been totaled provided that some moron didn't discharge the battery before throwing it on the scrap heap.

    --
    Howard Roark, Architect
    I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
    1. Re:Excuse me? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.

      Dude, you should watch less action movies.

      Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.

    2. Re:Excuse me? by wizzerking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you not watched Mythbusters ??? Only if a stream of gas comes out of a tank, and pools will it burn. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF AN EXPLOSION WHEN THE GAS TANK IS 1/4 OR MORE FULL Stopping thinking like hollywood, and go watch mythbusters, or get an engineering degree.

    3. Re:Excuse me? by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Not so. For a battery to start a fire (your words), it need not be punctured. All you need to do is draw more current than the wiring is capable of carrying. Wires heat up, and then you get a fire. However, if you discharge the battery at a rate greater than the battery is designed for it is possible that it may explode or catch fire. Generally they just swell up.

      And you do not always get a fireball when you puncture a gasoline take either - an ignition source MUST be present to ignite gas.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    4. Re:Excuse me? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, you should watch less action movies.

      Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.

      Not only that, but even shooting a full tank with tracer rounds will not make the tank explode. The heat and pressure needed to make a tank of gas explode is found more commonly in Michael Bay films than it is in an auto accident. Unless of course everyone started driving Pintos again

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Excuse me? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Just because the car won't explode doesn't mean you won't die from the fire. Just a few months ago, near where I live, a family was roasted alive when a drunk rammed their stopped Jeep Cherokee from behind at about 40mph.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    6. Re:Excuse me? by wizzerking · · Score: 1

      Yes there are fires and tragedies do result from these fires. I was responding to the statement "Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank." I did not mean that fires do not occur, as i alluded to in my statement "Only if a stream of gas comes out of a tank, and pools will it burn". I have never lost some one close to me due to car fires, but have lost 17 friends in car accidents from not wearing seat belts over my 45 years since high school. That experience as well as reports of 284 car fires each year compared to the 154 MILLION cars has led the applied mathematician in me to discount car fires as a lowly 0.01% of accident consequences. But when they( car fires) happen near to you they are of overwhelming importance. My apologies for not being more specific , and not being more"Human" and considerate.

    7. Re:Excuse me? by Howard+Roark · · Score: 2

      Dude, you obviously haven't studied crash safety.

      Let's look look at a famous crash test from the 1970's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY&feature=endscreen&NR=1

      I don't mean to single out the Pinto. It was, in fact , typical of many 1970's cars which had fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Cars today are much safer.

      --
      Howard Roark, Architect
      I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
    8. Re:Excuse me? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, giant fires do happen.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision#NTSB_Summary

      According to the link, it took 4 minutes before the bus was fully engulfed and that a big part of the problem was lack of emergency exits (since the front door was damaged). I think anyone can agree that given minutes a vehicle can be filled with fire, but not in seconds like Howard Roark suggests.

    9. Re:Excuse me? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But certain cars explode easily when they're in an accident. Ford's Crown Vic and Pinto, one of Chevy's pickup trucks. As to the 1/4 tank of gas, it won't explode but when it leaks all over the pavement and there's a spark there's no "boom" but there certainly is a WOOSH. Personally, I'd rather be killed instantly in an impact or by shrapnel than slowly roasted over a gasoline fire.

    10. Re:Excuse me? by foradoxium · · Score: 1

      however, using explosive ammo will make the tank explode.

      look up fpsrussia on youtube, the acr video.

      just so we're still on track, not all pinto's were an issue. I believe it was only the sedan, at least I believe that's what an owner told me once. hehe

    11. Re:Excuse me? by pz · · Score: 1

      The problem, as I understand it, is that gasoline isn't very flammable in liquid state. Yes, you can get it to burn, but it's kind of hard to do that. In its gaseous state, however, nicely mixed with O2, there's a strong propensity for going boom (to paraphrase Marvin the Martian). Liquid gasoline in a tank isn't much of an explosion hazard. Finely misted or vaporized, and appropriately dispersed gasoline is another issue entirely.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    12. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about 3 weeks like this sensationalist Volt story? They would be dead from dehydration long before if the fire/emt/police dept wasn't able to get them out.

      This is a non-story brought up by right-wingers as an attempt to be 2 year olds saying "la la la la la I can't hear you all non ICE cars are bad".

      GM is going to fix the issue and make the battery pack more rugged as a fix.

    13. Re:Excuse me? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.

      Dude, you should watch less action movies.

      Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.

      There are quite a few auto accidents that involve puncturing the gas tank and the leaking of said fuel that don't involve fire. Just like standing behind your car door won't protect you from gunfire, busting the gas tank doesn't automatically mean a fireball. IIRC, I've read before that most auto fires were caused by either electrical problems or lubricants on/in the engine block catching, not the gas tank itself. Even electric cars have lubricants, and of course, they darn sure have electrical systems.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    14. Re:Excuse me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would rather die from old age with the auto accident a distant memory.

      Thanks to denial, I am going to live forever!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Excuse me? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

      The same applies to just about anything. Have you ever seen what happens when some joker decides to have a smoke in a mill? My father used to be in charge of workplace safety for a company that had one (a mill, not an idiot who set it on fire) and he had a large catalog of materials and their behavior in aerosol form. It could mostly be summed up as "nasty when exposed to fire".

      Anything more-or-less flammable when powdered can become really nasty once dispersed in air. Gasoline has the properties of being volatile and storing a lot of energy, both of which don't help - but then again that's usually not what happens with cars. Those just tend to catch fire, which is still bad if someone's inside but not nearly as dramatic as Micheal Bay movies or German action shows like to pretend.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    16. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The famous Pinto video actually had an incendiary bomb attached to the tank, because they couldn't get it to explode naturally.

    17. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of diesel. You can put a match out in a cup of diesel fuel. Gasoline, on the other hand, is so volatile that evaporation causes flammable concentrations of vapor to collect in any still air (including the boundary layer above pools).

    18. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of this if a cell is damaged due to an over discharge, temporary short (internal or external) it may not explode / combust until you try to charge it. This happened to me on a rc help i had. The battery was not noticeably swollen, and was not punctured. Lucky I remove the batteries before charging them.

    19. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they still do catch fire. The funny thing is that we have the technology to prevent it: the self-sealing fuel cells used in race cars. But, using those would cost $100 or $200 more than a traditional gas tank, so they aren't included.

  10. Life is cheap, it's costed into all car products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manufacturers know precisely how well their products stand up to damage, as well as the consequences. Both GM and Ford have extremely famous cases where they knew they were selling faulty vehicles, but the cost from being sued, by their expert estimations, was less than the cost to make the product safer.

    tl;dr: learn your history kids!

  11. unsurprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it might be unsurprising

    If you find it surprising the NHTSA covered up problems with a political favorite like the government subsidized Volt and its union/government owned manufacturer you're very naive.

  12. Top of the line in utility sports by suspiciously_calm · · Score: 1

    Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts

    1. Re:Top of the line in utility sports by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Canyonero!
      YEE-AH!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Double standards by qbast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And on the other hand the same NHTSA was all too happy to jump all over Toyota when some morons could not remember which pedal is for braking.

    1. Re:Double standards by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      As hard as it may have been to reproduce. The error did exist.

      I experienced it myself. Not from pressing down a petal, but as I lifted my foot UP from the petal, my Prius began to accelerate.

    2. Re:Double standards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Toyota. Funny name that. Almost sounds... foreign. Not like General Motors.

      Of course, Chevrolet is a French name.

      What's that other little American transportation related saying? Something about Boeing?

    3. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have flowers in your car - maybe that was the problem!

    4. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedal
      Petal

      Knowledge is power.

    5. Re:Double standards by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A there was a problem. Toyota even fixed it.

      Joan hasn't been involved with the NHTSA for 30 years. Also, I can only find what appear to be an out of context quote.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Double standards by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Somehow it doesn't make much sense to compare the actual problems (floor carpets catching in the accelerator pedal) to what everyone said it was (drive-by-wire issues). It was shown that in almost all 3K cases, it was driver error and not a vehicle defect that caused the "unintended acceleration" everyone was screaming their lungs out about. PEBKAC

    7. Re:Double standards by cbope · · Score: 1

      And Audi before that.

    8. Re:Double standards by MarlonTucker · · Score: 1

      Out of just personal curiosity - where is the cruise control control on Toyota cars these days? if its on the indicator stalk it may explain that. I drive a 2011 Seat Ibiza, it has a cruise control which is activated using two small buttons on the end of a stalk, if you hit the bottom one it maintains your current speed, if you hit the top one it maintains the last speed the cruise control was deactivated from - and the acceleration to that speed can be fairly hard.

      Scenario - your on the motorway / freeway, on cruise control going at 60mph, traffic is in your lane ahead but you cant pull over to the next lane yet so you have to brake, which disengages the cruise control. your now going 40mph so you indicate to pull out to overtake. whilst indicating you accidentally hit the cruise control button which tries to it back up to 60mph. Thus taking your foot off the accelerator peddle is irrelevant.

      Of course, this would mean everything would stop if the brake peddle is engaged, which according to the numerous Toyota owners didn't happen. But this brings me onto another point, my current car has 150bhp, with quite a healthy torque figure. If I push the accelerator down all the way I still have sufficient braking power to slow the car to a stop (providing you don't keep mashing the brake peddle over and over which will over heat the pads). Even my 1989 BMW 3 series has enough braking power, I doubt Toyota fit crappy brakes to their cars.

    9. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I experienced it myself. Not from pressing down a petal, but as I lifted my foot UP from the petal, my Prius began to accelerate.

      And you survived!!!! Seriously, we all know you hit the break and the car slowed. The reports we're upset about were the majority of people who said they hit the breaks and couldn't stop the car. That's driver error.

  14. Electric Pinto? by dunnius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cool, another Pinto, but electric this time. I'm sure the story is overblown, but anything that stores energy is going to be a fire risk.

    1. Re:Electric Pinto? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Cool, another Pinto, but electric this time. I'm sure the story is overblown, but anything that stores energy is going to be a fire risk.

      Must be why we've heard so much about all those Soapbox Racers with their stored kinetic energy going up in flames.

      Oh, wait...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  15. Blah de blah blah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new."

    That's more than the amount of people who die from terrorism every year. And yet we're spending billions and curbing our Constitutional Rights because of it.

    What the fuck is my point? Life has risks and automobiles are the biggest risk to life and limb in our modern world and we need to get over it.

    Sadly, we won't because people are stupid.

  16. Flaming battery vs. flaming gasoline tank? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    Trying to imagine a small car going up like a cheap Dell laptop vs. an exploding Pinto.... which one would I rather be in?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  17. Failure then by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Depends on the tank (and gas cap seal) I suppose, since it escapes faster than helium:

    Oddly a gasoline tank with holes in it will leak too. Imagine that, you need a tank that holds the material you are trying to contain.

    Do I get to compensate for the additional cost of gas that the ICE car requires?

    I'll put forward the Mitsubishi i, which can charge to 80% in half an hour with a quick charger

    Fail. When you need a car now, 1/2 hour is unacceptable. You may as well take the bus.

    Compare with any other tiny economy 4-seater.

    You mean the ones that cost 3x-4x less (tax bonus doesn't count, I mean real cost), are far more robust, have 3x the range and in the end only cost about 3x as much to fill up yet you can fill them right away?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Failure then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but who would leave their car discharged until they needed to use it? Who drives around with a nearly empty tank of gas?

    2. Re:Failure then by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      3x-4x less? You're either talking used or one of those little Indian cars that doesn't need to meed US/EU safety standards.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. Just so you know by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Joan ClayBrook was head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981
    30 years ago.

    So,it's an opinion from someone who has no insight to the details.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Electric - gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same issues occured when the auto industry 1st got it's feet wet. This is new-tech AND for certain is the next place to go
    in terms of automobiles. Those commenting about "conspiracy" and such ought spend their time NOT reading garbage on
    sites spewing that crap (goodness knows there's enough of them).

    Stations are being built and I'd challenge anyone in a Volt to complain about acceleration, ride, steering, as well as cornering/maneuvering.
    Nice in all those categories - temporary setback aside (geez - no one is perfect right?)

    1. Re:Electric - gas by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Same issues occured when the auto industry 1st got it's feet wet. This is new-tech AND for certain is the next place to go in terms of automobiles.

      Electric cars are not new tech. They are tech we abandoned a century ago because the ICE was vastly superior.

    2. Re:Electric - gas by splashbot · · Score: 1

      Operative word 'was', Indeed economics, convenience, and the advent of Horizontal Drilling (in America and maybe someday Antarctica) may delay the onset of Electric cars, but the thing that is holding it back isn't the 'tech'. it's the reality of the $$$ and to a lesser extent the vested interests of the industrial incumbents. What other motor gives you max torque from zero RPM, is whisper quiet and makes your fuel gauge go up whilst rolling downhill or braking? What other motor can drive hundreds of miles for 3 or 4 dollars? What other motor can you leave running inside, and not have it kill you with carbon monoxide. What other engine/drivetrain has 5 moving parts (driveshaft and rear differential). What other motor is limited by bearing lifetime? (A. Induction and Other Brushless Electric Motor types) What other car could get rid of Transport Related pollution tomorrow, and put the (overall) lowered amount of required emissions in a centrally located power station where electrostatic scrubbers can get rid of particulate pollution? Or you could use nuclear, if your into that, or 'Renewables' if you live in a world that would pay for that. What other car cuts out the whole "dinosaur being buried under a rock for thousands of years part of fuel production" to turn into Crude Oil -> Petrol -> and ultimately Solar energy that gets all our cars moving everyday, by using Solar Panels to capture the energy directly rather than having your own private Jurassic Park set up and then periodically burying it to collect the Fuels sometime later?? I know Brazil produces a lot of ethanol, how much land are they using to do that? Provided that the population keeps increasing, do you think there is enough arable land in the world not being used to feed people that could support all the worlds cars using ethanol? Do you think we should all catch the train and ditch energy intensive personal transportation? Anyway, back to the topic. electric cars are just starting to take off, at first for people who can afford them, and after that, for people who want to pay less than what it would cost to operate an ICE. Like how computers were first built by the militaries and universities, and then used for companies that wanted to save money and do more with less. EV's certainly has a hard time ahead of them trying to usurp a huge, successful and established industry that has given us alot. Remember, the ICE is a Highly Complex, high maintenance machine with (hundreds of moving parts, that needs various fluids, and a Transmission Drivebelts, Air Filters, Cam Shafts (timing related tasks can be shuffled off to a $2 microcontroller) and a muffler and a catalytic converter, and any number of items you no longer need in an EV). I think the only thing stopping the EV from obviating the ICE car as we know it today is the battery, in every other technical respect it is superior today, except perhaps in sex appeal, but that's not technical :-) . I judge superiority in terms of 'what is the simplest, least labor intensive (and potentially cheapest, sustainable) way to do something" . The compromise always tends to the cheapest option in the markets. So maybe in economics, cost relates to how laborious it is to do something, It must have been very laborious of the US Government to bail out those Banks. Off topic, again! In conclusion, I.C.E. is winning today. When fuel becomes too scarce then we will move on to something different, I consider that something superior, maybe that something and how it is perceived is in the eye of the beholder.

    3. Re:Electric - gas by splashbot · · Score: 1

      I forgot one thing, the amortised cost of battery pack replacement, which would make that 3 or 4 dollar figure significantly higher, (Especially if you presumed no reduction in price of a new pack in 5-6 years time, which I think is an erroneous assumption), anyway, as they say nothing's free.

  20. The Adobe! by Pope · · Score: 1

    The cute little car that's made out of clay!

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  21. NHTSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another headline acronym not explained in the summary...

  22. Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It gets even stranger: more people have died from solar energy accidents (mostly, falling off roofs while installing panels), than have died from nuclear accidents. Of course, ordinary facts can never overcome irrational fears...

    For those who don't want to click on the link, the most dangerous (by far) is coal (including deaths due to pollution). Nuclear is the safest. The stats are based on deaths/TWh, and the authors gives lots of references.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      If you shut down other power sources, their risk stops. Nuclear gets to live on for centuries in the spent fuel.

      And yes coal is far and away the most dangerous. But that's a different danger, those dangers are from normal operation. You 'could' filter out the CO2 emissions and other pollutants and blast open pit mines everywhere and pretty much all the coal dangers go away. It would make it considerably more expensive though.

      We choose not to do that because the dangers of coal are long term, not immediate failure conditions. You can plan for and mitigate 'known' conditions. You can't do that for failure conditions precisely because things have 'failed'.

      Coal being deadly doesn't mean nuclear is 'safe'. The space shuttle was considered pretty safe right up until the Columbia disaster. Then we realized we were just damned lucky. Fukishima was considered 'safe' too.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You 'could' filter out the CO2 emissions and other pollutants [...] and pretty much all the coal dangers go away.

      Not really

    3. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you killed all people, the risk stops too. Sure its extreme and won't happen intentionally. Just like shutting down all those other power sources isn't going to happen.

      People are willing to have their lives cut short systemically, as long as it isn't catastrophic. Even if the systemic losses are far more costly.

    4. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      1. Spent fuel for a nuclear reactor is currently still mostly fuel. At least you only mentioned centuries - after the first century or so for the waste of reprocessed fuel, it's no longer that much more dangerous than many other things you'll find in the ground.
      2. CO2 sequestriation for coal power is *EXPENSIVE*. It takes something like 1/3rd the power production of the plant to do it, so they're less efficient.
      3. Trivia fact: Fukishima operated safely for decades, and was an older plant than either Chernobyl or even Three Mile Island. Even then, consider the cost - it took a tsunami to take it out, and even then, you have still have far more deaths from the Tsunami in the area than from the radiation.

      Personally, I'd be building new nuclear plants in order to first replace coal(dirtiest first), following up with replacing the older, less safe(but still pretty safe, how many other multibillion industrial accidents don't kill anybody?) nuclear plants.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yes coal is far and away the most dangerous. But that's a different danger, those dangers are from normal operation. You 'could' filter out the CO2 emissions and other pollutants

      The irony is that burning coal has released far more radiation into the air than has been released by nuclear accidents

      Fun trivial - If you extracted the trace uranium from 1 ton of coal, it can be used in a nuclear reactor to produce more power than burning the coal provides..

    6. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention one could simply build a thorium plant right beside the light water reactor to run off its waste, cutting down the waste considerably. IIRC if you run the waste through enough times what you get left isn't any hotter than natural uranium.

      As for TFA, has anybody really run the numbers on these things or is it just another rich toy so they can feel all "green" about themselves? What i mean is run the total numbers, from the cost of digging up the lithium and the cost of replacing and disposing of batteries to the cost of the electricity to charge them?, and then compared it to say one of the fuel efficient 4 bangers?

      honestly i don't know as I've never seen a hard study that figured a "womb to the tomb" cost assessment on these electrics. i do know that their battery life is naturally dependent on where you live as extreme heat or extreme cold kills them a lot sooner so one would probably have to figure in the cost of building garages or car parks that are climate controlled into the equation as well. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some little 4 cylinder beep beep car ended up being better for the environment when all the costs are weighed than a purely electric vehicle.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but when you have peer reviewed sources saying that you can prove Nuclear is safer what does it matter if the significantly smaller danger is spread out over a longer period of time? You admit yourself that coal is "deadly" but would prefer that to a known to be less deadly source of power? That doesn't seem to make sense. The "known" dangers from nuclear include precisely those failure conditions you seem to think aren't taken into account when considering nuclear safe.

    8. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As for TFA, has anybody really run the numbers on these things or is it just another rich toy so they can feel all "green" about themselves? What i mean is run the total numbers, from the cost of digging up the lithium and the cost of replacing and disposing of batteries to the cost of the electricity to charge them?, and then compared it to say one of the fuel efficient 4 bangers?

      Lithium batteries are theoretically cheaper than NiMH, Lithium is pretty common and fairly cheap, though making batteries from them is currently expensive. They could, theoretically speaking, cost around a quarter of what they do now. Oh, and the batteries are basically 100% recyclable.

      Pollution wise, it's been figured that an EV is 'greener' pollution wise even if it gets it's power from the worst polluting electric supply - coal plants. A compliant coal plant has a lot of controls to keep the pollution down, and economy of scale helps.

      Right now, the 4-banger is significantly cheaper to purchase, more expensive to run, but slightly more polluting(if the EV is charged with coal), to much more polluting(pretty much any other power source), and is generally more capable(longer range, faster 'charge').
      The EV is more expensive up front, cheaper to run, and less polluting, especially in your neighborhood.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      A. Assume you have a 100% chance of taking a few percent of the days off off your life.

      B. You have a .001% chance of losing your life, or of your loved ones, and of devastating your entire community.

      Which one would you pick?

      From a risk management approach, the answer is A. That's why people pay for insurance: A few percent off the top, and you're dealing with a known risk vs. a small chance of a huge catastrophe.

      No corporation would take choice B, which is the reason why no corporation is willing to insure nuke plants nor does any bank want to underwrite them without government help.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    10. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      I forgot to link to this (government subsidies for the nuclear industry):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    11. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To the parent and grandparent:

      That dam failing had nothing to do with hydro at all. It was the dam that was at fault, hydro was just an added bonus and it would have collapsed even if they hadn't installed it. By using that as an example you just discredit your own argument. You might as well argue that Fukushima caused the deaths of all those washed away by the tsunami.

      As for solar you are talking about small scale macro generation. Compare like-for-like stats with large scale solar power plants and you will find they are much safer than virtually all other forms of large scale generation, not least because they have not been around that long. There is inherent safety in a load of mirrors and a heating tower that requires little maintenance and well established technologies (high temperature plumbing with liquid salt or similar).

      I can accept that nuclear is relatively safe in terms of the number of deaths attributed directly to it, so at least have the courtesy to make sensible comparisons. That way we can have a useful debate instead of just trying to mislead people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We choose not to do that because the dangers of coal are long term, not immediate failure conditions.

      There was a degree of that with nuclear too. In the 50s and 60s it was just assumed that as the technology developed there would be solutions for dealing with all the radioactive waste and for cleaning up the sites of decommissioned reactors. In the 70s it became apparent that such things were at best a long way off, and the bottom dropped out of the nuclear market. Governments were already so heavily invested and reliant on nuclear that they had to continue supporting the industry, which is why we have ended up with old reactors kept running, stagnant development of new designs and heavy subsidy.

      Nuclear needs an injection of cash to move forwards, but because demand is falling while other forms of energy are on the up, combined with the high level of risk and potential liability if things go wrong means that it just isn't going to happen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, like price-anderson is news to me...
      Other disasters with massive human life lost(P-A comes up) - November 2, 2010

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      No real argument. Nuclear has to be part of our solution for the next 50-100 years or so. We simply can't afford to burn enough coal to replace it.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    15. Re:Solar is more dangerous than nuclear by sjames · · Score: 1

      It' interesting to me that the longevity of nuclear waste comes up so much. With appropriate reprocessing, the remaining waste will become inert in 500 years. The lead solder in your old TV will still be a hazard as will much of the sludge left over from oil extraction and refining.

  23. There's only one solution: Mythbusters by msobkow · · Score: 1

    The only way to really have this risk tested is to set the Mythbusters on it to try and make one blow up in flames. :D

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:There's only one solution: Mythbusters by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, finally we need to reproduce the myth itself. We're wondering if replacing the batteries with C4 and using a blasting cap to trigger a detonation will cause an explosion. Better test that!

      Wow, look, loading something up with explosives and setting them off does in deed blow it up. Science moves on!

  24. Re:Obama Motors by geekoid · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with the administration, or ANY administration. In fact, it's a highly questionable article. and out of context quote from someone who was involved in the NHTSA 30 years ago? please.

    His auto program saved thousands of jobs, and got tax dollars back. But you idiots refuse to look at the facts.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Canyonero... by linatux · · Score: 1

    ...unexplained fires are a matter for the courts

  26. We've all seen fight club by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

  27. Re: jaws of life on an electric car by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Do you really think those cables would be run through anything other than the undercarriage or bottom frame of the car?

  28. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying the US government can't be trusted to tell you the truth?

    WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL!

  29. St. Joan wants it both ways by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    I remember and interview from back when she was at NHTSA. She threw around language like "the sanctity of human life". I guess human life is sacred when it's endangered by a politically-correct car.

  30. Re:Obama Motors by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

    ...because you can't handle the fact a movement can be composed of nutjobs, anarchists, crackheads, anti-Semites, paid protesters, and members of the Communist Party USA from all walks of life.

    FTFY

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  31. At least they're consistently bad... by HappilyUnstable · · Score: 1
    US car companies have excelled time and time again at turning handouts from the US government into disasters...
    If you took all of GM's blunders over the last 100 years and turned them into successes the US today would have:
    1. more/better public transportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
    2. hybrids that get 80 miles per US gallon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles
    3. large capacity nimh batteries in electric vehicles 10 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

    It's like the actively work against the citizens of the US, but nobody cares...

    1. Re:At least they're consistently bad... by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Streetcar conspiracy: Horsecrap - people liked cars, that's why streetcars died.

      80MPG Hybrids: Entirely feasable using 1990s regulations on safety. This is why a 1990's Metro XFE gets 50MPG, and a modern Fiat 500 gets 40MPG.

      Large Cap NiMH: Wouldn't have made much of a difference, as they were *freaking expensive* to build in quantity (building small NiMH cells was, and still is, relatively expensive, yields on the large cells was abysmal.) It's moot now, LiPolys are taking over, anyways, which is a far superior technology.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  32. Re:Obama Motors by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 0

    I see, so, you think you can tell us who's a "real" human based on your brush so broad, it fails to paint? How, sir, could you say that any successful genius wasn't one of those, one day? But no, you need someone easily digestible.. maybe you could toss "jew" and "n*gger" in there, too?

    You doth toil too hard at failing!

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  33. Re:Obama Motors by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...maybe you could toss "jew" and "n*gger" in there, too?

    No, you're confused. It's the ones at the "occupy" protests that are (once again...history repeats) blaming the "Jew bankers" and "Jews/Zionists controlling Obama/the government" for the country's woes. I saw more anti-Semitic signs at just *one* "occupy" event than I saw racist signs of any kind at *all* the TEA Party events combined.

    Please stop buying into the class and race warfare hatred being pimped by the Left. You're drinking poison and hoping the other person dies. What kind of government do you hope for if those whose beliefs are based around hatred and envy are the ones to build it?

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  34. Coal Burner? by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Just another coal burning car designed for those with poor ROI math skills. I cannot honestly understand why anyone would buy any of these vehicles in the first place.

    --


    Got Code?
  35. So not to butthurt people but EV cars suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really have only owned vehicles with 400+ HP and 4.3Sec 0-60 times.

    Will EV cars in the next 20-30 years be able to quench my need for speed and give me decent range?

    Honestly I think not... I guess ill just keep pumping O93 then.

  36. Highly Suspect Article by Aurien · · Score: 1

    I'd take what that article says with a grain of salt. Some BBC UK writers have made up stuff before to put Obama and his administration in a bad light. They have no source for the claim that the NHTSA knew about the defect for 5 months and withheld that information. Joan Claybrook was head of the NHSTA from 1977 to 1981. So not exactly someone who knows details of a current NHSTA investigations. They link to a autoguide article that mentions the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety having an incident on the 2nd test, but they're not a government agency and don't report to government agencies. Lots of leaps being made with no evidence to back it up.

  37. lawnmowers by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    trying to start a gas lawnmower is a classic pain in the ass. whether starting the first time or if you need to stop/start for some reason.
    extension cords are less annoying, but still somewhat problematic. battery-powered electrics are the best of both worlds, they do exist.

    for that and other yard tools, they're small enough that battery capacity, charging time and other electrical infrastructure issues aren't relevant like they are for electric cars

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:lawnmowers by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I have never had issues starting my small engines (lawnmower, snow blower, leaf blower/vac, chainsaw, pressure washer, weed whacker, tiller). The one that is hardest to start is my snow blower as it has a manual choke that if you don't get set right it won't start, and even that one takes at most 4 attempts (usually 1) while everything else is a 1 pull start. Even with the snow blower if it doesn't start on the first pull set the choke to a different position and pull again, there are only 4 positions. For the record my snow blower is older than I am. I have had a few electric pieces of lawn equipment and my experience is that they were just junk, my first chain saw was electric, it worked 3 times and then never ran again but was replaced under warranty. The electric replacement and the electric replacement for that one were dead out of the box so I just gave up and got a small good gas chain saw for $40 more. The gas one has worked for the past 6 years trouble free and even work out in the woods for 2 weeks on end. I also had an electric leaf blower/vac and an electric weed whacker and neither of them lasted and after the chain saw experience got immediately replaced with gas ones.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  38. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might be tempted to use the form that pops up on the page when it loads if it weren't for the appalling bastardisation of the English language in the form of "Write them". Sort your grammar out for fucks sakes.

  39. Re: jaws of life on an electric car by Defenestrar · · Score: 1
  40. GM's not alone, count Chrysler too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't be much worse than the endemic problem in older model Chrysler minivans. They often get rust into the body structure that retains the MacPherson struts. If it's bad enough, the MacPherson strut can punch through resulting in loss of control. Yet the only report by Chrysler on this describes it as a "cosmetic" problem and it is listed in a 2002 TSB. No NHTSA recall yet. You think some class action lawyer would catch onto that or something.

    If you want some visuals, perhaps this link will give an idea. Doing a search on the topic will yield many more results.

    How do I know about this? Some vans in the taxi fleet I drive for have this problem, and apparently the state's local safety inspector OK's vehicles with this. But it makes me quite anxious anytime I get assigned one of those vehicles. Hit a pothole, and it feels like taking a turn playing russian roulette. Not just myself at risk, but my passengers and anyone around me too. :(

  41. Re:Obama Motors by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

    whoa and YOU will really buy that the KKK represents the whole thing? REALLY? You damn well know if you read the news that, yes, the KKK put out a press release asking their members to go out and say that. so that rubes like you could mad at it, i guess. Yes it hurt the image, but only a jackass would associate the two in any thing but the loosest sense. Fuck off.

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  42. Nuclear is pretty safe. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Except situation B, as shown by the nuclear industry, is a lot less than even .001%. We've gotten a LOT of reactor years, with a total of 3 major incidents.

    TMI - radiation release was pretty much confined to the plant, and what escaped was short lived(and likely less horrible than living a similar distance from a coal plant, even at the worst point). No identified deaths.
    Chernobyl - Really bad. Still a limited number of deaths, and built in ways that would never have passed muster in most of the rest of the world, much less the USA, Europe, etc... No containment dome, positive void coeffecient, carbon moderation rods, etc...
    Fukushima - a first generation nuclear plant, within a year of decommissioning anyways, taken out by a Tsunami. Some land is currently off limits due to radiation concerns, but on the whole the danger is far less than all the other crud released by the wave. To date, known casualties at the plant are restricted to what could have happened at any other industrial facility when hit by an earthquake and giant wave of water. In addition, it's been noted that more modern plants wouldn't suffer many of the same failures, as said failures had been figured and and countermeasures designed and implemented. Things like a somewhat higher/differently designed seawall, not putting the generators in the basement, and proper hydrogen diffusers/burnoff devices.

    Risk management - I'd rather take the .02% chance* of being affected by a nuclear accident than sacrifice a pretty much guaranteed 1% of my life. Of course, I have above average math ability.

    On subsidies - did you read up on Price-Anderson and find out such things that the US Governemnt hasn't ever had to pay out under it's terms? Realize that the US Government tends to stick it's nose(and finances) into ANY disaster of that magnitude? That, even being generous for counting P-A as a subsidy(insurance schemes like this being fairly discretional on how you value them on the basis of your assumptions).

    *14k reactor years of civil operation, 3 major accidents, .02% chance of major accident per reactor year. Death toll is harder to calc, considering the accidental deaths are like 50 for Chernobyl, and 0 for TMI and Fukishima**. Still, let's use the 350k evacuated from Fukushima as a standard. That's a .014% chance of dying IN Chernobyl (50/350k), and much lower odds if you consider (50/(350K*14K)). .000001% chance of dying if you live right next to a nuclear reactor from a major accident involving it, per year, by my calculation. Of course, that doesn't take into account that most of the 50 deaths, specifically the 35 initial ones, were all plant workers or emergency responders.
    **I'll admit to not counting deaths that could have happened in pretty much any industry - you can get killed in a steam explosion as easily, if not more easily, in a coal plant as you can a nuclear. Meanwhile, finding a few thousand deaths by coal isn't hard at all. Heck, it's more an annual figure of the death toll, and that's today, not going back to the begennings of the industry. Just about everything is safer today - why can't we build some safe nuke plants, get the actively killing coal plants shut down, and then move on to the older, more dangerous(and less efficient) nuke plants, just to be safe?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  43. Re:Obama Motors by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    whoa and YOU will really buy that the KKK represents the whole thing? REALLY? You damn well know if you read the news that, yes, the KKK put out a press release asking their members to go out and say that. so that rubes like you could mad at it, i guess. Yes it hurt the image, but only a jackass would associate the two in any thing but the loosest sense. Fuck off

    Just...wow.

    I don't really need to say anything here, do I?

    Your post is a near-perfect example of the Left's extreme hatred, intolerance, and contempt for anyone that doesn't hold the same views that I was talking about. Thanks for making my point on hatred with your reply to my post. It couldn't have been a better example if I'd typed your reply for you.

    And FYI, I never mentioned the KKK. Nice straw-man argument. The anti-Semitic signs and banners I referred to seeing at OWS weren't being held by KKK members. I saw them being proudly waved by a number of different people from several different groups (including some Union groups) as well as a few individuals that didn't appear to be part of a group of any kind.

    That's not painting with a broad brush. That's simply observing an obvious fact. Antisemitism was and is broadly on display throughout the protests and is one of the major themes occurring repeatedly across various OWS groups, sub-groups, and individuals. Attempting to portray it as limited to a few fringe outsiders is disingenuous at best and an outright propaganda lie at it's worst.

    Turn away from the dark side. The hatred filling you will only destroy you and all you care about. In the end, hatred always destroys itself. Once loosed, hatred grows until it consumes the hater.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  44. Re:Obama Motors by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

    no, actually, you've changed no one here, you made assy comments, and got an answer to match - and saying that anti-Semitism is a key characteristic of the occupy movement means I DONT LIKE YOU - MOVE ALONG.

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  45. Re:Obama Motors by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    and saying that anti-Semitism is a key characteristic of the occupy movement means I DONT LIKE YOU - MOVE ALONG.

    Sorry, your entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Don't hate me for pointing it out to you, hate the anti-Semitic OWS'ers.

    Maybe you could get Adam Sandler to go down to OWS protests and sing the Hanukkah Song. You might want to provide a security detail to escort him, though, as it seems many of the OWS'ers have a lot of hate-ukkah for those who celebrate Hanukkah.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  46. Re:Obama Motors by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

    NO BODY agrees with you. There is no cognitive bias. You are a shill, trying to establish some authority to dictate what a movement is about. You're ego is stunning in it's simplicity. You can have the last word - but ill have the last laugh, because you can't kill an idea no matter how many people, like you, try. Suck on it.

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  47. Re:Obama Motors by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    NO BODY agrees with you. There is no cognitive bias. You are a shill, trying to establish some authority to dictate what a movement is about. You're ego is stunning in it's simplicity. You can have the last word - but ill have the last laugh, because you can't kill an idea no matter how many people, like you, try. Suck on it.

    Go dust your portrait of Goebbels, or some of your OWS buddies might think you're a Jewish sympathizer.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  48. You learn the variation that's in front of you by cycleflight · · Score: 1

    Having responded to many wrecks of various cars in various states of being destroyed, you learn the variation that is in front of you. You're trained to know the difference between an electric, hybrid, or gas/diesel car, and you're trained to look for airbags in modern cars (taking the roof off? don't cut through an undetonated curtain airbag cylinder!). If you know what to look for (and first responders are trained in this), it's pretty easy to be able to see where it's safe to cut with the jaws and where you need to steer clear. Furthermore, there's a compounding factor in car design that reduces the electrical hazard to first responder crews: collapseable steering columns. If someone is pinned by the steering wheel, you may have to cut the lower frame of the car at the base of the A pillars to literally bend the car in half (the steering wheel moves with the front wheel/frame/engine assembly, so you bend that away from the trapped occupant, giving more room). However, this situation is less likely now than it was with non-collapseable steering columns (you're more likely to be able to just pull/bend the busted column away from the person without cutting the chassis). They're not going to put EV electrical conduits in the doors or upper parts of the frame (that's just extra wiring; the power's going to the wheels after all), so that's about the only time you'd be in trouble for an extrication. tl;dr: The way cars are made now this risk is low in the first place, and the first responders know what to look out for to keep themselves safe.

    --
    "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    1. Re:You learn the variation that's in front of you by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Cool. Thanks.