Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

Car injury rate: 987/million people, 99/million miles
Car fatality rate: 12.9/million people, 1.3/million miles

Bike injury rate: 453/million people, 15/million miles
Bike fatality rate: 2.5/million people, .2/million miles

Don't know what those figures represent.

Have you switched from motorcycles to bikes?
Because once you put an electric motor on it and drive it on the roads, it's no longer a BIKE.

And I'm all about letting you sit in your car in the middle of the freeway - hoping that 18 wheeler stops in time - while I stick to bike paths and canyons.

Well the fact is, I'm SO much safer in my car then you are on your motorbike.

And around here, once you put a motor on it, it's not allowed on our bike paths.

 

[spidergoat]

Not in Portland. A bike with a motor is a motorized bike, not a scooter, not a motorcycle. This is true as long as it can't go over 20mph and the motor doesn't run through multiple gear ratios. Gas powered engines aren't allowed on bike paths (while running), but electric ones are.

 

[adoucette]

The whole industry from oil to automobiles is engaged in an informal conspiracy to delude themselves and the public about the true nature of our fossil fuel supplies. A pessimist would ignore the issue and wait for our inevitable collision with reality.

Pretty funny.

Now you are pushing some massive government/industry conspiracy that YOU know about and the rest of the world is ignorant about, as the source for why you are right?

So, then you are also claiming that Kyoto is all part of that CONSPIRACY.

Gotta love it.

You really need to take this BS to the Conspiracy threads.

 

[spidergoat]

It's difficult for people to contemplate that the way of life they have always known is about to end...

We're real confused about our energy predicament. Stories are flying all around the news media to the effect that the USA will soon be an oil exporter. That's utter nonsense, by the way. We still import more than two-thirds of the oil we use. Another story is that the Bakken shale oil fields will make us "energy independent." That is a complete misunderstanding of reality. Another widely-repeated untruth is the notion that we have "a hundred years of shale gas." These are stories generated by the particular stage of collective grief we have entered - the bargaining stage, where we attempt to negotiate a better contract with reality. Good luck with that. The truth is, we're nearly out of the good cheap oil and gas and what's left is so expensive and difficult to extract that we may not have the capital investment resources to get it. One byproduct of ignoring the disorders in our banking system is that we are also failing to pay attention to the absence of real capital formation. Meanwhile, the oil and gas companies are propagandizing tirelessly in TV commercials in order to get "other people's money" to sustain their Ponzi operations. (Translation: swindling retirees who cannot get yield from "safe" investments such as bonds.) Eventually we'll have to face it: the fossil fuel age is ending and there are no miracle rescue remedies waiting to come on-stage.

http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/03/reality-check.html​

 

[adoucette]

It's difficult for people to contemplate that the way of life they have always known is about to end...

First of all this is WRONG.

The truth is, we're nearly out of the good cheap oil and gas and what's left is so expensive and difficult to extract that we may not have the capital investment resources to get it.

Proven reserves are oil that we can extract profitably with current technology. That's just a load of BS based on lack of understanding of the oil industry.

And so while I'm quite aware that oil won't be cheap, but it won't be uanavailable either, and indeed, many places like the EU have long dealt with the price of gas being far higher then we have and their way of life didn't come to an end because of it.

Face it, if we had to pay twice what we do today, our way of life wouldn't come to an end, but if the price of oil stays near its current level the economics are that we can start substituting for oil in lots of uses, adding in biofuels, switching appropriate users to NG and Electricity, which greatly extends the amount of oil we have for transportation.

 

[adoucette]

Not in Portland. A bike with a motor is a motorized bike, not a scooter, not a motorcycle. This is true as long as it can't go over 20mph and the motor doesn't run through multiple gear ratios. Gas powered engines aren't allowed on bike paths (while running), but electric ones are.

Again, pretty funny in that the Electric Bike that you linked to wouldn't qualify. Indeed, any motorbike that would be useful in a typical commuting situation would likely not qualify.

 

[billvon]

Don't know what those figures represent.

Fatality and injury rates per year.

Have you switched from motorcycles to bikes?

Nope, was always on bikes. My comment was in response to your comment on this statement:

"If that's not economical enough for you, this motorized bicycle has a range of 25 miles (no pedaling) for $5,000.[/quote]

Because once you put an electric motor on it and drive it on the roads, it's no longer a BIKE.

California disagrees with you. From the Wiki entry:

"Electric Bicycles are defined by the California Vehicle Code. In summary, electric bicycles are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California."

Well the fact is, I'm SO much safer in my car then you are on your motorbike.

Wherever you live that may be true. But in the US, biking is safer than driving when you look at the total injury and fatality rates. In addition you may FEEL safer in your car; that's great. Nothing wrong with feeling safe.

 

[spidergoat]

Again, pretty funny in that the Electric Bike that you linked to wouldn't qualify. Indeed, any motorbike that would be useful in a typical commuting situation would likely not qualify.

As long as you keep it under 20mph, it's probably OK. It's better to have more power than you need.

 

[adoucette]

Fatality and injury rates per year.

And I doubt any of that applies to bikes with electric motors used on highways and it's not stated in a rational metric, which is injuries per VMT.

Nope, was always on bikes. My comment was in response to your comment on this statement:

"If that's not economical enough for you, this motorized bicycle has a range of 25 miles (no pedaling) for $5,000.

California disagrees with you. From the Wiki entry:

"Electric Bicycles are defined by the California Vehicle Code. In summary,
electric bicycles are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California."

EXCEPT that "bike" DOESN'T meet the California definiton, the motor is too powerful, so indeed it is a motorcycle.

Indeed any practical bike for commuting won't meet the California definition.
You can't have it both ways.

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title16/16-2.0.1.3.62.html#16:2.0.1.3.62.1.2.1

Wherever you live that may be true. But in the US, biking is safer than driving when you look at the total injury and fatality rates. In addition you may FEEL safer in your car; that's great. Nothing wrong with feeling safe.

Not if you compare safety by the only true metric, Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Cars are by far safer than bikes.

Fatalities Per Mile Motor Vehicle Travel is .012 per million miles
While for Bicycle Travel (97) 813 killed , estimated 21 billion miles or .016 fatalities per million miles Data from Traffic Safety Facts 1997 and The Environmental Benefits of Cycling and Walking

Of course others will twist the data to suit their purposes but the fact is, if you are mixing it up with cars the simple fact is what is a fender bender to a SUV is LETHAL to a bike rider and if you are commuting, then you will be mixing with cars and their distracted drivers.

 

[adoucette]

As long as you keep it under 20mph, it's probably OK. It's better to have more power than you need.

Nope, California (and most places) use the Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 C.F.R. 1512.1) spec and that limits both the power of the motor and the top speed.

That bike fails on both counts.

Sure you could probably get away with driving it on the bike path, BUT if you got in a wreck and hurt someone, you would automatically be at fault for operating a motorcyle on the bike path.

If it was a freak accident and the person got really hurt (which they could because with a 180 lb rider the total vehicle weight is over 260 lbs.) you could go to prison.

So I'd seriously advise against doing so.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not in California, and in any case, that's just a political problem.

 

[adoucette]

I'm not in California, and in any case, that's just a political problem.

Oregon has essentially the same laws.
Those bikes don't comply because they can go over 20 mph on level ground.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_ped_statutes_2008.pdf

And it's not just a political problem.

Bike paths are for bikes, once you add a motor that can go over 20 mph you are no longer a bike, you are a Moped (>20 up to 30 mph) or a motorcycle (> 30 mph), and operation on a path meant for slower moving, lighter bikes, often with kids as operators is unsafe.

If you are going to use a bike that can go that fast you pretty much have to use the roads like anyone else.

 

[spidergoat]

They don't have to know how fast it can go. Simply having the wattage means you can also go farther slowly. And you can pedal on the bike paths because they are nice and smooth and flat. You just need the motor for off path riding on hills. But as I said, you can change the law overnight if the will is there.

In any case, registering as a moped isn't that difficult, all you need is lights and turn signals.

 

[Billy T]

“… China alone will be adding 125 million cars to its roads over the next five years, with auto production targets of 30 million annually by 2016. Compare that to the United States, where only 13 million new cars were sold in 2011.

The problem for CNG-powered vehicles so far is that there have been few places to refuel. But that’s changing, too. Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE), which builds CNG fueling stations for municipal fleets, plans to open 70 public CNG stations by the end of the year and another 80 in 2013. Other companies are stepping forward to build refueling stations, work on
new fuel tank technology* …” From: http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/ready-to-say-goodbye-to-high-gasoline-prices-13883?FIELD9=1

*Perhaps something like flat tank design described here:

{post 2175 this thread}... A car designed for NG would have a full size trunk as the NG tank would be integrated into the body, probably a "flat panel" tank of more than 1m long, small cross section, rectangular tubes, adjoining side-by-side, so they share a common wall. I.e. each rectangular tube cross section has only three, not four, walls. This economy of walls, makes the weight of the tank very significantly LESS than the conventional single large round tank holding the same volume. This flat tank serves as the floor board and lowers the center of gravity, compared to a big round NG tank 100% above the floor board, improving the car's stability. ... That would be a "car designed for NG." More stable and with approximate the same travel range as a typical small car between fill ups and an equivalent fuel cost per mile driven of less than $1/gallon cost gasoline! ...

I will admit that the top and bottom of each "rectangular" tube may need a little bowing outward as it spans the 1cm gap between the 4 cm tall vertical internal walls. I also admit that the two edge tubes of the flat tank also bow out significantly. Perhaps each is a 4 cm diameter semicircle. ...

As the flat tank is extruded*, the two extreme sides of it could have thicker walls. Thus these two outer most tubes could only "bow out" 2 cm wide instead of be only 1 cm wide. Effectively the tank would have only 123, not 125 tubes or hold perhaps only 21 gallons, but even with a slight bowing out in the top and bottom sides of the interior tubes, as they span only 1 cm between the internal, strictly flat, "tension webs" (The "C"s of illustration below should have flat vertical sections with only top and bottoms curved) the floor board this 21 gallon tank makes is less than two inches thick!

Crudely illustrate the right edge of the flat tank (in its cross section):

........CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD with 123 of these tubes giving approximately a 21 gallon NG tank less than 2 inches thick, which also serves as the car's floor board. (The left most edge tube is the mirror image, but I can't print a reversed "D") I have not done the calculation yet for the 4:1 "rectangular" tubes, but based on the 3:1 calculation results, I guess the weight of the tank would be approximately 50% LESS than a 21 gallon single circular tank "eating up" more than half of the car's trunk!
Note that the weight economy is mainly, but not only, due to tanks having only 3, not 4, walls but also due to the fact than the wall thickness required is directly proportional to the diameter. Thus, much thicker walls are required by a circular tank which is, say 60cm in diameter, than one which has an effective diameter of only 1cm. True there are 123 of these "3-sided" tanks but they are 1.6 M long, not less than 1 meter before the diameter starts to reduce in the two hemispherical ends as needed when tank is placed sideways in the car's trunk. Also note that each interior tube of the 4:1 flat "rectangle" tank has 4 cm of flat wall and less than 3 cm of of curved wall for each tube's top and bottom. (Flat walls weigh less than curved walls do when spanning the same gap.) ...
------------
* The extrusion would used a binder and short carbon fibers for strength - probably the same mix as used in Boeing's new 787 "dreamliner."

When Billvon here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846472&postcount=2186
GUESSED that the 1.6m by 1.4m flat tank would explode as the tension webs (0.1cm thick and spaced 1.0 cm apart) could not hold the 12million pounds that standard CNG´s 3600 psi would make, that was shown to be false by calculation here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846535&postcount=2188
Note as the fibers could not be “stress aligned” if webs are economically extruded, I assumed that only 10% of the demonstrated tensile strength was available. Actual test to destruction would be required to know what is the correct tensional strength, but 10% is probably conservative as more than 10% of random orientation fibers would be essentially aligned with the stress.

{post 2219} Before spending for a patent, I searched and found:

And read there: “…This reduced weight increases a vehicle’s fuel efficiency, reduces suspension load and maintains a vehicle’s factory handling characteristics. The tanks are also claimed to offer superior safety in the event of rear-end collisions, having successfully undergone crash trials in police cars in the United States, ...{at up to 100mph}. “Our tanks exceed every crash safety standard in the world.” ...

You can buy my “Unobtanium” flat tank with "tension webs" from PPI: http://gastoday.com.au/news/rocket_scientists_invent_flat_lpg_tank/004429/ which states: "our tanks are actually designed by rocket scientists at Thiokol Corporation." ...

I think my “flat tank” design which could bolt into a three inch tall well under the floor boards is more attractive than this Thiokol Corp tank as it still reduces the trunk volume, but conceptually my idea is too close to theirs to fight their patents.
Also I in later posts I admit that the very top and bottom sections of the tension webs would need small curved fillets to smoothly transfer the vertical tension in the webs to a horizontal stress in the large top and bottom sides of the flat tank. This does add slightly to the weight and slightly reduces the tank capacity.

However, the third generation of flat NG (and other gas fuels) tanks will hold much more gas at much lower pressure (cheaper & lighter weight tanks) as the gas will be adsorbed as a LIQUID film on some high surface to volume fillers in the tank. For example, chopped and then baked corn cobs have been shown to hold 50 times more gas. Several years ago these processed corn cobs (a waste product so cheaper than activated charcole) were used in a conventional circular cross section tank of a test truck.

PS the "$1 less than equvalent gasoline" in old quote above is now OTE. - I.e. yesterday NG was only $2.30/ million BTU and gasoline is going to be > $4/ gallon soon. Thus NG will cost less than 50% (perhaps 1/3) as much as gasoline per miles driven. In Argintina, NG is already more than three times cheaper per mile driven.

 

[adoucette]

They don't have to know how fast it can go. Simply having the wattage means you can also go farther slowly. And you can pedal on the bike paths because they are nice and smooth and flat. You just need the motor for off path riding on hills. But as I said, you can change the law overnight if the will is there.

In any case, registering as a moped isn't that difficult, all you need is lights and turn signals.

Nope.
The law says if it can go over 20 mph on flat ground it's not a bike.
Doesn't matter how fast you are going.

Sure you could probably get away with driving it on the bike path, BUT if you got in a wreck and hurt someone, you would automatically be at fault for operating a motorcyle on the bike path.

If it was a freak accident and the person got really hurt (which they could because with a 180 lb rider the total vehicle weight is over 260 lbs.) you could go to prison.

So I'd seriously advise against doing so.

Which is why there won't be a political will to change it because concerned parents don't want you zipping along on the bike path where their young kids are riding with you weighing in at 300+ lbs and going over 20 mph.

Those things are in fact just expensive mopeds and should be licenced and used as such.

 

[adoucette]

“… China alone will be adding 125 million cars to its roads over the next five years, with auto production targets of 30 million annually by 2016. Compare that to the United States, where only 13 million new cars were sold in 2011.

And note they won't be CNG cars.

 

[spidergoat]

Nope.
The law says if it can go over 20 mph on flat ground it's not a bike.
Doesn't matter how fast you are going. .

Then speed limit it to 20, I don't care. That's not the point. The point is that these things exist now and the range is phenomenal. We can figure out the legalities later.

 

[billvon]

If it was a freak accident and the person got really hurt (which they could because with a 180 lb rider the total vehicle weight is over 260 lbs.) you could go to prison.

True. Of course if you are driving a car and got into a freak accident you could also go to prison. A vehicle weighing 2000 lbs is going to do a lot more damage than one that weighs 260lbs.

Which is why there won't be a political will to change it because concerned parents don't want you zipping along on the bike path where their young kids are riding with you weighing in at 300+ lbs and going over 20 mph.

Nor do parents want 2000 pound cars zipping along blindly at 20+MPH through areas their kids are playing in. In my neighborhood they don't mind me and my bike at all - but they'll yell at drivers speeding through the neighborhood over the speed limit.

 

[adoucette]

Then speed limit it to 20, I don't care. That's not the point. The point is that these things exist now and the range is phenomenal. We can figure out the legalities later.

No, the legalities exist now.
And they say these aren't bikes.

Not saying you can't use them to commute, you just can't use them legally on bike paths.

 

[spidergoat]

Who cares? Just make automobiles illegal, and ride these on the streets, problem solved.