Electric cars are a pipe dream

[universaldistress]

EU GDP PPP per capita = $30K
US GDP PPP per capita = $47K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

"Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income." : wiki

Rank↓ Country↓ GDP (PPP) $Million↓
— World 74,264,873
— European Union 15,170,419
1 United States 14,657,800

check it out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

This is a truer measure of subjective wealth. Much as this is intriguing to dig into this doesn't have a continual bearing on the debate, it is only a sideline.

55 mph was repealed in 95 (and no one paid much attention to it then)

No, I've been to Germany and driving on the AB isn't 150 MPH NORM.
Quit fuckin LYING to try to make your points.

Do not use such language. Are you getting frustrated LOL! I have driven from the UK to Poland. The sort of journey you suggest is so rare as to be negligible; in you head maybe. I was doing 200kph in my Passat and was being overtaken at around 150mph by car after car after car after car. Seemed like the norm for a lot of travellers to me.

From the internet:



http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e6...bahn-800km-run-average-speed-consumption.html

In contrast US Interstates are generally in good shape and speed limits are generally 70 or 75 MPH now and normal traffic away from the cities routinely runs ~10 MPH above the limit (that's the fudge factor you usually get from the police radar sites), but more importantly, the Autobahn is a measly 7,500 miles long, our highspeed, limited access interstate system is 48,000 miles (and yes we do, like Germany, have parts of it without speed limits).

Comparable to Europe, so why do you need shit gas guzzling cars again?

So? People have a lot of different needs when they decide on what car to buy. Gas milage is just ONE of those.

Arthur

Your attitudes are prehistoric and consigning the world to disaster. All you are doing is securing my stance.

 

[adoucette]

"Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income." : wiki

Rank↓ Country↓ GDP (PPP) $Million↓
— World 74,264,873
— European Union 15,170,419
1 United States 14,657,800

check it out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

This is a truer measure of subjective wealth. Much as this is intriguing to dig into this doesn't have a continual bearing on the debate, it is only a sideline.

ONE MORE TIME, I showed the difference using PPP as the measure, but the only measure that matters is the PER CAPITA measure. Sure, the EU has 500 million people compared to the US' 300 million so in TOTAL the GDP is larger, but each resident of the US gets a far larger share.

EU GDP PPP per capita = $30K
US GDP PPP per capita = $47K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...European_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Do not use such language.

Then QUIT LYING

You said that on the Autobahn that 150 mph was the NORM.
But that is a LIE.
Only a small percent of cars sold in the EU can even go 150 MPH.

Your attitudes are prehistoric and consigning the world to disaster. All you are doing is securing my stance.

Do tell.

What attitude of mine is prehistoric?

Your stance so far seems to amount to not much more then lot of hand waving and little substance.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

To say you need wasteful cars to travel further is nonsensical. Personal preference to burn copious amounts of fuel because it makes you feel better is BS. When driving long distance it is far more preferable to have a car that delivers value for money, with a respectable top-end mph if needed. American cars are just a crazy result of low fuel prices.

 

[Billy T]

... I just stated it is still a possibility. You state it isn't possible. I state it is. Simple. ...

That is because you have ZERO understanding of what you are talking about. The system is DoA even it were 10 time more efficient and 10 times less costly.

For example of just one fact you have no understanding of, I quote one sentence from post 1652:

"The cost of hundreds of millions (one every 100 meters along the road) of large high-step-down, high-peak-power, capable transformers would be more than the cost of the cars using them."

You do not even understand the inductive recharge REQUIRES high currents in the roadway coils and long (more than 100 meters) distance efficient transmission of energy REQUIRES high voltage and low current (unless you can repel ohm's law, which states the losses go as RI^2)

Ergo the system requires high step down transformers about every 100 meters and as they deliver the energy to the cars passing over the coils for less than 0.01 seconds, they are very high power capacity transformers, which sit idle 99+% of the time on average. Huge cost per transformer with use duty cycle less than 1% every 100 meters or so along the roadway

When you have repealed Ohm's law get back to me. - That is fundamental physic, not something that technology advances can change.!

 

[Billy T]

I have addressed all the issues. ...

No you have not addressed even half of the issues which make the roadway inductive recharge system DoA.

I will settle if you just address one of many - the transformer cost issue I mentioned again in post 1666.

I.e. How do you plan to repeal Ohm's law?

 

[adoucette]

To say you need wasteful cars to travel further is nonsensical.

Where did I say that?

Personal preference to burn copious amounts of fuel because it makes you feel better is BS.

Who says that people feel better the more gas they burn?
Why do you make this shit up?

When driving long distance it is far more preferable to have a car that delivers value for money, with a respectable top-end mph if needed. American cars are just a crazy result of low fuel prices.

Yes, the amount of emphasis we place on mileage that a car gets is of course related to the cost of that gas.

So?

There are other requirements for a car and to presume that gas milege must be at the top of everyone's list is a tad presumptious.

I myself work out of home and live in a small city where everything I need is quite close so I'm putting around 6k miles on my 4WD truck each year. It's a bigger vehicle than I need for MOST of my uses, but I certainly don't need two vehicles and I need the features the truck offers (hauling and 4 wheel drive) often enough that it is a good fit for my needs. It's gas mileage is not at all an issue since the total cost of gas at current prices runs me about $80 or so a month. After taxes that's less than 2 hours or work. If the price of gas doubles I still wouldn't care because even if I got a new vehicle and picked the best gas milage vehicle that fits my needs it wouldn't save me but $20 or $30 a month in gas. Buying a new vehicle, when mine is long since paid for, only has 70k miles on it, fits my needs and runs/looks great would be silly.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Ergo the system requires high step down transformers about every 100 meters and as they deliver the energy to the cars passing over the coils for less than 0.01 seconds, they are very high power capacity transformers, which sit idle 99+% of the time on average. Huge cost per transformer with use duty cycle less than 1% every 100 meters or so along the roadway.

Billy, while I generally agree with your assessment, particularly about the huge cost of the transformers but still I think the proposed system works a bit different than you suggest.

I think the induction system is nearly continuous, so the car is always passing over enegized coils (My issue was your 0.01 second reference and 99% idle, but maybe I misunderstood your point).

Indeed, they liken the system to a huge slot car track because the car has to follow the precise path (and road height) to stay centered over the coils (they get a 10% power loss if they are perfect, but much higher losses if not)

This is not something a driver can do, so there is the assumption that the car does this tracking for you (and also adjusts height above the road to account for varying loads, tire inflation etc).

They also say that the tracking system is two way, and the road coils are only energized when the car is directly above them, so I'd presume that the coils are used only energized when there is a car (else the energy to create the field coils is wasted) and the transformers are used based on the percent of time cars are covering any particular section of the road (my guess is 10 to 20% utilization over the course of a day on a heavily travelled road, and maybe only a few percent on less travelled roads).

But if I read the description right, the energized area of the coil moves with the car. I think the two way tracking system that allows this means that not only are there millions of these transformers out there but a similar vast distributed network of controllers that keep the system synched to the cars and also collects the required billling data.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

Not at all.

The discussion is about EVs.

I'm not being defensive at all, just looking at the issue logically and from an economic/technology perspective.

Same as.

You pushed Battery Swapping as a solution for the Consumer market even though it is not a good fit.

Merely keeping all avenues open. I have stated many times I think quick recharge is the best fit.

You pushed Rapid Charging as the solution even though it doesn't exist and indeed creates it's own set of problems due to lack of ability in our grid to generate the enormous amount of power in a short period of time that a quick charging based system demands (indeed, our power companies really look forward to the time when the current low night time demand goes up as all these resting cars recharge overnight, that just makes better use of existing generating capacity, but you add a HUGE demand in the middle of the current PEAK (which extensive fast charging would do), and that's just a HUGE expense of adding even more peak charging capacity.

Didn't you look into the research done at Illinois University. I posted the link, you must have missed it. Fast recharge is already a reality in the lab, on EVs.

Don't be slow. Most cars will recharge at night. Very few in comparison will need to recharge during the day. And with ranges pushing higher and higher we are looking at a 200 to 300+ miles with highway style driving.

"The car was driven from on a track for 22 hours and a total distance of 623.76 miles or 1003.18 KM. The previous record was of 345 miles which was set in November 2009. The cost of batteries used in making the battery pack for electric Mira costs over $56,000 USD. This experiment proves that a set of efficient batteries and dynamics of the electric car can make it go places without a recharge." : http://www.carblogindia.com/longest-ev-range-record-broken/

Who is in cloud cuckoo land???

Then you pushed the most rediculous system of all, tear up 4 million miles of roadway X 4 lanes and install the worlds biggest slot car track, and do at least half of it before it makes sense to start building cars to take advantage of this massive amount of up front spending. (you fail to realize the huge business/personal disruption it would be to our highway system just to install this monstrosity).

Your analysis of the way this could be put into place is heavily flawed, and frankly quite narrow minded.
I do not question everything you say, only the BS.

As Billy has pointed out, Ethanol will continue to play a larger and larger role in our fuel mix as will CNG (though not so much in the US, there are however 10 million+ CNG vehicles on the road already). BioDiesel will also become a bigger part of our mix. These three will also tend to take some of the pressure off of gas prices.

CO2 emissions are the issue. Of course there is a place for hybrids within the mix. But staying attached to CO2 release is a mistake. Not to mention the fact land is needed to feed the world.

 

[universaldistress]

ONE MORE TIME, I showed the difference using PPP as the measure, but the only measure that matters is the PER CAPITA measure. Sure, the EU has 500 million people compared to the US' 300 million so in TOTAL the GDP is larger, but each resident of the US gets a far larger share.

EU GDP PPP per capita = $30K
US GDP PPP per capita = $47K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...European_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

I don't think you understand what GDP PPP really is. Nevermind.

Then QUIT LYING

You said that on the Autobahn that 150 mph was the NORM.
But that is a LIE.
Only a small percent of cars sold in the EU can even go 150 MPH.

Do you suggest that there is a difference between the speed an average american car will achieve and an average european car? I f a car can do high speeds then it will do them on the AB. I have driven it, and seen it. You were saying that there is a difference in the speed someone needs to travel at in the US due to long distance commuting. I made this point to explain that the needs of European drivers do not equal a need for different tech, and same goes for US. You guys DO NOT NEED BIG GAS GUZZLING MONSTROSITIES, period. It is just personal, ignorant choice by numb-nuts.

Do tell.

What attitude of mine is prehistoric?

Your stance so far seems to amount to not much more then lot of hand waving and little substance.

Arthur

Gas guzzling is something you seem to support. Fuel efficiency is the future. the rest of the world knows it. Why is America so in love with waste? GDP PPP is another example of Americans not using their resources efficiently. If you can't see that then you need to switch the lights on.

 

[universaldistress]

That is because you have ZERO understanding of what you are talking about. The system is DoA even it were 10 time more efficient and 10 times less costly.


For example of just one fact you have no understanding of, I quote one sentence from post 1652:

"The cost of hundreds of millions (one every 100 meters along the road) of large high-step-down, high-peak-power, capable transformers would be more than the cost of the cars using them."

You do not even understand the inductive recharge REQUIRES high currents in the roadway coils and long (more than 100 meters) distance efficient transmission of energy REQUIRES high voltage and low current (unless you can repel ohm's law, which states the losses go as RI^2)

Ergo the system requires high step down transformers about every 100 meters and as they deliver the energy to the cars passing over the coils for less than 0.01 seconds, they are very high power capacity transformers, which sit idle 99+% of the time on average. Huge cost per transformer with use duty cycle less than 1% every 100 meters or so along the roadway

When you have repealed Ohm's law get back to me. - That is fundamental physic, not something that technology advances can change.!

Do you have inside knowledge of how this technology actually works? Are you just conjecturalising about a technology you do not understand? Surely not. I have shot your fast charge denial out the water. You just don't want this tech to work? If you had a real handle of the requirements of a new and highly secret technological development then wouldn't you be working in the EV development field? Problems are there to be solved with imagination. Something some of us lack.

I restate that fast charge is the best contender for refills needed on route. If EV cars have 600+ miles range where is the issue??? All the refill methods suddenly become a lot more doable DON'T THEY???

 

[universaldistress]

No you have not addressed even half of the issues which make the roadway inductive recharge system DoA.

I will settle if you just address one of many - the transformer cost issue I mentioned again in post 1666.

I.e. How do you plan to repeal Ohm's law?

I am not supporting this method as a definite. It is still in the running. What makes you think you understand the technology involved. You haven't really done too well so far on undersatanding/being aware of the latest developments.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, while I generally agree with your assessment, particularly about the huge cost of the transformers but still I think the proposed system works a bit different than you suggest.

I think the induction system is nearly continuous, so the car is always passing over energized coils (My issue was your 0.01 second reference and 99% idle, but maybe I misunderstood your point)....Arthur

Yes you could have continuous sets of adjacent recharge coils, in stead of only a few near the roadside transformers, as I assume. I.e. I assume that recharge would be avaiable for about 10 meters every 100 meters to keep the coil cost down.

These are high current coils and the cost of the copper wire in them is probably currently about $200 dollars. Thus adjacent recharge coils, the length and width of a car would cost on the order of $4000, just for the copper in them per 100 meters ($40/ m) and of course that compared to about $2/m makes the system DoA by itself in copper cost alone.

Also no coil in my design is more than 5 meters from the transformer feeding it. but with continuous adjacent coils some are 50 meters from the trans former. The copper wire conveying the transformer's low voltage high current energy to tht 50 meters distant coil would need to be about the diameter of your little finger to keep the RI^2 losses to a few percent. That is on hell of an investment in copper wire.

Thus, I am convinced that only about 10% of the roadway should have coils to keep the cost of copper acceptable. I.e. all coils are relatively close to the transformer feeding them.

 

[universaldistress]

Where did I say that?



Who says that people feel better the more gas they burn?
Why do you make this shit up?

You wrote this:

Cars in the US are designed for the US market and we sell many more cars with more muscle than the typical EU cars because we drive them further and faster because we often have much further to go.

Why? For comfort, yes??? There is no other reason???

Again, you keep forgetting how much larger and less dense the US is compared to the UK. Of course that basic fact affects the cars you drive. Still, GM & Ford represent 20% of the EU car market and GM alone sells 6 million cars outside the US.

Total BS. A smaller car will happily do the same journeys for less money (more fuel economy, lower cost to initially buy car) with the same performance and equatable comfort.

Yes, the amount of emphasis we place on mileage that a car gets is of course related to the cost of that gas.

So?

There are other requirements for a car and to presume that gas milege must be at the top of everyone's list is a tad presumptious.

Therein lies the flaw to your stance. It is a big 'fuck the world' flaw.

I myself work out of home and live in a small city where everything I need is quite close so I'm putting around 6k miles on my 4WD truck each year. It's a bigger vehicle than I need for MOST of my uses, but I certainly don't need two vehicles and I need the features the truck offers (hauling and 4 wheel drive) often enough that it is a good fit for my needs. It's gas mileage is not at all an issue since the total cost of gas at current prices runs me about $80 or so a month. After taxes that's less than 2 hours or work. If the price of gas doubles I still wouldn't care because even if I got a new vehicle and picked the best gas milage vehicle that fits my needs it wouldn't save me but $20 or $30 a month in gas. Buying a new vehicle, when mine is long since paid for, only has 70k miles on it, fits my needs and runs/looks great would be silly.

Arthur

Your personal choice is of course your own. But when you add up millions of people with the same attitude it equals a problem.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, while I generally agree with your assessment, particularly about the huge cost of the transformers but still I think the proposed system works a bit different than you suggest.

I think the induction system is nearly continuous, so the car is always passing over energized coils (My issue was your 0.01 second reference and 99% idle, but maybe I misunderstood your point)....Arthur

Yes you could have continuous sets of adjacent recharge coils, in stead of only a few near the roadside transformers, as I assume. I.e. I assume that recharge would be available for about 10 meters every 100 meters to keep the coil cost down.

These are high current coils and the cost of the copper wire in them is probably currently about $200 dollars. Coils about a meter wide and two meters long (car shaped). Thus adjacent recharge coils would cost on the order of $4000 installed per 100 meters ($40/ m) and of course that compared to $2/m makes the system DoA by itself.

Also no coil in my design is more than 5 meters from the transformer feeding it. but with continuous adjacent coils some are 50 meters from the trans former. The copper wire conveying the transformer's low voltage high current energy to that 50 meters distant coil would need to be nearly the diameter of your little finger to keep the RI^2 losses to a few percent. That is one hell of an investment in copper wires and rods.

Thus, I am convinced that only about 10% of the roadway should have coils to keep the cost of copper acceptable. I.e. all coils are relatively close to the transformer feeding them.

 

[universaldistress]

Not so sure you two would be discussing this if I wasn't here to "push" you. Maybe my contribution hasn't been as much of waste of time as you two try to infer.

 

[adoucette]

I don't think you understand what GDP PPP really is. Nevermind.

Of course I do because I've been posting the per capita figures based on PPP. What you don't seem to understand is the significance of the term PER CAPITA.

It means PER PERSON, which means the GDP based on Purchasing Power Parity is $47,000 for each person in the US but only $30,000 for each person in the EU.

The fact that there are 200 million more people in the EU means that even though each person makes on average much less the total EU GDP is slightly higher.

Do you suggest that there is a difference between the speed an average american car will achieve and an average european car?

YES

Having been in Europe and the UK quite a bit I don't just suggest it, I know it.

As does anyone who has spent any time in both locations.

Simply compare these two lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Europe
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/american-cars-best-selling/

On the US side you will not find a supermini in the top 10 and you will also notice that not not only is the best selling vehicle a truck, but 4 of the top selling vehicles are trucks. That might not make sense to you, but it does over here. They all come with powerful V8s. On the other hand, one of our top selling cars, the Impala is a full-size front-wheel drive sedan capable of carrying up to six people. The LS and LT versions include a 211-hp 3.5-liter V6 engine, bigger than any engine in your entire line up.

All 4 of the trucks, the Impala and the Escape with the V6 on our list will easily out run those 5 superminis that make your top 10 list.

I f a car can do high speeds then it will do them on the AB. I have driven it, and seen it.

True, but 150 MPH on the AB is NOT the NORM and that's what you said.
It was a lie then.
It's still a lie now.
Very few cars are even GEARED to be able to go that fast.
It makes NO SENSE to do so.
The only ones that can have a LOT of extra horsepower and that's just not what you find in the typical EU car on the autobahn. Again, see your list of top 10 cars, not one of them could do 150 MPH.

You were saying that there is a difference in the speed someone needs to travel at in the US due to long distance commuting. I made this point to explain that the needs of European drivers do not equal a need for different tech, and same goes for US. You guys DO NOT NEED BIG GAS GUZZLING MONSTROSITIES, period. It is just personal, ignorant choice by numb-nuts.

And it shows how close minded you are.

Why do you think that 4 of the top 10 cars in the US are a combination of WORKING vehicles and family cars (the extended cab trucks)?

(by the way, the second truck in that list, the Silverado, is what I drive)

Why do you think the Truck adds on TV over here show how much weight trucks can haul and how tough they are? Do you think all the people who buy them aren't smart enough to KNOW what suits their NEEDS. Do you really think they get a 4X4 V8 extended cab truck when a Supermini was all they really needed?

Quit being such an ASS and consider that we might not actually be ignorant, but that our needs might be a tad different than YOURS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhEkVakVWFE
http://www.funnyplace.org/stream.php?id=10024
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM-lLLAzeeU&feature=related
http://vimeo.com/10187381

Gas guzzling is something you seem to support. Fuel efficiency is the future. the rest of the world knows it. Why is America so in love with waste?

Oh BS.
I'm not supporting gas guzzling, just pointing out that people buy their vehicles based on a long list of needs, of which gas mileage is just one of them and because fuel costs about half as much in the US as it does in the UK of course gas mileage is less important to US car buyers when they make their buying decision. The difference in our NEEDS however is clearly seen in not only the size, but type of vehicles we buy.

GDP PPP is another example of Americans no using their resources efficiently.

Our higher GDP PPP does not indicate that at all.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

You wrote this:
Why? For comfort, yes??? There is no other reason???

Yes there are other reasons.
First most people are not going to drive those supermini cars on our interstates at 80 MPH mixed in with all the big semis. They just aren't, which is why you don't see them.

The second comes from family size:

from a 2004 government survey — the most recent available — he found that 28 percent of women age 35 to 44, who are winding up their childbearing years, have three kids or more. Ten years ago, it was 29 percent. The numbers for younger women haven't budged much, either.

Martin says it's not so much that big families are back, as that they never disappeared in the first place. "Large families have consistently been common," he points out. "Two is the norm, but for every 34 mothers who stop at two, there are 28 who have three, four, or more."

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...m=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+fertility+rate

Where as the US hasn't been below 2 since the late 80s.

Then as I pointed out 4 of the 10 top selling vehicles are trucks, but that has a lot to do with the fact that our population is GROWING and thus Home building is a major industry, supported by many millions of home builders, most of which need TRUCKS to do their job.

Let's look at the numbers shall we?

In the US our population grew by 60 million over the last 20 years.
In th UK it grew by 2 million.

Of course we started off at 5 times your size, so your growth, scaled to our size is equal to 10 million. Still just 1/6th of our growth.

So

Do you think this just MIGHT have something to do with how many people need cars that can haul kids around?

Do you think this just MIGHT have something to do with all the Trucks that are needed for Construction jobs?

Well do you?

Therein lies the flaw to your stance. It is a big 'fuck the world' flaw.

Again, NO, it's not. The needs of the people who buy the car dictate things like gas mileage. If you can only afford one car and it has to be a truck then you really don't get to have supermini type mileage.

And, Yes people consider gas mileage, but it is rarely the TOP requirement that drives the purchase decision. Typically CAPACITY is number one, and second is FUNCTION. Given those two are satisified then you can start comparing gas mileage.

Your personal choice is of course your own. But when you add up millions of people with the same attitude it equals a problem.

Nope, I need a truck with 4WD and towing capability and I need it frequently enough that renting/borrowing is not an option.
I also need to be able to take 4 people with me frequently.
But it makes no sense to have two cars because I drive so few miles.
What I have is really the best fit to my needs.
The gas mileage of this vehicle was comparable to others that met my needs.

Nothing to do with having a poor attitude.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

YES

Having been in Europe and the UK quite a bit I don't just suggest it, I know it.

As does anyone who has spent any time in both locations.

Simply compare these two lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Europe
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/american-cars-best-selling/

Is this a joke? Your US list is just a load of gas guzzlers lol.

On the US side you will not find a supermini in the top 10 and you will also notice that not not only is the best selling vehicle a truck, but 4 of the top selling vehicles are trucks. That might not make sense to you, but it does over here. They all come with powerful V8s. On the other hand, one of our top selling cars, the Impala is a full-size front-wheel drive sedan capable of carrying up to six people. The LS and LT versions include a 211-hp 3.5-liter V6 engine, bigger than any engine in your entire line up.

Does that equal better performance off the mark, better handling, and higher speed? the two formers no way. MAYBE the latter but I wouldn't bet on it. A 3 litre Golf would shit on the Impala. You still reinforce my point that american are just gas guzzlers.

Certain VW Golf's have comparable BHP, in a significantly lighter frame. I don't even need to look at the rest to know that most if not all those models have large engine options, in lighter, nimbler frames than their US counterparts. If your cars are so fantastic why doesn't the rest of the world want to touch them?

Engine size doesn't equal performance, and certainly not with that list of metal monstors BIG LOL.

True, but 150 MPH on the AB is NOT the NORM and that's what you said.
It was a lie then.
It's still a lie now.
Very few cars are even GEARED to be able to go that fast.
It makes NO SENSE to do so.
The only ones that can have a LOT of extra horsepower and that's just not what you find in the typical EU car on the autobahn. Again, see your list of top 10 cars, not one of them could do 150 MPH.

In smaller chassis the performance is comparable.

It wasn't my intention to lie. When I was on the autobahn I was cruising along at 125mph in a 1,8 litre Passat. I was being over taken by car after car after car. So from my subjective view it was the norm. It is a subjective observation. Are you telling me that driving these speeds is acceptable on US interstates? I think not.

What cars in the US list are capable of 150mph? Your inference that US citizens are free to drive the speed they wish is BS.

And it shows how close minded you are.

Me, closed mind? That's rich.

Why do you think that 4 of the top 10 cars in the US are a combination of WORKING vehicles and family cars (the extended cab trucks)?

(by the way, the second truck in that list, the Silverado, is what I drive)

Why do you think the Truck adds on TV over here show how much weight trucks can haul and how tough they are? Do you think all the people who buy them aren't smart enough to KNOW what suits their NEEDS. Do you really think they get a 4X4 V8 extended cab truck when a Supermini was all they really needed?

So what do the majority (your top selling list suggests majority of people need to haul) of US citizens need to haul. We have large vehicles for hauling here too. I suppose HAULING the kids to school and back requires a 5 litre engine? And hauling your ass to your office job requires a 4 litre truck? BS.

The majority of US citizens do not need to haul large objects, well nothing larger than a normal size car with a trailer can handle.

Oh BS.
I'm not supporting gas guzzling, just pointing out that people buy their vehicles based on a long list of needs, of which gas mileage is just one of them and because fuel costs about half as much in the US as it does in the UK of course gas mileage is less important to US car buyers when they make their buying decision. The difference in our NEEDS however is clearly seen in not only the size, but type of vehicles we buy.

The truth is the majority of US citizens could change their choice of vehicle to something smaller but they choose not to because it doesn't hurt their pocket too much.

Our higher GDP PPP does not indicate that at all.

Arthur

Ok I have to admit defeat on the ppp per capita point (I can admit when I am wrong, I admit I was a bit lax on that point as it wasn't essential to the EV debate. Sorry about that.). But the US is still going to drag its heels on CO2.

And I am right about the rest of the world catching up fast.

EV tech is alive and kicking!

 

[universaldistress]

Why are you moving away from EVs? This isn't the subject of the thread. however it is quite interesting hearing you try to justify your position.

Are you saying most people in the US are involved with construction?

Yes there are other reasons.
First most people are not going to drive those supermini cars on our interstates at 80 MPH mixed in with all the big semis. They just aren't, which is why you don't see them.

Your best sellers are giants! The problem is everyone is buying cars that are too big. Big cars aren't an unchangeable environment. People have to change their outlook.

The second comes from family size:


http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...m=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+fertility+rate

Where as the US hasn't been below 2 since the late 80s.

I come from a large family and we had a mini metro whilst growing up. This handled our needs fine. Why the fuck would we have needed a fuckoff great truck to go shopping or down to the school?

Then as I pointed out 4 of the 10 top selling vehicles are trucks, but that has a lot to do with the fact that our population is GROWING and thus Home building is a major industry, supported by many millions of home builders, most of which need TRUCKS to do their job.

Let's look at the numbers shall we?

In the US our population grew by 60 million over the last 20 years.
In th UK it grew by 2 million.

Of course we started off at 5 times your size, so your growth, scaled to our size is equal to 10 million. Still just 1/6th of our growth.

In the UK it is cheaper for the average family and building contractors to get building materials delivered rather than running a great heap of oversized junk. Like I have continually reiterated the only reason you run big trucks is because you can. If it was more expensive the majority would probably downsize. Is a truck needed by the average american? no no no.

You are just talking about the comfort of a larger vehicle, not the economy. Just admit it is about comfort and not about essential function. There are many much smaller 7,8 seaters on the market that US citizens could purchase. Large families in the UK run them. They have engines from 1.6 to 3 litre on average.

It's all about addiction and chosen ignorance to try something more economical because lack of pressure. And keeping up with the Joneses.

I also need to be able to take 4 people with me frequently.

A mini will do that. Not as comfortably, but it will do it. A saloon even better. Add a trailer and now we are cookin'.

But it makes no sense to have two cars because I drive so few miles.
What I have is really the best fit to my needs.
The gas mileage of this vehicle was comparable to others that met my needs.

Nothing to do with having a poor attitude.

That's fine, congratulations. The AVERAGE american does not need the ability to haul though.

 

[universaldistress]

On a lighter note. How much dough would I need to build a say 3 bedroom house over in the States? I know it's a general question, US is a big place. But how about around where you live? I am thinking of building and am curious as to the comparison.