Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, let's see: 15,000 divided by 365 = 41 miles; that's how many miles the average person travels each day.



Undoubtedly there are folks whose commute is longer (such as people who work in Los Angeles), but for the average person, 112 miles a day is plenty for commuting and running errands.



And 112 miles would allow a couple of hours of recreational riding per day on Saturday and Sunday -- not an all-day ride, but still, a nice ride.



No, it couldn't be used for long trips, but it would serve the daily transporation needs of the majority of people.



However, it would have to be priced right. That's the biggest stumbling block.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Don Gurney wins again. It's a bit of an unsafe design for American auto trafiic (it sits too low to be seen fron an SUV), but I'd give it a go for sure. And you know the battery power capacity will just ratchet upward as battery development continues. And if you can't do the math, 150kph is 93mph. Fast enough for now. Bring on the electrobikes.



GOB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
That and the low-slung design. I used to ride an aerodynamic pedal bike on the highway and when you are that low, people can't see you through their side windows. No big deal when you are riding on the side of the road, but when you are in a lane ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
I'm betting that its range is much shorter than 112 miles when ridden at higher speeds. Right now with the methods of electricity production in the US electric vehicles of any type aren't anymore economical, don't pollute less, or offer any other advantages over the gasoline engines using our current technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
I like it better than the current crop of hybrids..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
BMW4WW wrote:

"Right now with the methods of electricity production in the US electric vehicles of any type aren't anymore economical, don't pollute less, or offer any other advantages over the gasoline engines using our current technology.

Not true. The amount of electricity used to travel a mile already costs less than the amount of gasoline used.

When you include the pollution created by pumping the oil out of the ground, shipping it to the United States, refining it into gasoline, trucking it to the gas station, and burning it in the car, the combined pollution is much greater than that produced by mining and transporting the coal and burning it in the power-generating facility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Check out the slag piles and the pools of caustic effluent in the battery "recycling" yards in Taiwan where the majority of our batteries wind up. I know from living with battery power from my off grid system just how long batteries will last, and it certainly isn't as long as an internal combustion engine. Plus IC engines can be rebuilt, unlike batteries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
The whole pollution thing is tough...what about the mercury levels in coal? SOx and NOx pollutions from both forms of energy? Efficiency losses from "cradle to grave"? Disposal costs? There are at least two battery chemical extraction/reuse facilities in the states that I know of.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
Don't forget that it takes far more than 10 ampere-hours of charging current to achieve a 10 ampere-hour level of charge in a battery. When you figure out how much fossil fuel the power plant has to burn to charge your vehicle you come out behind.



Also, the batteries will only give that 112 mile figure for the first few weeks. Then they begin to deteriorate. Then there's the problems with hot vs cool weather.



You may feel better thinking that you are saving the environment by using an EV. It's self-delusion. No EV is more efficient in using fossil fuel than a Hybrid or even a TDI diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,030 Posts
"No EV is more efficient in using fossil fuel than a Hybrid or even a TDI diesel."



Not so fast on the hybrids...





"A new study shows that over the lifetime of a vehicle—from the moment it is conceptualized at a design studio until it ends up in the scrap heap—hybrids actually consume a lot more energy than even big SUVs. One reason is that hybrids contain more moving parts than conventional vehicles, which require more energy to manufacture and process. In addition to an internal combustion engine, for instance, hybrids also have an electric motor and a sizable battery pack. That adds to disposal costs, too, once the car has run its last mile—especially for the lead-acid batteries...



"All five hybrids on the list—the Toyota Prius, the Honda Accord and Civic hybrids, the Honda Insight, and the Ford Escape hybrid–perform below average. For all vehicles, the average was $2.28 of energy consumption per mile. The Prius hybrid came in at $3.25 per mile, even though it is one of the highest-mileage cars in the world, getting about 45 miles per gallon in real-world driving. The Honda Accord hybrid consumed $3.30 of energy per mile, about the same as the hulking Ford Excursion SUV. The conventional Accord came in at just $2.18 per mile."



(My Scion xA was tenth best, at 74 cents per mile. I would constantly trumpet the virtues of conventional minicars, but I believe the rule here is that you can't actually own something that you pimp. Right, kpaul?)
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top