DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Folk's,

I saw the Edison-2 at lunch see 100mpg www.edison2.com . It really *is* a 4 seater with car tires (like the one's on the Smart car) and they're also coming out with an EV version spokesman Dave Brown said (should be 100-150W/hr per mile) and should be about 3-5 years for full volume production. Hopefully my 70mpg Insight and E-Porsche www.evalbum.com/1273 will last that long then I'll get this or an Aptera. (The photos I've seen on the boob tube and write-ups made it sound like a simgle seater with bicycle tires). He said it should be made in Virginia (not labor farmed out to a third world country like the trend). That will be nice, maybe I could give them a hand :)

It will be at the Train Museum tomorrow in Roanoke, VA 8am - 5pm (cool trains, some electric, you can still climb on them - but don't tell them I said that)

Have a renewable energy, high mileage and EV day,
Mark
www.reevadiy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101022/2644b024/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Cool! The biggest problem I have with things like this is safety. They say
100-150W/hr a mile? That's pretty low. I'm envisioning that any driver of
such a car who gets into a 50MPH collision will end up looking like nothing
more than hamburger and bone fragments. I'm all for efficiency but I'd
rather not die in a small death trap. Theres got to be some middle ground.
Maybe my imagination is just getting the better of me. But, how safe could a
car be if you get it light enough to only use 100W/hr a mile?

Mark Hanson <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> Hi Folk's,
>
> I saw the Edison-2 at lunch see 100mpg www.edison2.com . It really *is* a
> 4 seater with car tires (like the one's on the Smart car) and they're also
> coming out with an EV version spokesman Dave Brown said (should be
> 100-150W/hr per mile) and should be about 3-5 years for full volume
> production. Hopefully my 70mpg Insight and E-Porsche www.evalbum.com/1273will last that long then I'll get this or an Aptera. (The photos I've seen
> on the boob tube and write-ups made it sound like a simgle seater with
> bicycle tires). He said it should be made in Virginia (not labor farmed out
> to a third world country like the trend). That will be nice, maybe I could
> give them a hand :)
>
> It will be at the Train Museum tomorrow in Roanoke, VA 8am - 5pm (cool
> trains, some electric, you can still climb on them - but don't tell them I
> said that)
>
> Have a renewable energy, high mileage and EV day,
> Mark
> www.reevadiy.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101022/2644b024/attachment.html
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/a39e7465/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Mark,

"... how safe could a car be if you get it light enough to only use
100W/hr a mile ..."

Without wishing to be too cryptic... ask a F1 driver. ;)

Regards, Martin Winlow
Herts, UK
http://www.evalbum.com/2092
www.winlow.co.uk

Collin Kidder wrote:

> Cool! The biggest problem I have with things like this is safety.
> They say
> 100-150W/hr a mile? That's pretty low. I'm envisioning that any
> driver of
> such a car who gets into a 50MPH collision will end up looking like
> nothing
> more than hamburger and bone fragments. I'm all for efficiency but I'd
> rather not die in a small death trap. Theres got to be some middle
> ground.
> Maybe my imagination is just getting the better of me. But, how safe
> could a
> car be if you get it light enough to only use 100W/hr a mile?
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Mark Hanson
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Folk's,
>>
>> I saw the Edison-2 at lunch see 100mpg www.edison2.com . It really
>> *is* a
>> 4 seater with car tires (like the one's on the Smart car) and
>> they're also
>> coming out with an EV version spokesman Dave Brown said (should be
>> 100-150W/hr per mile) and should be about 3-5 years for full volume
>> production. Hopefully my 70mpg Insight and E-Porsche www.evalbum.com/1273will
>> last that long then I'll get this or an Aptera. (The photos I've
>> seen
>> on the boob tube and write-ups made it sound like a simgle seater
>> with
>> bicycle tires). He said it should be made in Virginia (not labor
>> farmed out
>> to a third world country like the trend). That will be nice, maybe
>> I could
>> give them a hand :)
>>
>> It will be at the Train Museum tomorrow in Roanoke, VA 8am - 5pm
>> (cool
>> trains, some electric, you can still climb on them - but don't tell
>> them I
>> said that)
>>
>>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/43614e8c/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Heh, fair enough. Now, that's a one seater. If you scale it up to a four
seater will it still be quite as efficient? Not likely. Also, it appears
that F1 cars go to great lengths to keep weight down such as using carbon
fiber. That's likely too expensive for a mass produced vehicle.

Either way, does anyone have data which suggests that it's probable that
safety could be reasonable on a commercially produced 4 seat vehicle which
uses between 100 and 150 W/hr a mile?

I think that such a worry might be somewhat an American one. After all, we
all drive SUVs and trucks here. So maybe it's just a matter of perspective.
I'm not used to seeing such lightly constructed vehicles so my kneejerk
reaction is to say "that can't be safe." However, I would like proof to the
contrary. F1 racing is certainly a good start for that proof. Thanks.

Martin WINLOW <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> Mark,
>
> "... how safe could a car be if you get it light enough to only use
> 100W/hr a mile ..."
>
> Without wishing to be too cryptic... ask a F1 driver. ;)
>
> Regards, Martin Winlow
> Herts, UK
> http://www.evalbum.com/2092
> www.winlow.co.uk
>
> On 25 Oct 2010, at 12:09, Collin Kidder wrote:
>
> > Cool! The biggest problem I have with things like this is safety.
> > They say
> > 100-150W/hr a mile? That's pretty low. I'm envisioning that any
> > driver of
> > such a car who gets into a 50MPH collision will end up looking like
> > nothing
> > more than hamburger and bone fragments. I'm all for efficiency but I'd
> > rather not die in a small death trap. Theres got to be some middle
> > ground.
> > Maybe my imagination is just getting the better of me. But, how safe
> > could a
> > car be if you get it light enough to only use 100W/hr a mile?
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Mark Hanson
> > <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Folk's,
> >>
> >> I saw the Edison-2 at lunch see 100mpg www.edison2.com . It really
> >> *is* a
> >> 4 seater with car tires (like the one's on the Smart car) and
> >> they're also
> >> coming out with an EV version spokesman Dave Brown said (should be
> >> 100-150W/hr per mile) and should be about 3-5 years for full volume
> >> production. Hopefully my 70mpg Insight and E-Porsche
> www.evalbum.com/1273will
> >> last that long then I'll get this or an Aptera. (The photos I've
> >> seen
> >> on the boob tube and write-ups made it sound like a simgle seater
> >> with
> >> bicycle tires). He said it should be made in Virginia (not labor
> >> farmed out
> >> to a third world country like the trend). That will be nice, maybe
> >> I could
> >> give them a hand :)
> >>
> >> It will be at the Train Museum tomorrow in Roanoke, VA 8am - 5pm
> >> (cool
> >> trains, some electric, you can still climb on them - but don't tell
> >> them I
> >> said that)
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/43614e8c/attachment.html
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/4ca39154/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hi Collin,

> Cool! The biggest problem I have with things like this is safety. They say
> 100-150W/hr a mile? That's pretty low. I'm envisioning that any driver of
> such a car who gets into a 50MPH collision will end up looking like nothing
> more than hamburger and bone fragments. I'm all for efficiency but I'd
> rather not die in a small death trap. Theres got to be some middle ground.
> Maybe my imagination is just getting the better of me. But, how safe could a
> car be if you get it light enough to only use 100W/hr a mile?

That's a bit harsh. They have certainly addressed safety -- there are crumple zones, and something else that only race car builder's would know about: deflection. Rather than engaging when in a crash, the Edison2 VLC is designed to deflect the direction of the force, which slows down the time to absorb the force and lowers the G forces involved. Have you seen how a ~1,200 pound F1 car works in a 50-150MPH crash? The driver not only survives, but they very often don't even get injured.

Weight |= safety

Heavy cars are harder to control, harder to stop, are often top heavy, and when a heavy vehicle hits a stationary object, there is a LOT more energy that needs to be dissipated. Light weight helps in one car accidents and in all types of accidents except for direct head on crashes. And if a car deflects off of a head on crash, then it is not a direct head on crash, by definition.

A safe vehicle always has to be designed that way. Simply making a vehicle heavier makes it less safe in most crashes.

I will say this: weight is *not* the most important factor for high efficiency. Drivetrain efficiency is the most important factor, followed by aerodynamic drag (which the Edison2 also excels at) and then weight is third most important, followed by basic rolling resistance. The Edison2 VLC got ~103MPGe (they burned E85), and if it get "just" 150Wh/mile, then it would get 227MPGe -- this is all drivetrain efficiency. If it gets 100Wh/mile, that is 340MPGe -- more than 3X as efficient just because of the drivetrain.

Aero matters a lot because it goes up by the square of the speed, and because it is always a total loss. You cannot regain energy lost to aero drag, and it is the huge majority of the loss at speeds above 35-40mph; and matters some at slower speeds.

Weight is hard to accelerate, but it helps with coasting; so if you drive right, you can regain much of the energy right away. The aero drag and rolling drag are the only losses if you drive perfectly -- which obviously you cannot. And regenerative braking lets you regain part/much of the energy when you have accelerated too much, or need to slow down more quickly than just coasting.

We found out recently that the 3,150 pound Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' got nearly 200 miles on 32.4kWh and got ~217MPGe while doing so. The 'Seven' has a Cd of ~0.23 while the Edison2 VLC is 0.161, so I think the VLC will be at or below the 100Wh/mile, since the much heavier and less aerodynamic 'Seven' gets about 160Wh/mile.

http://illuminatimotorworks.org/blog/?p=193

The 'Seven' weighs more than 3.5X as much as the VLC. The Cd is nearly 1.5X higher. The 'Seven' is an EV, and VLC is an ICE.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Sorry, my email style is heavy on sarcasm and that's a hard thing to pick up
on. Your email was pretty much exactly what I was looking for so thank you
for taking the time to explain things.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Neil Blanchard
<[email protected]>wrote:

>
> That's a bit harsh. They have certainly addressed safety -- there are
> crumple zones, and something else that only race car builder's would know
> about: deflection. Rather than engaging when in a crash, the Edison2 VLC is
> designed to deflect the direction of the force, which slows down the time to
> absorb the force and lowers the G forces involved. Have you seen how a
> ~1,200 pound F1 car works in a 50-150MPH crash? The driver not only
> survives, but they very often don't even get injured.
>
> <SNIP>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/ba42ef25/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Neil Blanchard wrote:

> Hi Collin,
>
>> Cool! The biggest problem I have with things like this is safety.
>> They say
>> 100-150W/hr a mile? That's pretty low. I'm envisioning that any
>> driver of
>> such a car who gets into a 50MPH collision will end up looking like
>> nothing
>> more than hamburger and bone fragments. I'm all for efficiency but
>> I'd
>> rather not die in a small death trap. Theres got to be some middle
>> ground.
>> Maybe my imagination is just getting the better of me. But, how
>> safe could a
>> car be if you get it light enough to only use 100W/hr a mile?
>
> That's a bit harsh. They have certainly addressed safety -- there
> are crumple zones, and something else that only race car builder's
> would know about: deflection. Rather than engaging when in a crash,
> the Edison2 VLC is designed to deflect the direction of the force,
> which slows down the time to absorb the force and lowers the G
> forces involved. Have you seen how a ~1,200 pound F1 car works in a
> 50-150MPH crash? The driver not only survives, but they very often
> don't even get injured.
>
> Weight |= safety
>
> Heavy cars are harder to control, harder to stop, are often top
> heavy, and when a heavy vehicle hits a stationary object, there is a
> LOT more energy that needs to be dissipated. Light weight helps in
> one car accidents and in all types of accidents except for direct
> head on crashes. And if a car deflects off of a head on crash, then
> it is not a direct head on crash, by definition.
>
> A safe vehicle always has to be designed that way. Simply making a
> vehicle heavier makes it less safe in most crashes.


I agree. It just becomes more of an engineering challenge to make it
safe, but a light car can be built to be just as safe, or safer than a
heavy car.

However, in a head on collision with an immovable object, or a heavier
vehicle the laws of physics are impossible to avoid. About a year ago
I was run off the road by a distracted driver. I was in my 6000 lb
truck and he was in an older small BMW. We were both going about 60
MPH. If we would have collided head on with no side deflection he
would have made the rather abrupt change in velocity from 60 MPH in
one direction to 30 MPH in the other. Where I would have slowed from
60 to 30. Rough numbers based on my truck being twice his BMWs weight.

So, the challenge is how do you make the vehicle safe for a head on
collision, or can you make it automatically avoid a head on
collision. Mercedes has automatic braking on thier vehicles. Maybe
something like that could be implemented in an super light vehicle.


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
>
> ...either an F1 style or typical tube style chassis would also be much less
> expensive to produce in quantity than what the big factories are doing with
> folded tin. But, neither safety nor cost effective are objectives of the
> major manufacturers.
>

This statement is largely incorrect. While the capital expense in tooling up
for sheet metal processing may be large, the piece prices are very low.
Thus, in volume, sheet metal body construction as practiced by the various
automakers is very inexpensive. This is the reason they do it.

As for structural composites (F1), both processing and materials are still
rather expensive, limiting their use to niche applications, such as racing
and in some specialized crash structures. Nonstructural composites have made
inroads, via plastic interiors, bumper covers, and non-stressed body panels.

-brw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/46db4bf4/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
>
> > I think that such a worry might be somewhat an American one. After all,
> we
> > all drive SUVs and trucks here. So maybe it's just a matter of
> perspective.
>
> Except that SUVs and trucks are *not* the safest vehicles. Crash
> statistics show that sports cars, pickup truck, and SUVs have the
> *highest* fatality rates. Imported luxury cars, minivans, and other
> large cars have the lowest fatality rates.
>
>
That may very well be so and I don't doubt that it's true. However, when
talking about perception the truth isn't the end. A lot of people *feel*
like an SUV is safer and *feel* more unsafe in a small car. Obviously I find
myself falling into this mindset even as I can see that actual rational
thought and discussion prove it to be false. This (along with the "I need to
drive 300 miles on a charge") mindset is one of the biggest obstacles to
greater EV adoption. So, I feel that I should attempt to thoroughly rid
myself of the preconceptions about trucks being safe but also the public
mindset must change too. So, the question is, how do you get the public to
see that properly engineered smaller vehicles can be very safe?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/7031da14/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Hi Roger,

> I more than appreciated Niel's explanations. The only thing that he left out is that either an F1 style or typical tube style chassis would also be much less expensive to produce in quantity than what the big factories are doing with folded tin. But, neither safety nor cost effective are objectives of the major manufacturers.

The weight is the point in question. Since the Edison2 Very Light Car weighs 830 pounds and seats four which is a lot lighter than even a F1 car; so the type of construction is not required to be light. What is critical is how it is engineered. Oliver Kuttner has said all along they want to be able to sell the VLC for about $20K, so they will keep the costs down.

We are hoping to know more about the actual electric VLC performs soon enough.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
> So, the question is, how do you get the public to see that properly
engineered smaller vehicles can be very safe?

Many times it's a lateral-thinking problem: not how to actually solve
the problem but to find the 'lever' that gets somebody else to either do
the work for you, or better yet, avoid the problem entirely: Nobody
ever said the Mazda Miata was safer, they said it was SEXIER.

EV's are just damn fun and relatively guilt-free. EV-grins are a
chronic condition for me even after 3 years: I'd rather go out in a
blaze of electrons than an SUV roll-over. Guaranteed I'll get more
press that way (appeal to vanity ;-) I'm not looking to replace
somebody's favorite gas burner. I'm out to replace it 99% of the time.
I *love* 1965 1/2 Cherry Red Mustangs with a white rag top, and I'm
sorry, if it doesn't growl and rumble when you press on the accelerator,
it ain't a 'stang. Someday I'll be able to buy one, and it'll stay ICE
and it will stay in the garage 99% of the time. There's little safe
about a 'stang or environmental, but I WANT it. Maybe you'll be able to
fake it well enough with acoustics by the time I'm able to acquire one
;-)

Changing people's perception is advertising/marketing problem. One of
the best TED Talks I've seen deals with perception change, it's Rory
Sutherland's "Life Lessons from an Ad Man". Love this talk, it's
hilarious and very appropriate in answer to your question here's a
snippet from the Interactive Transcript:

"How many problems of life can be solved actually by tinkering with
perception, rather than that tedious, hardworking and messy business of
actually trying to change reality? Here's a great example from history.
I've heard this attributed to several other kings, but doing a bit of
historical research it seems to be Fredrick the Great. Fredrick the
Great of Prussia was very very keen for the Germans to adopt the potato,
and to eat it. Because he realized that if you had two sources of
carbohydrate, wheat and potatoes, you get less price volatility in
bread. And you get a far lower risk of famine, because you actually had
two crops to fall back on, not one.

The only problem is: potatoes, if you think about it, look pretty
disgusting. And also, 18th century Prussians ate very, very few
vegetables -- rather like contemporary Scottish people. (Laughter) So,
actually, he tried making it compulsory. The Prussian peasantry said,
"We can't even get the dogs to eat these damn things. They are
absolutely disgusting and they're good for nothing." There are even
records of people being executed for refusing to grow potatoes.

So he tried plan B. He tried the marketing solution, which is he
declared the potato as a royal vegetable. And none but the royal family
could consume it. And he planted it in a royal potato patch, with guards
who had instructions to guard over it, night and day, but with secret
instructions not to guard it very well. (Laughter) Now 18th century
peasants know that there is one pretty safe rule in life, which is if
something is worth guarding, it's worth stealing. Before long, there was
a massive underground potato-growing operation in Germany. What he'd
effectively done is he'd re-branded the potato. It was an absolute
masterpiece."

The full 17 minutes is definitely worth a go at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_an_a
d_man.html

It seems we've a lot to learn from the Germans...

[email protected]

Rediscover the pleasure cruise and the joy ride: Drive Electric
Drive Electric: Because your car stinks.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Collin Kidder
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:44 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] I Met Mr. Edison-2 the X-Prize winner!

>
> > I think that such a worry might be somewhat an American one. After
all,
> we
> > all drive SUVs and trucks here. So maybe it's just a matter of
> perspective.
>
> Except that SUVs and trucks are *not* the safest vehicles. Crash
> statistics show that sports cars, pickup truck, and SUVs have the
> *highest* fatality rates. Imported luxury cars, minivans, and other
> large cars have the lowest fatality rates.
>
>
That may very well be so and I don't doubt that it's true. However, when
talking about perception the truth isn't the end. A lot of people *feel*
like an SUV is safer and *feel* more unsafe in a small car. Obviously I
find
myself falling into this mindset even as I can see that actual rational
thought and discussion prove it to be false. This (along with the "I
need to
drive 300 miles on a charge") mindset is one of the biggest obstacles to
greater EV adoption. So, I feel that I should attempt to thoroughly rid
myself of the preconceptions about trucks being safe but also the public
mindset must change too. So, the question is, how do you get the public
to
see that properly engineered smaller vehicles can be very safe?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/7031da14/a
ttachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The NHSTA study link below basically validates what Lee says, I would also add
that large vans, not minivans, were the safest vehicles. If you drill down a bit
deeper, they show an interesting result: For little vans vs. big vans, little
trucks vs. big trucks, little cars vs. big cars, and little SUVs vs. big SUVs,
the smaller vehicle has around a 1.2 to 1.5 times higher fatality rate. This
different slice of the data probably has less driver variation, and less usage
variation than comparing different classes of vehicles (like cars and trucks),
but does show the heavier vehicle is more safe than a lighter vehicle in the
same class of vehicle.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809979.pdf

Some further tidbits: Big vans are safest. Compact cars are the worst overall.
SUVs and trucks are in between the two extremes. Caveat: These stats are per
100,000 vehicles per year, and not normalized by mileage. It well could be the
order would change if it was per mile (like maybe delivery trucks are driven
many more miles than passenger cars).



________________________________
From: Lee Hart <[email protected]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 12:29:54 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] I Met Mr. Edison-2 the X-Prize winner!

...
Except that SUVs and trucks are *not* the safest vehicles. Crash statistics show
that sports cars, pickup truck, and SUVs have the *highest* fatality rates.
Imported luxury cars, minivans, and other large cars have the lowest fatality
rates.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101025/979e8397/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Hi,

> The NHSTA study link below basically validates what Lee says, I would also add
> that large vans, not minivans, were the safest vehicles. If you drill down a bit
> deeper, they show an interesting result: For little vans vs. big vans, little
> trucks vs. big trucks, little cars vs. big cars, and little SUVs vs. big SUVs,
> the smaller vehicle has around a 1.2 to 1.5 times higher fatality rate. This
> different slice of the data probably has less driver variation, and less usage
> variation than comparing different classes of vehicles (like cars and trucks),
> but does show the heavier vehicle is more safe than a lighter vehicle in the
> same class of vehicle.
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809979.pdf
>
> Some further tidbits: Big vans are safest. Compact cars are the worst overall.
> SUVs and trucks are in between the two extremes. Caveat: These stats are per
> 100,000 vehicles per year, and not normalized by mileage. It well could be the
> order would change if it was per mile (like maybe delivery trucks are driven
> many more miles than passenger cars).

I think the best numbers for telling how safe a vehicle really is is the deaths per 1,000,000 miles -- and the best are cars like Camry, Accord, and Audi A4. The worst in 2004 was the Ford F150. I saw a chart on this a few years ago, but now I cannot find it.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
David Dymaxion wrote:

...
> the smaller vehicle has around a 1.2 to 1.5 times higher fatality
> rate....

... unless the fatality is a pedestrian of course.

Regards, Martin Winlow
Herts, UK
http://www.evalbum.com/2092
www.winlow.co.uk



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top