John Edwards: "Give up your SUV's"

[sv3n 0]

Why not do what california put in place to begin with and convert to electric?

Performance isn't an issue? This car gets 0-60mph in 4 seconds.......http://www.teslamotors.com/

EV's (electric vehicles) were in use in california..........and they worked quite well. The improved the range to somewhere in the vacinity of 300 miles per charge but that technology was never implemented by GM, with the new batteries you can get an 85% charge over lunch and a 100% charge over night in about 4 hours, a tune-up consisted of rotating the tires and filling the washer fluid, they never even had to replace brakepads during their time in service because the electric motor also provides engine braking, and best of all........there's no emissions.

It wasn't just little geo metro like cars either.........look at the link above, the tesla is a pretty awesome car. They also had SUV's, Trucks, and regular passenger cars.

So what happened..........essentially the car manufacturers sued the state of california, the oil companies campaigned against the ev's, the current administration sued california, and the California Air Resources Board finally.............etc., you can read about it here http://www.ev1.org/

Now you're thinking this is 50 years down the road and they only had 10 test cars out there right?

False, for 6 years there were somewhere around 500 cars out there..........toyota was the only company to let people purchase them, all the other companies put the vehicles out on lease.........which is why you can only find Toyota Rav-4's out there now............once the California laws were changed, GM and the other manufacturers reeled in all the EV's and had them destroyed. Patents for the batteries for instance were sold to Chevron, as were some of the other parts. GM claimed there was no public demand for the vehicles, even through there was a list of 4,000 people (that's just in California). The only reason the vehicles were ever made was the Zero Emissions Law, which the state changed after getting sued and now it's like it never existed.

Anyways...........so unlike Hydrogen which takes a lot of energy to make and will take decades to make, the technology is here and works, but was purchased and snubbed by the oil giants. There are still a few manufacturers that make electric cars, like tesla, and there are a few places that specialize in converting any car into an electric. The benefits zero emissions, low maintenance, no noise, you charge it at home, and never have to make a gas station stop again.........it's like waking up with a full tank of fuel every morning.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I am so sick of all the rants against SUV's

I don't really have a problem with SUV's. People should buy what they want. I just don't understand the massive appeal, other than to attribute it to fad. There are some people who actually need them for their off road and towing ability. But most people I see driving them are single drivers accelerating towards a red light while talking on a cell phone. I know why the car manufacturers like them. They're (were) hugely profitable because of the fad aspect and the fact that they are simply glorified basic trucks. My understanding is that the Ford Explorer was simply an SUV cabin thrown on the Ford Ranger chassis.

My inlaws have a Toyota Highlander and, prior to my wife and I buying a minivan after our second child was born, we used to borrow it for long trips. But when you put two child seats in the back seat there's barely enough room for my 4' 11" mother in law to sit in between. We picked up a used Nissan Quest and now we get the same mileage, about 26 on the highway, get fantastic access through the sliding doors, have front, supplemental and full length side impact airbags, and can move back and forth from the front to the back if we need to deal with the kids and still have twice the storage space of the Highlander. Plus, when the kids are out of the vehicle I can let loose the standard 150 watt, eight speaker stereo system while picking up kegs for a boogie or plug my skydiving cam into the input jacks on the DVD system while at the DZ! YEA, YEA!
(regaining composure) Sorry. Strayed there for a minute. I'm weak.

So basically my point is to say that I don't understand the fad mentality. Never understood the TickleMeElmoCabbagePatchBeanieBabie thing either but I also don't recall our Federal government providing tax incentives for their purchase.

As for the OP, I don't think that outlawing SUV's is right thing to do but I don't have any problem with the government increasing CAFE standards.

[AdamLanes 1]

People always seem to forget that electric cars consume fossil fuel. Instead of directly burning gasoline, they consume electricity which is primarily generated by coal-burning power plants here in the USA.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

People always seem to forget that electric cars consume fossil fuel. Instead of directly burning gasoline, they consume electricity which is primarily generated by coal-burning power plants here in the USA.

Very true. We need more nuke, and vastly increased amounts of solar. The latter is a clean source and when it runs out, who cares?

[billvon 2,400]

>Instead of directly burning gasoline, they consume electricity which
>is primarily generated by coal-burning power plants here in the USA.

True. However, it is vastly more efficient to burn fuel in a combined-cycle thermal plant and use the power than it is to use the fuel directly in the vehicle. The "well to wheels" efficiency of a standard (non-hybrid) car is 10-13%; diesels are 13-17%. Hybrids are 15-26%. Electric vehicles are 18-44%.

So switching to EV's would result in a 60% reduction in fuel used, even if all our power was generated with fossil fuels. If we were smart enough to go to solar/wind/hydro/nuclear in a big way, obviously the savings would be much greater.

[mnealtx 0]

The greens TALK big about wind/solar/etc... they just don't want it where they have to SEE it... too much of the NIMBY syndrome.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>On average, people's driving skills suck and they like to place the blame
>on the vehicle.

Yes. But if you are (as you mentioned) an excellent driver, you will be safer in a car that can be pushed harder than in an SUV in which you have to guard against rollover. Lower-CG vehicles stop faster, can turn more sharply and are more predictable. If, OTOH, you plan to drive headfirst into other vehicles, the SUV would likely be the safer vehicle. As you mentioned, it's all in the context.

Regardless of your points here the highway safety administration says taking SUVs off the road (for everyone) would result in 96000 more deaths over 10 years. Period

STILL WAITING FOR A SOURCE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Now that I've got two of them, it is fairly nice - and almost necessary - to have one. And if Edwards thinks I should sacrifice the safety of my kids for gas mileage, well, shove it.

a sturdy station wagon does the same job.

And the reason you (feel) you need more metal around you is because all those other SUV diver have more metal that they can slam into your car. (kind of like an arms race)

I developed a real hatred for SUVs when I was driving a low lying sports car. SUV bumpers where at the hight of my head - a simple "fender bender" (for the SUV driver) could have crushed my skull.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I developed a real hatred for SUVs when I was driving a low lying sports car. SUV bumpers where at the hight of my head - a simple "fender bender" (for the SUV driver) could have crushed my skull.

So the SUV drivers should give up the safety of a heavier vehicle, so that YOU are safer in your choice of a small vehicle?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[crwtom 0]

Quote

So the SUV drivers should give up the safety of a heavier vehicle, so that YOU are safer in your choice of a small vehicle?

The population of roads by SUV sets a new standard of what is "safe".
It deprives people of choices of what they can safely drive and
thus infringes on my freedoms as well.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[billvon 2,400]

>So the SUV drivers should give up the safety of a heavier vehicle . . .

No! Clearly the best option is to build even heavier and higher vehicles, so that someone is always higher than everyone else. Of course, they will roll even more often than SUV's, but at least people will FEEL safer. Which is really what's important here.

You know, I can't help but think that there's an awful lot of talk about patriotism, supporting the troops etc out there, and all too often it takes the form of a few empty words, a bumper sticker, or a flag that decays to colorful yarn on an antenna. I am more impressed by people who actually sacrifice something for their patriotic desires. Some sacrifice a great deal; we have some of these true heroes here on the board. Some people sacrifice less, like giving up their SUV for a smaller car to protect our energy future and making it less likely we will NEED wars in the future.

And some people just talk.

[shropshire 0]

If he doesn't like 4x4s, the these are goingto REALLY piss him off
clicky

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

/applauds the "if you were REALLY patriotic, you'd..." rant./

Funny how you seem to support people's choices until they run into YOUR biases, Bill.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I've not perused crash test data lately, but... are not heavier vehicles safer than lighter vehicles, overall? If someone was truly interested in their family's safety, why would they choose a lighter vehicle that was less crash-worthy (in an overall sense - I'm well aware that there are lighter vehicles with 5 star crash test ratings).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why not do what california put in place to begin with and convert to electric?

Performance isn't an issue? This car gets 0-60mph in 4 seconds.......http://www.teslamotors.com/

uh, because there are only a 1000 or two teslas being built and they cost 100 grand each?

It's great technology, but it's not a solution. It's a stepping stone, hopefully, because even their thoughts on producing sedans will be at twice the average cost of a car.

The larger sized hybrids are delivering negligable improvements in fuel economy. Part of the that is design - they're using it to pitch "green"ness to idiot and performance to car lovers. So at the moment, there's nothing in the electric/hybrid realm to get the SUV owners to change.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If he doesn't like 4x4s, the these are goingto REALLY piss him offclicky

Well, as long as you purchase the ethanol version, and it gets 50 miles per gallon...

Besides, can I do this (see attached photo) with a VW Beetle? I think not.

[Remster 24]

Quote

I think not.

BS.

I 've camping and canoeing with a good friend with a Renault 5 before. All you need is a rack.

Remster

[Gravitymaster 0]

There's very little that can't be done with a VW Beetle.

[billvon 2,400]

>Funny how you seem to support people's choices until they run into YOUR biases, Bill.

People can (and do) choose whatever car they like, just as they can choose to say whatever they like. But supporting freedom of speech does not equate to me supporting someone who says "Our troops suck; hope they all die" (or insert your favorite evil thing to say here.)

Making us more dependent on oil hurts us economically, diplomatically and militarily. It guarantees that the countries that the 9/11 hijackers came from make lots and lots of money. It pushes us towards future wars.

Now, if you need an SUV to get your four kids up the logging road to your house in the snow, great. It's the right tool for the job. If you are using one to drive yourself to work on city streets, perhaps thinking about what's best for the US instead of what's fun for you might be a better choice.

Or not. People can do whatever they like, even if it's foolish.

>are not heavier vehicles safer than lighter vehicles, overall?

Nope. Certainly not for children. They gain in inertia in a crash, they lose in inertia and high CG for maneuvering.

>If someone was truly interested in their family's safety, why would they
>choose a lighter vehicle that was less crash-worthy (in an overall sense -
>I'm well aware that there are lighter vehicles with 5 star crash test ratings).

If someone was truly interested in their family's safety, why would they buy a less-safe SUV instead of a safer Honda Civic (the second safest car in the world?) More often than not, the 'safety' thing is just a cover for 'I want a big truck.'

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Why not do what california put in place to begin with and convert to electric?

Performance isn't an issue? This car gets 0-60mph in 4 seconds.......http://www.teslamotors.com/

uh, because there are only a 1000 or two teslas being built and they cost 100 grand each?

It's great technology, but it's not a solution. It's a stepping stone, hopefully, because even their thoughts on producing sedans will be at twice the average cost of a car.

The larger sized hybrids are delivering negligable improvements in fuel economy. Part of the that is design - they're using it to pitch "green"ness to idiot and performance to car lovers. So at the moment, there's nothing in the electric/hybrid realm to get the SUV owners to change.

Tesla was just an example...........and the reason they are so expensive is because it's a high performance car that's electric.

"DETROIT – The ultimate Corvette—the 2006 Corvette Z06—is posting numbers at the track and on the window sticker that will get attention. Chevrolet has announced that the fastest Corvette ever—the 505-horsepower Corvette Z06—will achieve 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds while still in first gear, and pricing will start at $65,800, including destination and freight charges. "

The tesla goes 0-60mph in 4 seconds and you only have to plug it in............base price $96,800. While it's still $30k more.......put it into mass production and that price will come down.

GM had the EV1 which "The price for the car used to compute lease payments was US$33,995 to US$43,995, which made for lease payments of US$299 to over US$574 per month." They were only available for lease.

Now you're saying $30k to $40k?........but think of this a 2007 Prius starts at $22,175 and think of how much you spend on fuel and maintenance each year. The benefits of an electric:

1 - mass production would bring the price down
2 - no more oil changes, air filters, etc.
3 - no more gas stations
4 - most people that had these cars installed solar panels to pretty much make it free to use
5 - 0 emissions

While hybrids are out now, it's not a fix..........it's a delay. And even though there may be nothing out there in the hybrid world.

The following vehicles also had EV varients:

GM EV1
Honda EV Plus
Toyota RAV4 EV
Ford Ranger EV
Nissan Altra EV

And that's just to name a few. The military has EV tanks, so it's definitely possible to use this technology for a big-ass SUV....if that's what you want. And no emissions is definitely a solution, hybrids are the stepping stone because we're still relying on a non-replenishable energy source. Solar and hydro are free energy. And if you're worried about seeing the solar panels, this company http://www.sunpowercorp.com/index.html makes solar cells that replace the shingles on your roof.....replace them all or just a few.

Plus with the cutdown on fossil fuels like oil it would make us more self reliant and you would essentially be fighting terrorism since it's funded by oil.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

First... pure EV vehicles aren't suitable as of yet for long trips.

Second... it takes a lot of PV panels to create the type of amperage that would be needed to recharge an EV - most people aren't going to be able to afford that. The corollary to that is, how are you going to charge the car during the day, when you (and the car) are at work?

EV tanks? You're gonna have to link that.

Your other points (as to general advantages) I agree with in principal.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

<>

Not quite..... The solar energy may be free but you have to extract it and for that you need (for example Solar Cells) which need resources to manufacture & ship around the world.

Hydro also needs power plants to extract and this also costs

Free is a myth.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

. . . If you are using one to drive yourself to work on city streets, perhaps thinking about what's best for the US instead of what's fun for you might be a better choice.

Or not. People can do whatever they like, even if it's foolish.

Hmm, the tree-hugging hippies might say the same about people who waste fuel to jump out of planes every weekend.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

<>

Not quite..... The solar energy may be free but you have to extract it and for that you need (for example Solar Cells) which need resources to manufacture & ship around the world.

Hydro also needs power plants to extract and this also costs

Free is a myth.

especially when we're talking about solar panels, which are anything but free, esp in a time frame that is less than a decade.

If you want cheap high performance, you get a motorcycle. $10 will get you 0-60 un under 3 seconds, with 40mpg.

But if you want extra seats, cargo, air bags, a roof, you have to pay for it.

At the moment, you pay a considerable cost premium for hybrids, with most of the 'savings' being intangibles rather than dollars saved. The electrics would be more on both factors.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

First... pure EV vehicles aren't suitable as of yet for long trips.

Second... it takes a lot of PV panels to create the type of amperage that would be needed to recharge an EV - most people aren't going to be able to afford that. The corollary to that is, how are you going to charge the car during the day, when you (and the car) are at work?

EV tanks? You're gonna have to link that.

Your other points (as to general advantages) I agree with in principal.

You are correct about the long trips.......with current battery technology an EV would get approximately 300 miles out of a complete charge and a person would be about to get a complete charge in about 4 hours and an 85% charge in about an hour. So you would essentially have to grab food and take bathroom breaks and take your time if you were travelling cross-country and get an 85% charge at each stop.

If I recall correctly california put in place public charging stations where the cars could be stored while at work......just like a parking lot. With the average cost of a charge being somewhere around $3 it could be part of a public parking structure. There would be ways to work that out. Considering your average american drives 34 miles a day, it still wouldn't be an issue for the majority of the population. You would "plug" the car in when you get home and let it charge overnight........plus energy prices go down in the evenings in a lot of states as there is less demand. And if you were using solar power then it wouldn't even be an issue.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

<>

Not quite..... The solar energy may be free but you have to extract it and for that you need (for example Solar Cells) which need resources to manufacture & ship around the world.

Hydro also needs power plants to extract and this also costs

Free is a myth.

especially when we're talking about solar panels, which are anything but free, esp in a time frame that is less than a decade.

If you want cheap high performance, you get a motorcycle. $10 will get you 0-60 un under 3 seconds, with 40mpg.

But if you want extra seats, cargo, air bags, a roof, you have to pay for it.

At the moment, you pay a considerable cost premium for hybrids, with most of the 'savings' being intangibles rather than dollars saved. The electrics would be more on both factors.

You're correct that currently the technology will cost you a lot, but that's also because it's not in mass production. You start pumping it out in the quantities of McD's cheeseburgers and prices will drop.

...and you're in violation of your face!