Chevy Bolt concept - 200 mile range, $30,000

[vvanders]

bundled up head to toe just to drive to work because their Leaf's range is derated so badly in the cold that they can't run the cabin heater.

for a reported £32k price tag, WHO would buy such a car?

People who care about their carbon footprint for one.

Honestly for an engineering driven site I'm surprised to see so many people bagging on EVs.

[Rick Law]

...
Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.
...

So, what is new about government and semi-government entities just kept on singing the official tune?  Just like China's record grain production that everyone "know" it is true, while 20 million people died of hunger in the 60's.

I believe in that as much as I believe in our "economic recovery"... 30 year low in labor participation rate, record low in average income, 92 million working age adults not working...   Sure we are recovering... Sure...

The day I would believe "green" (as it is applied today) is good for the planet is when it when government is totally out of the picture.

[mtdoc]

Virtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel.

I suppose you do realise that the industrial revolution was built on water and wind power? Fossil fuels were mostly used for heating and lighting until comparatively recently. The industrial revolution was well underway by the time people like Watt started getting practical motive power from fossil fuels.

Not really accurate. The industrial revolution began coincident with the widespread mining and utilization of coal as an energy source, first in England and then later in the United states.  I'm not disputing the use of wind and hydro power but the industrial revolution would not have taken off without coal. This is an easily researched historical fact.

[mtdoc]

...
Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.
...

So, what is new about government and semi-government entities just kept on singing the official tune?  Just like China's record grain production that everyone "know" it is true, while 20 million people died of hunger in the 60's.

I believe in that as much as I believe in our "economic recovery"... 30 year low in labor participation rate, record low in average income, 92 million working age adults not working...   Sure we are recovering... Sure...

While I agree with you about false economic statistics, that really has nothing to do with the national research council which is composed of the national academy of sciences, national academy of engineering, and institute of medicine.

It's a completely false comparison. Economics is not a true science and economic statistics reported by government entities are a completely different thing than science or something quite black and white like tax receipts.

Of course if your one of those anti-science nutters then, well, good luck to ya...

[coppice]

Virtual any major technology we have was enabled and energized by fossil fuel.

I suppose you do realise that the industrial revolution was built on water and wind power? Fossil fuels were mostly used for heating and lighting until comparatively recently. The industrial revolution was well underway by the time people like Watt started getting practical motive power from fossil fuels.

Not really accurate. The industrial revolution began coincident with the widespread mining and utilization of coal as an energy source, first in England and then later in the United states.  I'm not disputing the use of wind and hydro power but the industrial revolution would not have taken off without coal. This is an easily researched historical fact.

Coal mining goes back into antiquity, but volume mining began in the late 18th century, when Britain developed the necessary tunnelling and ventilation technology. That was a response to the industrial revolution, which was already well underway. Refining needed lots of coal, and the further development of the industrial revolution needed lots of iron.

[mtdoc]

Coal mining goes back into antiquity, but volume mining began in the late 18th century, when Britain developed the necessary tunnelling and ventilation technology. That was a response to the industrial revolution, which was already well underway. Refining needed lots of coal, and the further development of the industrial revolution needed lots of iron.

The Industrial Revolution

"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal."

I suppose one could quibble about dates, etc but that's not really the point.  Societies advance technologically only on the basis of harnessing excess energy.  The energy density of fossil fuels is what has allowed our technological advancement (and population growth) beyond what was possible with firewood and early wind and hydro power.  Wind and hydro power were/are important to be sure but they are limited geographically and are not transportable. You can only build so many mills and factories next to rivers and wind power does not work in the cities which is where the workers are.

For anyone interested in this topic  Gail Tverberg has a excellent blog post today discussing the role of energy and economic growth.

[tom66]

WHO would buy such a car?

Over 100,000 people?

[coppice]

WHO would buy such a car?

Over 100,000 people?

That seems to be an old figure. Its more than 150k now, and sales still seem to be growing. I wonder if lower gas prices will change that? Telsa saw no growth in North America in 2014. That doesn't sound good. Sales of the Volt fell quite a bit. That's probably due to GM saying a refresh is on the way. Despite the high profile of Tesla, the ugly duckling Leaf seems to be the star of the industry right now.

[nctnico]

Ok, so, you get a car, you're making monthly payments directly related to the car, you lose your job, you quit making monthly payments.
What happens to the car?  Car goes away?  You owned jack in the first place...

Nope. The car isn't a collateral for the loan. In the EU these sort of things work entirely different than the US. Generally in the EU: If you don't pay then they have to go to court and (ultimately) claim your possessions and sell these. Possessions can include anything you own including back accounts. A common way is to claim part of your paycheck. Actually this method is much smarter than reposessing the car because the car dealer doesn't end up with another used car which they need to sell. Instead they still get their money (and profit).

[miguelvp]

Ok, so, you get a car, you're making monthly payments directly related to the car, you lose your job, you quit making monthly payments.
What happens to the car?  Car goes away?  You owned jack in the first place...

Nope. The car isn't a collateral for the loan. In the EU these sort of things work entirely different than the US. Generally in the EU: If you don't pay then they have to go to court and (ultimately) claim your possessions and sell these. Possessions can include anything you own including back accounts. A common way is to claim part of your paycheck. Actually this method is much smarter than reposessing the car because the car dealer doesn't end up with another used car which they need to sell. Instead they still get their money (and profit).

So if they deem your car is not worth what is due because bad resale value or whatever, if you don't pay they can take some other possessions?

Not sure if I would like that, I rather stick to the collateral being the vehicle (fully insured of course as demanded by any car loan in the US, not that it matters because the insurance will price the value based on cars for sale adds, not the blue book value).

[nctnico]

Ok, so, you get a car, you're making monthly payments directly related to the car, you lose your job, you quit making monthly payments.
What happens to the car?  Car goes away?  You owned jack in the first place...

Nope. The car isn't a collateral for the loan. In the EU these sort of things work entirely different than the US. Generally in the EU: If you don't pay then they have to go to court and (ultimately) claim your possessions and sell these. Possessions can include anything you own including back accounts. A common way is to claim part of your paycheck. Actually this method is much smarter than reposessing the car because the car dealer doesn't end up with another used car which they need to sell. Instead they still get their money (and profit).

So if they deem your car is not worth what is due because bad resale value or whatever, if you don't pay they can take some other possessions?

Yes, but only after a court ruling which isn't cheap to get.

[dannyf]

Generally in the EU:...

Any borrower picking that arrangement over a secured car loan deserves to be ripped off. Bank lobbying must be extremely powerful there.

[dannyf]

to point out what a moron I am ...

I think you are doing an excellent job there yourself. No need for 3rd party intervention.

[dannyf]

Civic Type R wanted to get in front at the lights.

You had been driving slower than a grandma on a lawnmower. She was just trying to get you to go a little bit faster.

[dannyf]

Let's work out the math.

The car has a £32k price tag, per you.

What's your monthly payments (and for how long) and what's the "agreed upon price"?

If you can figure out that math, you will know what's wrong.

[Wilksey]

Maybe on a short distance at the lights, but you wouldn't stand a chance against a CTR once there was a decent amount of space and the thing gets going, the only issue with the CTR is that you need to rev it to get it to shift.

I used to be able to beat all sorts of cars off the lights in my 1.3l Vauxhall Nova years ago, but as soon as I had got past the lights, game over for me, it didn't meant that I could "blow it away" though, just meant my car was lighter, had more traction on the road and I had a long ass 1st gear!  My VXR wouldn't beat much off of the lights, but as soon as it gains traction and gets into 2nd gear, different story.

[dannyf]

Nissan is leasing Leaf in the US for less than $200/month, on a $21K+ vehicle.

The same car goes for £169/month, on a £32K price tag.

Isn't it nice to live in Europe? Maybe if you re-distribute the wealth a little bit more, the prices would go up even further.

But the European Leaf does offer you the chance to travel in comfort and style, I guess,

[coppice]

Maybe on a short distance at the lights, but you wouldn't stand a chance against a CTR once there was a decent amount of space and the thing gets going, the only issue with the CTR is that you need to rev it to get it to shift.

From rest a Leaf will probably beat a Veyron for the first few metres. Its amazing what full torque from rest can do. 

[dannyf]

It just has a loan secured against it, so if I default they can apply to a court to take it and sell it.

And all your other possessions, including bank accounts, according to your fellow Europeans.

Good luck with that car loan, as you will need a lot of it down the road.

[tom66]

Let's work out the math.

The car has a £32k price tag, per you.

What's your monthly payments (and for how long) and what's the "agreed upon price"?

If you can figure out that math, you will know what's wrong.

Here...
http://www.nissan-offers.co.uk/new-vehicles/leaf

Monthly payments of £169 x 25
Cash price £21,490.00
Nissan deposit contribution (instant rebate?) of £3,200.00
Customer deposit of £2,844.08 (~equiv £113/month in payments over 25 months)
Total payments £15,445.92 (includes £5,000 gov't grant and both deposits) = £176.07/month actual rate
Final payment (optional) of £11,389.92  - if not paid, Nissan takes vehicle back

Total payment over 25 months is closer to £289/month when deposit accounted for.

All seems to add up fine over here.

[Wilksey]

Maybe on a short distance at the lights, but you wouldn't stand a chance against a CTR once there was a decent amount of space and the thing gets going, the only issue with the CTR is that you need to rev it to get it to shift.

From rest a Leaf will probably beat a Veyron for the first few metres. Its amazing what full torque from rest can do. 

Exactly, though only 200 odd NM of torque, it happens all instantly (or there abouts).

[dannyf]

For the first vew millimeters, you can outrun a Saturn rocket too,

[nctnico]

Actually torque doesn't matter at all. You can have 200Nm of torque but without motion no power is transfered.

Let's do some basic physics: in order to accellerate a certain mass you need to put energy into it. So what counts is power. An electric motor can deliver it's full power over a much wider RPM range than an ICE. When dealing with engines power can be expressed as torque * angular velocity (rad/s). One of the interesting features of this equation is that when the power is constant the torque decreases with increasing RPM. That is totally counter intuitive because suddenly less is more!

To make it more complicated: every car (including EVs) has a gear box which adapts the RPM of the engine so the power transfer to the wheels is as ideal as possible (just like a impedance matching network does). Torque from the engine becomes totally meaningless! The amount of available torque on the wheels in first gear is much higher than in fifth gear and yet you use the fifth gear to drive fast.

Torque has been introduced as a marketing instrument to spout some meaningless numbers during a sales pitch for a car. For example: my own car has a 74kW IC engine and delivers 120Nm of torque at 1500RPM. What does that mean...? It means that the engine of my car only delivers around 18kW at 1500RPM. The maximum power is available at 5500RPM. Try to explain that to someone who has no clue about how an IC engine works. Only 18kW from a 74kW engine    And yet we all know we have to rev the engine to go up a steep hill... 

Actually most ICE cars nowadays have an engine with a flat torque graph. My current car is no exception. Research shows that a flat torque graph gives the unaware driver the feeling that he/she accellerates very fast. The actual accelleration can be made faster by having the engine output peak power at a lower RPM and keeping that power level flat. My previous car had such an engine and it does give an odd feeling when the torque starts to drop off but the RPM is increasing faster because the engine is outputting it's full power.

[dannyf]

Actually torque doesn't matter at all.

Wow!

Let's do some basic physics: in order to accellerate a certain mass you need to put energy into it.

Wow!

Torque from the engine becomes totally meaningless!

Wow!

Actually most ICE cars nowadays have an engine with a flat torque graph.

Wow!

[dannyf]

the price of the highest spec before subsidy in the UK.

So the £32K pricetag you quoted on the Leaf is meaningless - not unexpected.

Nevertheless, a price you pay to live in a socialist society.