I guess I was about 12 years old (1970) when I made a crude drawing of my design for an electric car. At school we had been told that oil was running out and I had been bought a new bicycle as a reward for passing the 11-plus exam, which allowed me to go to Grammer School. My bike was a ‘state of the art’ Raleigh RSW 16 in blue. It had 16 inch white ‘balloon’ tyres, 3 speed twist grip gears, a rear drum brake, and a front ‘dynohub‘ that powered the front and rear lights.
It was the dynohub that impressed me the most as it was a built it generator incorporated into the front wheel hub. This set me thinking – why couldn’t an electric car have something simiilar built into all four wheel hubs in order to generate electricity to help charge the batteries on the move? My next ‘innovation’ was to have solar panels incorporated into the bonnet, roof and boot. Thus my dynohubs, which would actually have been more efficient alternators rather than dynamos, and solar panels would help extend the range of the car, plus the solar panels would also help to re-charge the batteries when it was parked in daylight.
I wish I had kept the drawing, but it’s probaly just as well I didn’t go into the electric car business, as oil stubbornly refused to run out. However, clearly I was 40 years ahead of my time as oil has now reached $126 per barrel and the electric car is now looking much more like a vialble option for journeys of around 40 to 100 miles per day.
Way back in 1899, a French electric car named ‘La Jamais Contente,’ driven by Belgian Camille Jenatzy, reached the then record speed of 105.882 km/h (65.792 mph).
Photo from Wikimedia Commons
For the subsequent 100 years or so, the internal combustion engine has dominated car technology. However, this may be about to change. I’d certainly like to get my hands on a new Mitsubishi i MiEV to replace the small Peugeot 1007 I use on my 40 mile round trip to work and back.
Photo from the GreenCarSite
The i MiEV is due in the UK around 2009/10 at an estimated cost of £15,000. The range will be up to 100 miles on a full charge, with a 0 to 60mph time of just 9.5 seconds and a top speed of 85mph. 10,000 miles should cost about £50 in electricity, compared to around £1000 in petrol for the internal combustion engined version.
For those with around $100,000 to spend, there are sports cars such as the Tesla Roadster available. No doubt as production numbers increase, prices of electric cars will become even more affordable. Personal mobility and climate concerns solved!?
Paul Biggs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Paul, you could have been rich. I also like the idea of a fly-wheel, as are used on trains. On the current selection of small cars, you can get killed too easily in a wreck. My daughter has a 1974 VW Super Beetle, but we only drive it occcasionally for fun. I’ll wait a while before I buy another car without an engine in the front.
When I was a kid, we had overhead wires for the trackless trolleys, which were simply electric buses. It would be great if they had wires along major routes for cars to hook onto for the distance runs. I would use that, but I’m not getting back onto public transportation.
One thing that I’m doing to save money is to work more from home. There is no need for me to go into the office each day. With the price of gas (I paid $3.59/gallon yesterday, and it’s gone up a dime already) my car trips are being better planned or eliminated.
Surely, professors could do tele-seminars in the comfort of their bath robes from their dens and back yards.
Woody – chose the i MiEV because it as based on the petrol version and conforms to modern safety standards. It also has a heater and air con. I hope to buy one.
My wife used to drive 25,000 miles a year on business, but now she uses broadband technology to work from home with only occasional 224 mile round trips to the office.
A heater and a/c!!! Why, it has everything!
I’ll share something funny about my car purchases. Over the past decade, I’ve bought numerous cars for my wife and kids and kept putting myself last. Ah, such sacrifice. Poor dad. But, when I went to buy a car earlier this year, my wife pointed out that my car was running fine, so save the money. What is my car? A 1992 Chevy Lumina with the original engine and transmission and over 350,000 miles! I’ve spent very little on repairs. Chevy must be kicking themselves for making a car last so long. I also wear my shoes until they just about have holes on the bottoms.
If you factor in the cost of a new, fuel-efficient car versus keeping the old, paid-for car, then keeping the old one is a better overall deal economically, even if it’s gas mileage is worse. Plus, I’m saving the world by not having new carbon emissions spewed out just to produce the new car. I’m such a greenie.
Now, I just have to find some 8-track tapes to play.
Smart Car is Safe Car
http://wsbradio.com/news/051408smartcar.html
“WASHINGTON (AP) The smallest car for sale in the U.S. market has been declared safe by the insurance industry. …The institute’s president, Adrian Lund, says all things being equal, “bigger and heavier is always better.” But he adds, among the smallest vehicles, Smart car engineers designed a high level of safety into a very small package. …The micro car is more than 3 feet shorter and nearly 700 pounds lighter than a Mini Cooper. It gets 33 miles per gallon in the city — 41 on the highway.”
There’s a Smart EV:
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/comingsoon/smart-ev.htm
My approach to the personal transport issue is to use my car as little as possible. It’s a V6 and not all that fuel-efficient but I spend about $10 a week on petrol. It gets used only when there’s no alternative.
I commute by bicycle and bus (even in a city where public transport is somewhat below par). I shop using the bike plus a trailer, or on foot.
Our family’s use for a vehicle is for longer, but less frequent, trips such as holidays so I’m about to buy a small diesel hatch. It may well be my last fossil fuel car.
I take your point, Woody, about keeping an old car and this has been my approach in the past but, as my car gets older, the away trips become more stressful!
bikerider – “My approach to the personal transport issue is to use my car as little as possible. It’s a V6 and not all that fuel-efficient but I spend about $10 a week on petrol. It gets used only when there’s no alternative.”
I am the same however I do have a small 4 cylinder car. I use public transport as much as possible.
Though as you all probably know I am a huge fan of electric cars and plug in hybrids. They are not however a panacea. We still have to generate power for them. Trying to make electric cars exactly the same as our IC cars will cause almost as many problems as we have now. We cannot hope to match the energy density of petrol with any battery – it is only the extremely low efficiency (15%) of IC cars that allows battery cars to be even slightly competitive. Petrol has 9kWhr per kilogram whereas the best batteries at the moment have only 0.3kWhr per kg.
The only real point to the range of an IC car for most of us is that it makes trips to the petrol station fewer. In 95% of our driving we do not use the 400+km range of our cars. Battery electric cars of <150km range could do most of our driving without the batteries being too big and heavy. Short range BEVs could be sold with vouchers for car hire for the rare times that we need the range. For people that actually use the long range then we can use Plug in Hybrids.
Again no-one would be forced to do this. Oil prices will continue to skyrocket and I think the the economics of batteries will eventually settle to this sort of arrangement. Approx 60% of cars will be BEVS and 30% will be PHEVS that only rarely use their liquid fuel. There would be a small percentage of applications that have to have a liquid fuel motor.
However even with battery electric cars we should always use then sparingly and take public transport wherever possible. BEVs are not a silver bullet.
Here is a new/old BEV that is just about to be re-released on the American market.
http://www.think.no/
Ford spent a couple of hundred million dollars on it before cancelling it and selling it back to the original Norwegian company for a song. Now they get to buy them back while Ford sinks slowly in the west.
An interesting option for saving gas is one that is used extensively in my county. There are extensive cart paths, which allow most people to stay off of the roads but get where they want with golf carts. The paths are throughout towns and now are being built to connect the towns.
Kids take golf carts to school, people line up in the drive-up window at McDonald’s in them, people go shopping in them, and senior citizens and kids have transportation to get around. The paths also have drawn people who race bicycles professionally. Naturally, people use them for walks, also.
This wasn’t done for any environmental considerations, but it just became a life-style. Now, it can help save gas.
This article is six years old, but it gives an idea of how the idea works.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p01s02-ussc.html
“it is only the extremely low efficiency (15%) of IC cars ”
Why pick the efficiency of an obsolete IC engine?
I thought the average efficiency was 20%!? even taking those inefficient engines into account.
Most cars today having efficiency figures around the 30% + mark, and higher for diesel?
Not trying to be contrary, I like the idea of an electric or hybrid car as well, but there is no need to distort figures to prove a point!
I never thought that much about how electric carts help to save gas, because most of my driving goes further than the range of electric cars. But locally, it’s working and is fun for the families.
Here’s another article that is a little out of date, but it that features electric vehicles and the possibilites they offer.
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/golf-carts.html
Johnathan – “Most cars today having efficiency figures around the 30% + mark, and higher for diesel?”
The theoretical maximum for the Otto cycle is about 30%. In practice however less than half of this is achieved. However I cannot find a study that gives a definitive answer to the practical efficiency of cars. This is the closest however it is not in %.
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
I guess if you think 20% is a better figure then that is OK with me. It really does not make much difference as we still waste a lot of the energy contained in the fuel. Mind you we release all the carbon.
My daily driver is a 1980 Triumph sports car, an orphan, which had been off the road for 3 years, when I paid $1200 for it & another one. It owed me less than $3500, when I registered it about a year later.
Five years later I have done 45,000 Km in it, with no problems. It now owes me about $7000 because I keep buying totally useless things like spotlights, & new carpet for it.
Apart from the odd occasion when my old hooning instincts come to the for, it gives me an average 7.8L/100Km, which annoys my neighbor. You see, he & his wife both drive Toyota Prius, & neither can regularly do much better than that. Then when my wife gets 6.8L/100Km from a “normal” Mazda 2, they have to wonder why the spent silly money, on silly cars.
The day of the electric car may come, but I have a feeling that by the time they can overcome its major problem, the battery, it will have, like steam, been bypassed by a new technology.
I do hope we can find enough copper to wire all these vehicles.
Hasbeen – “You see, he & his wife both drive Toyota Prius, & neither can regularly do much better than that.”
That is a problem. The fuel economy of the Prius is heavily dependant on how you drive it. If you are a lead foot then it is really no better than a normal car.
“Then when my wife gets 6.8L/100Km from a “normal” Mazda 2, they have to wonder why the spent silly money, on silly cars.”
And that is almost the exact reason that I do not have one or I am not planning on buying one until it is a plug in. My next car will be a Honda Jazz or Hyundai Getz that get about 5.9L/100km and cost about $12 000. For the amount I drive the $40 000 cost of a Prius that gets 4.4L/100km cannot be justified even if I had it. However I am planning on keeping my Pyzar at least for another 2 years (I have had it for 7) as it is going perfectly and owes me nothing and is reasonably fuel efficient.
However the Prius is not silly. It is pioneering technologies in real world driving conditions and accumulating data that will be invaluable in the years to come. For people that can afford it and can adjust their driving styles it can be significantly more economical especially in stop start traffic.
The plug in version however, if it ever arrives, I will consider buying as my normal driving could be done on the battery alone.
Ender,
Engines 101,
At the bottom is an example how to calculate the efficiency.
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_A2/options/Module_7/Topic_4/internal_combustion_engines.htm
Johnathan – Thanks for the link. However not knowing the variables does not help me with the calculations. If I find some I will post the results.
Ender, the Prius, & its Honda mate were part of an attempt to comply with a Californian law that never happened. It was stopped when the US manufacturers told them to “stick” their market. That was after they had wasted millions.
Toyota & Honda both decided there were enough dills in the world for them to go ahead & use some of their research to build these things.
They were right, there are lots of dills, particularly in government offices, & the worst, fortunately for us, are in California. These things were not their first success in inflecting bl@@dy awful cars on their population, & sometimes, on the rest of us.
With my Triumph for example, they demanded lower emissions. Triumph, like the other manufactures had to drastically modify their engines to comply, resulting in 30% less power, but they passed the emission test. They also gave reduced milage per gallon.
Worse, with such low power, everyone had to drive around in third & fourth gears, burning even more fuel. Californians were lucky to get 25 MPG, against the 36 MPG I get from a “normal” Triumph. Total emissions were much higher, but the bureaucrats didn’t notice. They were too busy complementing eachother.
Makes you think of our airport roundabout, doesn’t it?
California & Brisbane have quite a few similarities. Both want to import everyone eles’s water, & send them city polution, by importing their electricity, Brisbane from our country towns, & LA from interstate.
What people should do is make their own transport choices, based on their own needs rather than someone else’s. Here in the UK, public transport is pretty much full at peak times – it’s also expensive and not particularly pleasant. To remove 5% of car journeys from UK roads would require a 50% increase in public transport capacity that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.
We’re not short of the ability to generate sufficient electricity even without fossil fuels -we just lack the politcal will to do it.
Given the quick charge ability of some elelctric cars, I could envisage a 10 minute stop at motorway service stations, for example, where charging points are installed, in order to recharge before continuing the journey.
Looking at the ‘life cycle emissions’of a vehicle gives a true picture of the actual lifetime CO2 emissions, rather than just looking at emissions from fuel – the Toyota Prius seems to have been found wanting in this respect and fuel consumption is likely to be little more than 40mpg:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/06/30/nosplit/mfprius30.xml
Ender, you might have to up the efficiency numbers for IC engines as better than 50% is achievable – see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C
A bit big for your van yet though
Liquid Hydrogen has an ‘energy density’ of about 10% compared to over 30% for petrol and diesel. Compressed gaseous hydrogen has an energy density of less than 5%. Ethanol has a energy density of about 22%. For batteries it is about 3%. Nothing currently beats petrol/diesel.
Energy density is the energy stored in a given volume of the fuel. A higher volume-energy density means that less space in the vehicle is taken up by the fuel, so the fuel tank or battery can be smaller, reducing vehicle size and weight or offering more usable space.
1960 was the era of tiny cars. I remember the first Mazda for sale in a grocery store in Hamilton, Bris. and thinking, “Why would you name a car after a light bulb”?
It was smaller than my Goggomobil.
There was the front opening Isetta, the Messerschmit, the Berkley, the chain drive Honda and many ors.
The Mini was a medium size car!
The reason they had so many competitions to see how many could fit was because so many could.
But tiny cars were and are actively safe, you can dodge accidents and situations.
The problem today is the size of people.
The problem is the size of people? Gosh, let’s go back to the size of clothes they wore in the 16th century. Humans do get larger as food supplies and medicine improve.
If I had a choice of a small car to “dodge accidents” or a large car to “survive accidents in case I couldn’t dodge them or accelerate with a larger engine to avoid them,” I’ll prefer the large car.
There’s a point of compromise between small cars for fuel efficiency and large cars for safety and convenience.
Let’s just go back to the habits we had 40 years ago when we could get 24 into a mini.
Get hit by a 38 wheeler in a freeway pileup and it probably won’t matter what you’re driving.
On percentages the small car wins if you’re an alert, careful driver.
But I must admit, I’m a sucker for my V12.
Woody – “There’s a point of compromise between small cars for fuel efficiency and large cars for safety and convenience.”
Large cars are not necessarily safer than small cars. It is the comparative size of the car fleet that counts. If your idea was true, that large cars are safer, then the US, with its on average larger car fleet, should have less road deaths. However that is not the case. If you look at the per capita road death statistics:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/pdf/Int_comp_05.pdf
the USA has 14.7 road deaths per 100 000 people whereas Australia has 8. There is no clear cut correlation between car fleet size and road deaths. There are so many other factors like road conditions, seat belts, air bags, driver training etc that come before vehicle size.
However the comparitive size I think does make a difference. In Australia where cars are on average smaller we do not have more deaths than the USA however if you drive a small car in the USA there is a greater chance that you will be involved in an accident with a much much larger car and you will probably come off second best. The point is that it is not that small cars are inherently unsafe, it is the fact that to be safe they need to drive with others that are more the same size.
In the USA as the huge SUVS are driven off the road by high oil prices it will become safer and safer to drive smaller cars as the average car size drops over time.
Sometimes the large car safety is an illusion anyway. Modern cars are designed to crumple absorbing the impact. While they are written off in an accident, usually the extremely strong passenger safety cage is intact with the occupents shaken and injured yes but alive in their airbags and seatbelts. Truck chassis SUVs are rigid and tall. They suffer more single vehicle roll overs than passenger cars. Also the rigid chassis exposed the occupents to higher G forces than an crumpling passenger car. There are cases of accident victims sitting in an almost undamaged car, virtually without a scratch on them bleeding out internally from ruptured internal organs from stopping too suddenly in the impact.
In Australia I can drive my small Pyzar quite safely and have done so for the last 7 years. In the 30+ years that I have driven for I have never had a huge SUV. In time you in the USA will be able to do the same just as safely (or not) as I do.
Paul,
“Given the quick charge ability of some elelctric cars, I could envisage a 10 minute stop at motorway service stations, for example, where charging points are installed, in order to recharge before continuing the journey.”
‘The Back Story’ in ITEE Spectrum Magazine (Nov 2007) talks about claimed 10 minute charging saying that such a battery would require half a megawatt of electricity – ‘a charging station with several cars plugged in would require more than your typical power line’.
Interesting Telegraph article on hybrids – the writer copped a lot of flak. I suppose if you’ve invested that much to become ‘green’ you’re bound to be a bit defensive.
On the safety of small cars, all the vehicles I’ve looked at meet Euro 4- or 5-star ratings.
bikerider – “‘The Back Story’ in ITEE Spectrum Magazine (Nov 2007) talks about claimed 10 minute charging saying that such a battery would require half a megawatt of electricity – ‘a charging station with several cars plugged in would require more than your typical power line’.”
If a car has a 50kWhr battery then this can deliver 50kW in one hour or 300kw in 10 mins. Charging is just the same so with losses a charger to charge a 50kWhr battery could use 400kW for 10 minutes which is close to half a megawatt. However lets put this in perspective. A car with 330hp puts out close to one quarter of a megawatt.
Light shows for bands can draw a megawatt for hours. Such things are not unprecedented.
Also the it is quite likely that the only real time you need a fast charge is when your batteries are nearly flat and you need to get home. In which case a 10 minute charge to quarter full would be far less taxing and get the driver home.
All these details need to be worked out.
Ender,
“Light shows for bands can draw a megawatt for hours. Such things are not unprecedented.”
What is unprecedented is hundreds of bands plugging into the grid at the same time – the capacity required to deal with this would be enormous.
“All these details need to be worked out.” Quite right and one way might be to use capacitors to provide the rapid charge into the vehicle, having themselves been charged over a longer timespan. Kinda like the way a Xenon stroboscope works.
bikerider – “What is unprecedented is hundreds of bands plugging into the grid at the same time”
Yes maybe however remember the cars themselves will be smart and interact with the grid. You will be able to set the parameters for the fast charge via a web page interface and the car can negotiate with the grid for the fastest charge possible at the time or wait until it can charge. With overnight charging at home available there will be less reason to have to fast charge – I see it as emergency only as you would be paying a fee for the fast charge whereas at home it would be just the cost of the electricity. As it would be probably fee based people would, I think, be more inclined just to take on enough to get home and no more. You cannot do this with fossil fuels as you cannot fuel at home (unless you have a drum of cheap petrol).
Capacitors will work however I think that it would be better to let the cars and the grid work out the best solution.
Ender
“Light shows for bands can draw a megawatt for hours”
You realise how big a number 1MW is?
The average household supply is limited to less
than 20 KW (usually 10) total, by the supply authority (and by wiring).
You are talking about power enough for 50 000, households here, and the generators at the Latrobe Vally are of the 200+ MW type! (of course there are many of them)
Sorry too many zeros in households!
“You are talking about power enough for 50 000, households here”
Should read 50!
In reality it never can happen, not many homes use this amount of energy even if wired for 3 phase.
1MW is an awful lot of power, let’s say the band has access to 3 phase 415V you are still talking about nearly 800 Amp. That is a lot of amps and heavy wiring needed.
MIRA Debuts “Plugless Plug-In Hybrid”TM.
Automotive designers MIRA have unveiled a retro-fit hybrid conversion that unlocks the potential to save 61% on fuel costs and lower tailpipe emissions by 39% without designing a new car.
The hybrid conversion with a novel removable battery pack upgrades existing vehicles to the technology some concept cars are showcasing at this year’s motor shows. A technology demonstrator has been built around a popular b-segment car to show the potential of the technology. As a “plug-in hybrid” the vehicle can charge its batteries by running its engine or by plugging into the mains. Plug-in hybrids are at the vanguard of new vehicle design; yet MIRA has taken the idea one step further to make the concept far more practical and useful for motorists.
As a concept evaluation tool the Hybrid 4 wheel drive Vehicle (H4V) was never destined for public sale, so the project received support through the Energy Saving Trust’s Low Carbon R&D programme which is funded by the Department for Transport.
Derek Charters, MIRA’s Advanced Powertrain Manager explains the rationale behind the project: “Despite advances in powertrain technology you can still obtain electricity from your domestic provider far cheaper and greener than you can produce it via an automotive combustion engine, so „plug-in‟ hybrids make sense. With this project we‟ve removed the primary limitation of the „plug-in hybrid‟ concept by allowing the battery pack to come to the mains, rather than having to park right next to a socket …which is more than a little difficult if you live in a terraced house or flat.”
The H4V project was conceived to show just what’s possible with a regular car and some specialist knowledge. Derek explains further: “MIRA‟s hybrid vision is to lower tailpipe emissions and deliver better fuel efficiency than an equivalent diesel, at a diesel level „on-cost1‟; whilst delivering driver delight features such as an EV mode and “two-pedal” town driving.”
This is precisely what MIRA have done with H4V. The demonstrator vehicle is based on the popular Skoda Fabia, instantly differentiating itself from the standard model by the unique H4V badge and aerodynamic modifications. The 50/50 hybrid derives power jointly from a 60Kw petrol engine at the front and two 35KW inboard motors powering the rear wheels though MIRA’s clever e-differential. Overall, the H4V differentiates itself from the standard model by returning 64mpg2, as measured on the EU drive cycle. Whilst general levels of performance, such as top speed and acceleration are similar to standard.
The car boasts a battery pack arranged into 3 portable cassettes, each capable of storing 30KW. These storage units could also power external devices, including a range of lifestyle accessory items. The very latest nano-particle technology has been applied to increase the energy density of the already ‘high-tech’ Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries. This ensures the energy pack is as lightweight and compact as possible, whilst delivering superior voltage stability over the charge range. The same Li-Ion Phosphate battery technology is evident in the separate low voltage circuit used to start the engine, insuring the car’s impeccable ‘lead free’ green credentials.
The battery pack in one of the key ingredients of a modern hybrid. With so much effort and expense being invested in the battery pack it makes sense to use it in as many places as possible, not just the car itself. The ultimate aim of the project team is to see the power pack transferred from the car into a range of other devices, which could include camping equipment for SUV variants, or redeployed to power electric jet skis or quad bikes.
Despite the impressively green credentials, headline grabbing hyper-economic mpg figures were never the aim for H4V – to do that the team would logically select a more frugal base vehicle. The selection of the base car is largely unimportant, as far as the technology is concerned; so long as the donor vehicle’s specification included modern features, such as a throttle by-wire system and some other basics, to avoid duplicating unnecessary workload. The project code of H4V, standing simply for ‘a’ Hybrid 4wd Vehicle re-enforces the generic nature of the upgrade.
A 39% improvement is beyond what most traditional hybridisation systems would normally deliver, so MIRA have retuned the engine and created a custom calibration that works in harmony with the electrically driven axel to deliver additional synergies beyond the simple fuel savings possible via ‘torque-neutral’ hybridisation schemes.
A regenerative braking system makes its debut on a MIRA hybrid. Derek explains why: “The viability of such systems requires careful analysis to ensure that the mass penalty is outweighed by the energy recovery potential. The technology has now matured to deliver a tangible economy benefit, not just a „feature‟ for the marketers.”
The frugal powertrain is supported by a new aero pack, further reducing drag by 8% to achieve a Cd of just 0.299. Aerodynamics makes only a small contribution to EU drive cycle calculations, due to the cycle’s overall low speed character, so it’s often marginalised by those wishing to bias development towards attributes that make the most difference at low speed. Thankfully, MIRA’s approach goes some way to deliver a vehicle that lives up to consumer expectations on real roads.
1 The typical on-cost for a diesel powertrain is approximately £2000.
2 64mpg combined cycle – a 61% improvement relative to the standard model. [Standard model 39mpg combined.]
April ’08
Johnathan – “You realise how big a number 1MW is?”
Sure. Take a 500 can light show with the average lights being 2kW. Some of the blinders are 4kW. Add in the big screens and the sound system and this can easily be 1MW.
The large bands get special wiring if there is not enough from the venue. Most large venues have multiple 3 phase power feeds – even when I did it with small local bands I had a 3 phase lighting controller.
Ender
Being a classical music fan, I take your word for it!
Never realised, since I never been to a pop concert.
Ender, people who can afford the Humvees and large SUVs don’t care about gas prices. Those vehicles will continue to be out there hunting small cars and motorcycles.
On cars vs. SUVs, my daughter rear-ended an SUV. It totaled my Volvo, which is supposed to be very safe and sturdy, but it only required that the rear bumper be replaced on the SUV.
Woody – “Ender, people who can afford the Humvees and large SUVs don’t care about gas prices.”
Yes but on average as the wannabe Hummer drivers that cannot really afford them drop off the list then the car fleet size will drop eventually.
“It totaled my Volvo, which is supposed to be very safe and sturdy, but it only required that the rear bumper be replaced on the SUV.”
Because being sturdy is not the right way to avoid injury – crumpling is. Who cares about a car? If it is insured it can be replaced.
The SUV owner could be in a bad accident and die bleeding out from internal injury while the ‘written off’ Volvo’s occupants are OK in their sturdy safety cell.