I think you misunderstood what i am saying. It is more expensive to run a truck than a regular car. I didn't say anything about electric cars. I'm not entirely convinced by them either. My take is that people should reduce how much energy they use altogether..not simply change the form they use it in.

Well sure, I think it goes without saying that we should all try to reduce the amount of energy we consume...

---

I suspect that argument is pretty valid where the SUV is concerned, but I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Heh. It may be a closer ratio than ya think....but I'll give you that one....lol

I actually find it kind of bizarre that we are at odds on this issue, so let me make sure I've got this straight.

Now I realize that the 2004 numbers for Ford don't apply across the board to all makes and models, but you're saying that over 3/4 of the trucks and SUV's on the road have never been utilized for work, even if it's moving a couch or hauling off yard waste...something that cannot be done in a car?

I dunno about " at odds ", but I do disagree to some extent.

I'm not saying that they have " never " been used for some sort of work, but I am saying that when someone moves a couch, or puts groceries in the back, or hauled a bit of garbage, that doesn't exactly qualify as being as much work as, say, a contractor would be doing with it. I just don't feel that moving your ( or someone else's ) couch a couple of times makes the vehicle a " work " vehicle.

Think about this. How many of those " Sport Utility Vehicles " that were designed for off road use, have ever seen anything but paved roads? How many F 150's have carried nothing heavier than a load of groceries?? It may not be the majority of them, but I would be willing to bet that the number is pretty high.

That being said, there are other reasons ( especially in the area I live and others like it ) for owning a truck. But, around here it's mainly for working purposes and weather ( during the Winter having 4WD can sometimes be a necessity ).

Oh....as far as " can't be done in a car "...during my last move....I got everything I own either in or on my Saturn. A few more trips than I would have done if I had owned a truck of some sort, but it can be done. I didn't have to spend 30 grand on an F150 to move my couch. Didn't even have to rent a U Haul....lol

lol

Well I'm assuming you know it's illegal to strap an 8 foot mattress on top of a 6 foot vehicle, but aside from that, with the price of gas, are you sure that was the cheaper solution?

a 10' U-haul truck (393 cu. ft.) for 12 hours in the same city (returned to purchase location) rents for 19.95 plus $0.49 per mile.

I only moved 3 mils. So renting a U Haul wasn't as cheap as that may sound. It took me three trips with my Saturn at 35 mpg. Since I am not very good with math, my numbers are probably off....but 18 miles for all 3 trips with my stuff was about a half gallon of gas. Way cheaper than the U Haul... :-)

I don't know about the 8 foot mattress on top of the car being illegal here. It might be, but they won't usually say anything if you have stuff properly strapped down.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

.....
I'll have to do a little research into this because I don't know specifically how much energy is required to move 1 pound (and I'm running a bit late right now). For instance, if you half the tesla's battery weight, you still have a car weighing over 2100 pounds.

Will half the battery supply still provide half the performance even though the total weight didn't drop by half???

It would probably accelerate a bit quicker but with half the batteries the main change in performance would be instead of a 220 mile range it would become a 110 mile range between chargings. Because of the way the batteries are wired the voltage remains the same but the amp hours are halved.

---

.....
I'll have to do a little research into this because I don't know specifically how much energy is required to move 1 pound (and I'm running a bit late right now). For instance, if you half the tesla's battery weight, you still have a car weighing over 2100 pounds.

Will half the battery supply still provide half the performance even though the total weight didn't drop by half???

It would probably accelerate a bit quicker but with half the batteries the main change in performance would be instead of a 220 mile range it would become a 110 mile range between chargings. Because of the way the batteries are wired the voltage remains the same but the amp hours are halved.

Actually the Tesla utilizes 1 battery with 6831 individual cells rather than multiple batteries. The advantage here is that if you lose 3 cells, there's no significant power loss whereas losing 3 cells in a conventional car battery results in a 50% volt reduction. The disadvantage...well, you can't simply take one of the six batteries out of the system in order to reduce the weight and/or run-time. You must remove individual cells which will result in a lower output.

---

Now I realize that doesn't mean half the folks buying Fords are actually "working" from their vehicle, but it's a safe bet the majority of those sales WERE to people who need/want standard features not available on cars....that, generally speaking, is increased torque and a trailer hitch for towing and a bed/increased cargo area for hauling.

There's a difference between wanting and needing.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Ummmm....look around in a major city and take a look at how many SUVs are seen. Then take a guess at how many of them get used to " tow a trailer " or " hauling " much of anything except someone's fat arse.

Sorry BSR, it may be true in the area you live in that most of those vehicles get used for " work ", but I would be willing to bet that the majority of them sold in this country were sold based on the " Mine's bigger than yours " mentality. That whole " Keeping up with the Joneses " thing is what sold a whole lot of those nice big 15 mpg Expeditions and F 150s.

Well, that's the part I was censoring myself on: "Keeping up with the Joneses," a.k.a. Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class."

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The Claims of [url=http://www.aptera.com]Aptera[/url}

Typ-1 EV
120 Miles on a charge.
Max speed 90 MPH
a few hours of recharging time on 120V.
$26900.

Typ-1 Hybrid
60 miles on a charge
Max speed 90 MPH
Upside of 200 MPG (not quite certain how far on the upside) after the batteries are discharged.
a few hour of recharging time on 120V.
$29900.

Production cars available fall 2008.
They are taking deposits.

Carbon fiber body with a steel roll cage. Very light weight

I don't know how well it is going to do on the snow.

This goes back to the diversification issue.
Of course, plenty of people will need a car that can perform well in the snow.
Then again, my relatives that have moved to Virginia on a rare occasion note how Virginian drivers forget how to drive in snow (precisely because they deal with it so rarely).

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Where else would they put their groceries, in the glove box? ;)

I manage to fit all my groceries in the back of my Volkswagen Golf..in fact those things are very roomy and you would be surprised at the things I have managed to haul in the back of that. Most people simply do not need an SUV.

You'd be surprised what one can carry without any vehicle at all.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I suspect that argument is pretty valid where the SUV is concerned, but I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Heh. It may be a closer ratio than ya think....but I'll give you that one....lol

I actually find it kind of bizarre that we are at odds on this issue, so let me make sure I've got this straight.

Now I realize that the 2004 numbers for Ford don't apply across the board to all makes and models, but you're saying that over 3/4 of the trucks and SUV's on the road have never been utilized for work, even if it's moving a couch or hauling off yard waste...something that cannot be done in a car?

Referring to the bolded part, it's called choosing what is right, not who is right.
As to your last sentence, should the question be about never using the vehicle that way versus how frequently or infrequently? Suppose such a vehicle was used that waqy just once or twice in the entire time it was owned.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Now I realize that doesn't mean half the folks buying Fords are actually "working" from their vehicle, but it's a safe bet the majority of those sales WERE to people who need/want standard features not available on cars....that, generally speaking, is increased torque and a trailer hitch for towing and a bed/increased cargo area for hauling.

There's a difference between wanting and needing.

Agreed, but one could use that argument to say all forms of powered mechanical transportation are unneeded thanks to domesticated animals and our own two feet. A horse and buggy picks up groceries just as well as a car and produces fertilizer instead of carbon monoxide.

---

You could still have your SUV for hauling, long vacations with your six kids, dragging your ski-boat to the lake or for schlepping your kids softball team to a game 50 miles away.

A family with six kids likely does need an SUV. Then again, what in the world are they thinking, have six kids in this day and age?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I suspect that argument is pretty valid where the SUV is concerned, but I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Heh. It may be a closer ratio than ya think....but I'll give you that one....lol

I actually find it kind of bizarre that we are at odds on this issue, so let me make sure I've got this straight.

Now I realize that the 2004 numbers for Ford don't apply across the board to all makes and models, but you're saying that over 3/4 of the trucks and SUV's on the road have never been utilized for work, even if it's moving a couch or hauling off yard waste...something that cannot be done in a car?

I dunno about " at odds ", but I do disagree to some extent.

I'm not saying that they have " never " been used for some sort of work, but I am saying that when someone moves a couch, or puts groceries in the back, or hauled a bit of garbage, that doesn't exactly qualify as being as much work as, say, a contractor would be doing with it. I just don't feel that moving your ( or someone else's ) couch a couple of times makes the vehicle a " work " vehicle.

Think about this. How many of those " Sport Utility Vehicles " that were designed for off road use, have ever seen anything but paved roads? How many F 150's have carried nothing heavier than a load of groceries?? It may not be the majority of them, but I would be willing to bet that the number is pretty high.

That being said, there are other reasons ( especially in the area I live and others like it ) for owning a truck. But, around here it's mainly for working purposes and weather ( during the Winter having 4WD can sometimes be a necessity ).

Oh....as far as " can't be done in a car "...during my last move....I got everything I own either in or on my Saturn. A few more trips than I would have done if I had owned a truck of some sort, but it can be done. I didn't have to spend 30 grand on an F150 to move my couch. Didn't even have to rent a U Haul....lol

Heck, I even fit in that Saturn once! :)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I suspect that argument is pretty valid where the SUV is concerned, but I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Heh. It may be a closer ratio than ya think....but I'll give you that one....lol

I actually find it kind of bizarre that we are at odds on this issue, so let me make sure I've got this straight.

Now I realize that the 2004 numbers for Ford don't apply across the board to all makes and models, but you're saying that over 3/4 of the trucks and SUV's on the road have never been utilized for work, even if it's moving a couch or hauling off yard waste...something that cannot be done in a car?

Referring to the bolded part, it's called choosing what is right, not who is right.
As to your last sentence, should the question be about never using the vehicle that way versus how frequently or infrequently? Suppose such a vehicle was used that waqy just once or twice in the entire time it was owned.

My argument isn't against the use of electric vehicles. I'm saying they cannot totally replace fossil fuel burning vehicles...at least based on the current technology. If you need performance an electric vehicle cannot deliver, then it doesn't matter how often you need it...

---

I suspect that argument is pretty valid where the SUV is concerned, but I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Heh. It may be a closer ratio than ya think....but I'll give you that one....lol

I actually find it kind of bizarre that we are at odds on this issue, so let me make sure I've got this straight.

Now I realize that the 2004 numbers for Ford don't apply across the board to all makes and models, but you're saying that over 3/4 of the trucks and SUV's on the road have never been utilized for work, even if it's moving a couch or hauling off yard waste...something that cannot be done in a car?

Referring to the bolded part, it's called choosing what is right, not who is right.
As to your last sentence, should the question be about never using the vehicle that way versus how frequently or infrequently? Suppose such a vehicle was used that waqy just once or twice in the entire time it was owned.

My argument isn't against the use of electric vehicles. I'm saying they cannot totally replace fossil fuel burning vehicles...at least based on the current technology. If you need performance an electric vehicle cannot deliver, then it doesn't matter how often you need it...

In this particular case, we were discussing size of vehicles, regardless of how the vehicles are powered.
On the other hand, I think a number of us are agreeing on a key point: multiple solutions are needed.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Tesla Motors: Affordable Electric Cars are Coming

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/tesla_motors_ev.php

---

Question:

Does anyone have any information that shows how much fossil fuels have to be burned in order to produce the electricity stored in your electric car battery? Would be interesting to see if it really IS better for the environment. /


Answer: The answer could be none --we could run our 20% nuclear and 10% other--hydro, geothermal, wind--- (not solar) at night to fuel some electric cars. Gasoline is a fossil fuel that now costs $33 + per million BTU's and is burned in an engine that is only 30% efficient.

Coal is maybe 1/10 th the raw cost per BTU and produces electricity at maybe 40% efficiency at the plug and is used in a motor that is around 90% efficient. (trying to compare apples with apples puts electricity at 1/2 to 2/3 the consumer's cost of gasoline at the end point) The end price of getting to work could be cut to 20% of the cost of doing it with gasoline.(higher efficiency of engine plus lower cost to start with for raw energy) Of course you would have to buy an electric vehicle --there goes your savings--but 5 years from now when your SUV claps out after 150,000 miles you could buy one then. By then we will have started on more nuclear plants.
Not a solution for everyone but beats walking if Gasoline keeps going up in price.

Tesla claims their battery pack is only good for 100,000 miles.

While I am in favor of alternative modes of transportation, I just don't see a significantly more expensive vehicle that comes with a significantly shorter lifespan as being a viable alternative for anyone but the wealthy. I mean even at half the cost, you're still talking about a $54K car.

If we can't do it in 5 years through lack of vision and National will then we should give the task to the Chinese or Indians who have massive numbers of engineers and a motivation of their own to produce a cheap form of transportation for their emerging middle classes.

Looking at the Tesla battery it is a collection of hundreds of small 4.15 volt cells. I am sure that it is expensive and requires lots of protective electronic intelligence. What if that structure could be produced as a single unit. I bet we could move in this direction in a few years.

You could still have your SUV for hauling, long vacations with your six kids, dragging your ski-boat to the lake or for schlepping your kids softball team to a game 50 miles away.

A family with six kids likely does need an SUV. Then again, what in the world are they thinking, have six kids in this day and age?

Yeah..it sounds like they needed contraception advice more than they needed an SUV.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I doubt the majority of truck owners have never hauled anything in the back of their truck.

Where else would they put their groceries, in the glove box? ;)

I manage to fit all my groceries in the back of my Volkswagen Golf..in fact those things are very roomy and you would be surprised at the things I have managed to haul in the back of that. Most people simply do not need an SUV.

You'd be surprised what one can carry without any vehicle at all.

Or a bike. I've done my weekly shop on a bike before...and it keeps you fit.

Handle basket, front panniers, rear panniers, basket on the back and seat for small child on the cross bar. You can carry a weeks worth of groceries easy. :)

..or you can get a trailer for you bike too.

http://www.bikesandtrailers.com/

---

Reality Internet Personality

Tesla Motors: Affordable Electric Cars are Coming

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/tesla_motors_ev.php

Nice. But until they can come up with one for around or under 20k...I won't be buying one anytime soon.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Or a bike. I've done my weekly shop on a bike before...and it keeps you fit.

Just what every man in the 'prime of his life' wants... a pedal bike... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .