Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Pressurized Air Car?

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 14:26:12

Frank, because no one ever made much money helping people save money. You might as well as why we don't have decent manufactured BEVs or velomobiles...
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 15:55:03

yesplease wrote:Frank, because no one ever made much money helping people save money. You might as well as why we don't have decent manufactured BEVs or velomobiles...

Saving manufacturers money is the same thing as making them money. If you save them a dollar in manufacturing a product how is that different from selling the product for a dollar more?
The reason we don't have BEV's is another story all together, mainly the lack of real demand until very recently.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 15:59:19

yesplease wrote:Since the EV version will probably cost more as well, either electricity is gonna have to get really expensive, or batteries really cheap, or both to a lesser extent, for a BEV to be cheaper than a compressed air/liquid fuel vehicle.

I do expect electricity costs to increase, how can it not? I'm not arguing that an EV is now cost competitive with an ICE, just the Air version of the Aircar. Remember the cost of the aircar has to include the cost of the air compressor, just as an EV includes the cost of it's charger.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 16:39:11

Frank wrote:If this is such a wonderful idea then why aren't there thousands of them running around? Is there a Youtube video of one? Is there a forum where we can ask questions to anyone who's ever used one? Just because someone's trying to develop an idea doesn't mean it's practical and efficient! After all we already know how to compress air, how to store it and how to make an air motor. Compressed air is EVERYWHERE! How could it be so hard?! I'm not from Missouri - but show me!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSwlTqaM1oA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0 ... re=related

Did you read the Oil Drum interview I posted?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 16:51:51

JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:Frank, because no one ever made much money helping people save money. You might as well as why we don't have decent manufactured BEVs or velomobiles...
Saving manufacturers money is the same thing as making them money. If you save them a dollar in manufacturing a product how is that different from selling the product for a dollar more?
Because manufacturers make money off of things besides sales costs, such as repairs. In this case having a vehicle that's cheaper to operate, be it a BEV or air car, would result in less profit from repair work and sales to replace vehicles that become too expensive to repair. In the larger picture, financial firms make money off of synergistic effects, such as auto manufacturers selling inefficient cars, which drives up the price of oil. Even if they own half of domestic auto manufacturing, and loose twenty billion or so per year, if, due to high gas/oil demand from the domestic manufacturer's inefficient vehicle, the oil companies they own half of start reporting profits three times what the auto companies lost, they'll still make billions.

JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:Since the EV version will probably cost more as well, either electricity is gonna have to get really expensive, or batteries really cheap, or both to a lesser extent, for a BEV to be cheaper than a compressed air/liquid fuel vehicle.
I do expect electricity costs to increase, how can it not?
Well, considering I used 20 cents/kWh as my basis for comparison, electricity rates have to increase substantially just to catch up with my comparison, and increase beyond that to make a BEV economically comparable to a compressed air vehicle.

JRP3 wrote:I'm not arguing that an EV is now cost competitive with an ICE, just the Air version of the Aircar. Remember the cost of the aircar has to include the cost of the air compressor, just as an EV includes the cost of it's charger.
IMO, you should be arguing that a new EV is cost competitive with an ICE, because they are. It's compressed air vehicles that they aren't cost competitive with due to the low cost of electricity compared to the high cost of batteries. Air compressors are pretty cheap. A company who wants to offer compressed air refills may spring for a large rotary compressor in order to double efficiency, but those that come with the car are probably going to be in the 7+% efficient range, compared to 15% at a large station. Like I said before, even if my efficiency figures for air compression compared to battery charging were off, I included a safety net by doubling electricity prices.

If you have information about batteries that will last just as long as current versions for a third of the cost and aren't limited by material availability, or some compelling information about how electricity rates on average will double or triple, please, bring it to the table.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 20:55:10

yesplease wrote:Because manufacturers make money off of things besides sales costs, such as repairs. In this case having a vehicle that's cheaper to operate, be it a BEV or air car, would result in less profit from repair work and sales to replace vehicles that become too expensive to repair.

That has nothing to do with what Frank was talking about. He was pointing out industries' use of air power in manufacturing, where the most efficient process would save them money, and how after many years they have not been able to increase the efficiency of air power. This has nothing to do with after sale repairs or services.
IMO, you should be arguing that a new EV is cost competitive with an ICE, because they are. It's compressed air vehicles that they aren't cost competitive with due to the low cost of electricity compared to the high cost of batteries. Air compressors are pretty cheap.
Where are your figures for the actual purchase price of the aircar? It's all conjecture at this point since they aren't yet selling any. Carbon fiber tanks and aluminum frames aren't cheap to make. Those tanks probably cost more than a set of batteries, maybe more than 2 sets.
The actual demonstrated performance of an Aircar, not the claimed but the actual, can be easily met with a small electric motor and 72 volts of batteries. Just because they say "it will have a 200km range and 110kph speed" doesn't make it so.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 12 Feb 2008, 23:36:43

JRP3 wrote:That has nothing to do with what Frank was talking about. He was pointing out industries' use of air power in manufacturing, where the most efficient process would save them money, and how after many years they have not been able to increase the efficiency of air power. This has nothing to do with after sale repairs or services.
Frank never mentioned anything about industries' use of air power in manufacturing, they said...
Frank wrote:If this is such a wonderful idea then why aren't there thousands of them running around? Is there a Youtube video of one? Is there a forum where we can ask questions to anyone who's ever used one? Just because someone's trying to develop an idea doesn't mean it's practical and efficient! After all we already know how to compress air, how to store it and how to make an air motor. Compressed air is EVERYWHERE! How could it be so hard?! I'm not from Missouri - but show me!



JRP3 wrote:Where are your figures for the actual purchase price of the aircar? It's all conjecture at this point since they aren't yet selling any.
I assumed the same glider for both. If you read my post you may have noticed I used the same small city car for the comparison. Based on that the difference in price will be between the electric motor/inverter/charger/batteries and air car engine/tank. If you have evidence that the electric drivetrain/batteries will cost so much more than the engine/air tank that it will wipe out any difference in the costs of battery replacement please link them.
JRP3 wrote:Those tanks probably cost more than a set of batteries, maybe more than 2 sets.
Source?
JRP3 wrote:The actual demonstrated performance of an Aircar, not the claimed but the actual, can be easily met with a small electric motor and 72 volts of batteries. Just because they say "it will have a 200km range and 110kph speed" doesn't make it so.
What actual demonstrated performance? I wasn't aware they had made any commercially available units. Do you have a source?
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 00:38:09

yesplease wrote:Frank never mentioned anything about industries' use of air power in manufacturing

Yes, it was actually WisJim who said:
The reason that I mentioned the industrial uses of compressed air, and its inefficiency, is that increasing efficiency of compressed air production and use is, and has been for decades, a major concern and focus of industry. They save money and increase profits by increasing compressed air efficiency, and they are doing the best they can already.
When you said there is no profit in saving money I thought you were referring to that.
What actual demonstrated performance? I wasn't aware they had made any commercially available units. Do you have a source?

The demonstrated performance in various videos of the car. The car can barely accelerate and drives around the block or so. Therefore any comparison about the performance and cost of the aircar is pure speculation, so I don't understand what your comparison between the aircar and a BEV is based on.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 00:42:32

If you're concerned about hypothetical comparisons why are you even discussing these two? Neither a city car based on air storage or electrical storage has been released, so in any case it's hypothetical.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Compressed air car article - Gizmag

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 10:35:32

Five-seat concept car runs on air

An engineer has promised that within a year he'll start selling a car that runs on compressed air, producing no emissions at all in town.

The OneCAT will be a five-seater with a glass fibre body, weighing just 350kg and could cost just over £2,500($5,000) It will be driven by compressed air stored in carbon-fibre tanks built into the chassis.

The tanks can be filled with air from a compressor in just three minutes - much quicker than a battery car.

Alternatively, it can be plugged into the mains for four hours and an on-board compressor will do the job.


Tata is the only big firm he'll license to sell the car - and they are limited to India. For the rest of the world he hopes to persuade hundreds of investors to set up their own factories, making the car from 80% locally-sourced materials.

He wants each local factory to sell its own cars to cut out the middle man and he aims for 1% of global sales - about 680,000 per year.


BBC
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 10:48:34

There are hundreds of NEV's and converted ICE's out there that can provide real world EV data. Most ICE conversions are done for less than $10 grand leaving money left over for a replacement battery pack and still costing less than the projected $15 grand for the Aircar. These conversions are also done without the benefit of mass production pricing.
But yes, you are correct, this is pointless at this time.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 14:35:05

You can't reasonably compare a EV conversion since the cost of the glider is much less because it's used, and EV conversion parts, while not exactly cheap, are fairly common. It's reasonable to compare the per mile to operate two different new drivetrains in the same new glider, but using your method of comparison is just silly. According to that my diesel on WVO is cheaper than anything you've mentioned, so clearly an ICE is the cheapest of all. :razz:

If you want to talk about it seriously, please do so.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 16:22:43

yesplease wrote:You can't reasonably compare a EV conversion since the cost of the glider is much less because it's used, and EV conversion parts, while not exactly cheap, are fairly common.

Common? Try and order a Zilla 1K controller, it's a 6 month wait because the guy hand assembles them. Electric traction motors and controllers are not made on anywhere near the scale of automotive components, not even close. Yes the used glider has depreciated, but all additional EV components are purchased at retail in small quantities. So for the sake of argument increase the cost of the glider and decrease the costs of all EV parts through direct volume purchasing and it balances out.
Here's an example of markup. At work we get our batteries from a distributer, they get the battery from the manufacturer. We sell a battery for $75.00, we paid $40.00, the distributer probably paid $20.00. A mass manufacturer of EV's could bypass the middlemen and really cut costs on all components.
An 08 Aveo retails for $10,000. What do you think the glider version of that actually costs to make? Probably half that, and it's still a larger and nicer vehicle than the Aircar. GM could easily build an EV version for $10k but the limited range would be a hard sell for most of the public.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 16:43:43

JRP3 wrote:Common? Try and order a Zilla 1K controller, it's a 6 month wait because the guy hand assembles them. Electric traction motors and controllers are not made on anywhere near the scale of automotive components, not even close.
Of course they are. If you want the brand new fancy crap you may have to wait, but with a little ingenuity it's easy to find suitable motors/controllers, and even used batteries on the cheap. There is no point in comparing used conversions to new vehicles, if we're talking about comparing a new BEV city car to a new air powered city car, it's a total strawman. MDI says it'll be less than $6,000 for a five seat city car. Show me a similar sized new BEV for a similar price, if you want to compare the two.
JRP3 wrote:Yes the used glider has depreciated, but all additional EV components are purchased at retail in small quantities. So for the sake of argument increase the cost of the glider and decrease the costs of all EV parts through direct volume purchasing and it balances out.
Could be, show me. Where's the cost of the components compared to the cost of the assembled electric drivetrain?
JRP3 wrote:Here's an example of markup. At work we get our batteries from a distributer, they get the battery from the manufacturer. We sell a battery for $75.00, we paid $40.00, the distributer probably paid $20.00. A mass manufacturer of EV's could bypass the middlemen and really cut costs on all components.
Could be. Show me there is that much markup in the deepcycle battery market and I'll be convinced.
JRP3 wrote:An 08 Aveo retails for $10,000. What do you think the glider version of that actually costs to make? Probably half that, and it's still a larger and nicer vehicle than the Aircar. GM could easily build an EV version for $10k but the limited range would be a hard sell for most of the public.
No way no how 50% of the Aveo's cost is in the drivetrain. Maybe a few grand at most, but considering Tata is set to sell the nano with a CVT and .624L engine for $2,500, stating that GM pays $5,000 for the Aveo's drivetrain doesn't pass muster. If you have proof, show me.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 16:49:21

I've shown that w/o a substantial drop in battery costs, or increase in electricity prices, there's no way an EV will be cheaper to power per mile than a compressed air vehicle.

If you contend that an EV will cost so much less to make, or that batteries will cost less, show me a similar EV set to come out with half the price of the OneCAT, or where I can batteries from a distributor in bulk that'll last 800 cycles and cost half or a third of what's sold over the counter. I'd love that last one fer sure. Group buy all the way! :-D
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 19:06:05

yesplease wrote:I've shown that w/o a substantial drop in battery costs, or increase in electricity prices, there's no way an EV will be cheaper to power per mile than a compressed air vehicle.

No you have not. You have speculated based on what MDI has claimed, not any real world aircar data since there is none. How can you claim otherwise? Let's look at the link you provided:
The OneCAT will be a five-seater with a glass fibre body, weighing just 350kg and could cost just over £2,500.
Note, "could cost".
A 350 kg car is a golf cart. Here's an equivalent "EV" for $4000.00, leaving you $1000.00 for extra batteries:
Cart
If you contend that an EV will cost so much less to make, or that batteries will cost less, show me a similar EV set to come out with half the price of the OneCAT

No, why don't you show me an actual air car with actual data that is for sale at an actual price? You keep asking for proof yet provide none for the air car.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 19:12:58

yesplease wrote:
JRP3 wrote:An 08 Aveo retails for $10,000. What do you think the glider version of that actually costs to make? Probably half that, and it's still a larger and nicer vehicle than the Aircar. GM could easily build an EV version for $10k but the limited range would be a hard sell for most of the public.
No way no how 50% of the Aveo's cost is in the drivetrain. Maybe a few grand at most, but considering Tata is set to sell the nano with a CVT and .624L engine for $2,500, stating that GM pays $5,000 for the Aveo's drivetrain doesn't pass muster. If you have proof, show me.

Wow. I said an Aveo retails for 10k, not that it costs 10 k to build it, and that half the build cost is in the drivetrain, including engine, trans, exhaust, catalyst, computer, cooling, fuel tank, etc. Not to mention that Tata's nano is probably a piece of crap death trap, not a crash tested Aveo.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 19:39:09

JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:I've shown that w/o a substantial drop in battery costs, or increase in electricity prices, there's no way an EV will be cheaper to power per mile than a compressed air vehicle.
No you have not. You have speculated based on what MDI has claimed, not any real world aircar data since there is none.
I have not speculated on what MDI has claimed, I have speculated on what WisJim and you have said regarding the difference in efficiency between battery and air storage as well as real world data on lead acid battery cost and durability.

JRP3 wrote:Let's look at the link you provided:
The OneCAT will be a five-seater with a glass fibre body, weighing just 350kg and could cost just over £2,500.
Note, "could cost".
A 350 kg car is a golf cart. Here's an equivalent "EV" for $4000.00, leaving you $1000.00 for extra batteries:
Cart

So... You're contending that a golf cart able to seat two or three w/o any protection from the elements, or aircon, or the ability to use liquid fuel to travel any farther than however far/fast it'll go w/ it's battery pack is equivalent to the proposed OneCAT? M'kay... :roll:
For long journeys the compressed air driving the pistons can be boosted by a fuel burner which heats the air so it expands and increases the pressure on the pistons. The burner will use all kinds of liquid fuel.

The designers say on long journeys the car will do the equivalent of 120mpg. In town, running on air, it will be cheaper than that.

JRP3 wrote:No, why don't you show me an actual air car with actual data that is for sale at an actual price? You keep asking for proof yet provide none for the air car.
I have already provided proof that even with grossly inflated electricity costs, and the poor efficiency of compressed air as a storage medium, an air car is still cheaper to operate than a BEV because batteries are very expensive per mile. Over the last page or so you have been contending that, contrary to the manufacturer's claims, an air car will cost significantly more than a BEV version due to component costs... So, I'm asking you to provide proof of these statements.
JRP3 wrote:Those tanks probably cost more than a set of batteries, maybe more than 2 sets.

JRP3 wrote:additional EV components are purchased at retail in small quantities. So for the sake of argument increase the cost of the glider and decrease the costs of all EV parts through direct volume purchasing and it balances out.
Here's an example of markup. At work we get our batteries from a distributer, they get the battery from the manufacturer. We sell a battery for $75.00, we paid $40.00, the distributer probably paid $20.00. A mass manufacturer of EV's could bypass the middlemen and really cut costs on all components.


My bad about the Aveo, since you stated retail initially I though you were talking about that. In any event, GM does not build it, and a 08 model certainly doesn't retail for $10k, more like a bit over $12k.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby JRP3 » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 20:45:42

yesplease wrote:
JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:I've shown that w/o a substantial drop in battery costs, or increase in electricity prices, there's no way an EV will be cheaper to power per mile than a compressed air vehicle.
No you have not. You have speculated based on what MDI has claimed, not any real world aircar data since there is none.
I have not speculated on what MDI has claimed, I have speculated on what WisJim and you have said regarding the difference in efficiency between battery and air storage as well as real world data on lead acid battery cost and durability.
No because you are including the cost of battery replacement but have no actual data on what the air car and it's carbon fiber tanks will really cost. If you can buy a BEV and a replacement battery pack for less than the aircar, for the same range and performance, then the BEV is cheaper. Again, this is only for the Air car running on air, not the air car running on some other fuel.

So... You're contending that a golf cart able to seat two or three w/o any protection from the elements, or aircon, or the ability to use liquid fuel to travel any farther than however far/fast it'll go w/ it's battery pack is equivalent to the proposed OneCAT? M'kay... :roll:
Don't care about the ability to use other fuels, just the air aspect. Hell stick a portable generator on the golf cart and you can use liquid fuel as well. Meaningless. The golf cart has a roof to protect from rain and open sides so you don't need A/C. :D


My bad about the Aveo, since you stated retail initially I though you were talking about that. In any event, GM does not build it, and a 08 model certainly doesn't retail for $10k, more like a bit over $12k.

Wrong again:
Base Invoice Price: $9,672 - $11,359 *
Base List Price: $10,235 - $12,020 *
http://www.drivenow.com/cars/Summary.asp?model=5211
Now let's build that same vehicle in India with no crash testing, airbags, ABS, etc. and what do you think it will cost? Not to mention that GM can still make money on the Aveo after paying someone else to build it for them!
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why is the Air Car not a viable replacement for fossil f

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 13 Feb 2008, 21:01:30

JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:
JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:I've shown that w/o a substantial drop in battery costs, or increase in electricity prices, there's no way an EV will be cheaper to power per mile than a compressed air vehicle.
No you have not. You have speculated based on what MDI has claimed, not any real world aircar data since there is none.
I have not speculated on what MDI has claimed, I have speculated on what WisJim and you have said regarding the difference in efficiency between battery and air storage as well as real world data on lead acid battery cost and durability.
No because you are including the cost of battery replacement but have no actual data on what the air car and it's carbon fiber tanks will really cost.
No what? If you have information about how the air car and carbon fiber tanks cost will wipe out the fact that a BEV will cost twice as much as a compressed air car to run per mile, bring it to the table.
JRP3 wrote:If you can buy a BEV and a replacement battery pack for less than the aircar, for the same range and performance, then the BEV is cheaper. Again, this is only for the Air car running on air, not the air car running on some other fuel.
If I can... Where can I buy a new BEV and replacement battery pack for less than what MDI is stating will be the cost of the air car?
JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:So... You're contending that a golf cart able to seat two or three w/o any protection from the elements, or aircon, or the ability to use liquid fuel to travel any farther than however far/fast it'll go w/ it's battery pack is equivalent to the proposed OneCAT? M'kay... :roll:
Don't care about the ability to use other fuels, just the air aspect. Hell stick a portable generator on the golf cart and you can use liquid fuel as well. Meaningless. The golf cart has a roof to protect from rain and open sides so you don't need A/C. :D
You may not care about it, but if you consider that golf cart to be equivalent, as you have stated, to MDI's proposed OneCAT, have got a bridge for you buddy! :lol:
JRP3 wrote:Let's look at the link you provided:
The OneCAT will be a five-seater with a glass fibre body, weighing just 350kg and could cost just over £2,500.
Note, "could cost".
A 350 kg car is a golf cart. Here's an equivalent "EV" for $4000.00, leaving you $1000.00 for extra batteries:
Cart

JRP3 wrote:
yesplease wrote:My bad about the Aveo, since you stated retail initially I though you were talking about that. In any event, GM does not build it, and a 08 model certainly doesn't retail for $10k, more like a bit over $12k.

Wrong again:
Base Invoice Price: $9,672 - $11,359 *
Base List Price: $10,235 - $12,020 *
http://www.drivenow.com/cars/Summary.asp?model=5211!
Wrong again. The Aveo5 and the Aveo are different vehicles. :roll:
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests