[seenmostofit]

Sorry to say but significant, game-changing fuel-efficiency improvement is a thing of the past.

Correct. I have been able to reduce fuel consumption for average suburban commuting to zero. And can still squeal the tires in stoplight races, cruise at night for a burger, travel in comfort in heat and cold, rain and sleet, and support American jobs and the American economy with 100% of the fuel I do purchase.

As more early adopters become second generation adopters, and old ICE drivers become non ICE drivers, fuel efficiency just won't matter at all.

[dsula]

Sorry to say but significant, game-changing fuel-efficiency improvement is a thing of the past.

Correct. I have been able to reduce fuel consumption for average suburban commuting to zero. And can still squeal the tires in stoplight races, cruise at night for a burger, travel in comfort in heat and cold, rain and sleet, and support American jobs and the American economy with 100% of the fuel I do purchase.

As more early adopters become second generation adopters, and old ICE drivers become non ICE drivers, fuel efficiency just won't matter at all.

I'm wondering how long this e-car craze will last. A totally wrong engineering answer to a problem which requires, less and simpler tech, not more of it.

[seenmostofit]

I'm wondering how long this e-car craze will last. A totally wrong engineering answer to a problem which requires, less and simpler tech, not more of it.

There is no such thing as a "wrong" engineering answer, which has connotations of morality and whatnot. But there are certainly engineering answers that people, including other engineers, don't like. I think the bicycle is a better answer, but not for everyone. EVs are the answer, but not for everyone, and no matter what the cost, some will still insist on driving their monster trucks.

I think the best answer is one of flexibility. It is pretty easy to own a primary and secondary form of transportation, based on need and cost. Sure, park a monster truck in the driveway, just don't use it all the time, take the scooter. Drive the EV all you'd like, then take the bicycle to get some exercise on your way to work. And so on and so forth.

[sparky]

.
Sorry but there is such a thing as a wrong engineering solution

If the product doesn't fulfill its functional design , it's a wrong solution

an example is during WW2 the German design of the King Tiger ( Pzkw VII )

it was a fine tank except for it's very high cost in time material and manpower to make
leading to very few numbers
huge consumption of precious fuel , high maintenance and low mobility

except for this , it was the battlefield king , when it could get there !

Electric cars fail on manufacturing cost , range , refueling time and life cycle cost

much better to design cars with very small engines , hybrids are better still

[SeaGypsy]

Americans always argue that it is not safe to be on the road in/ on a light vehicle. The argument is valid, with the US road statistics already appalling. The solution is clearly in mandating light vehicle/ cycleways, where all vehicles must have a maximum weight of a hundred kilos or so above passenger weight. An interim solution would be to separate out a lane on existing freeways, plus dropping urban speed limits. To encourage such development all taxes on such vehicles and their use should be removed. Heavy vehicles should be taxed on miles driven. If you own a 'monster truck' and only use it to haul firewood once a month 10 miles, the tax should be peanuts next to someone using a similar vehicle to commute substantial distances everyday. Point being it is not just engineering solutions but a combination of such with legislative and tax amendments which could make a real difference.

[careinke]

Americans always argue that it is not safe to be on the road in/ on a light vehicle. The argument is valid, with the US road statistics already appalling. The solution is clearly in mandating light vehicle/ cycleways, where all vehicles must have a maximum weight of a hundred kilos or so above passenger weight. An interim solution would be to separate out a lane on existing freeways, plus dropping urban speed limits. To encourage such development all taxes on such vehicles and their use should be removed. Heavy vehicles should be taxed on miles driven. If you own a 'monster truck' and only use it to haul firewood once a month 10 miles, the tax should be peanuts next to someone using a similar vehicle to commute substantial distances everyday. Point being it is not just engineering solutions but a combination of such with legislative and tax amendments which could make a real difference.

Why add complexity. If the purpose is to reduce fuel consumption, a gas tax accomplishes the same thing as a mileage tax, only easier to collect.

[seenmostofit]

.
Electric cars fail on manufacturing cost , range , refueling time and life cycle cost

much better to design cars with very small engines , hybrids are better still

At the extremes, it strikes me that cars of nearly any construction should be minimized. The number of problems which could be solved or minimized (outside of even the resource scarcity debate) with a population cycling around to work and play are sizable.

It is unfortunate that peak oil itself has not brought about the prices necessary for this obvious solution to take ahold.

[seenmostofit]

it strikes me that cars of nearly any construction should be minimized. The number of problems which could be solved or minimized (outside of even the resource scarcity debate) with a population cycling around to work and play are sizable.

Exactly!

I am glad we agree on something. The statement strikes me as a bit obvious, but whatever works I guess.

[sparky]

.
the ultimate economical car
much beloved by its owners , it kept generations of young people on the road
at the dazzling speed of 50 mph , for no fuel costs to speak of
because of it's amazing suspension it was impossible to flip, by hand or driving
( I've tried , hard )

when seat belt became compulsory , the joke ran that should not be charged
the road registration fee as it was a back pack

models ran trouble free from antarctica to the Sahara ,
one climbed to the Evrerest base camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV

[dolanbaker]

Apparantly, the original design brief was for a farmers car that could transport a box of eggs across a ploughed field without breaking any.

Small lightweight cars were are and will be a partial solution to the oil supply keeping up with demand issue.

[Beery1]

You can see the inherent problem with this just by looking at it, from a resource depletion standpoint. I mean, this thing weighs a ton - literally (actually, closer to 2 tons). And what is its primary task? Transporting around 200lbs a distance of about 10 miles, 5 days a week. My 30lb bike can do that, albeit a little slower (though not always), using 100% renewable energy. Cars are hugely inefficient.

The problems of resource depletion will never be solved by anything that looks like this. Until auto manufacturers start trimming the weight from their vehicles, we won't even begin to start finding solutions to the problem.

[Beery1]

Americans always argue that it is not safe to be on the road in/ on a light vehicle. The argument is valid, with the US road statistics already appalling. The solution is clearly in mandating light vehicle/ cycleways, where all vehicles must have a maximum weight of a hundred kilos or so above passenger weight. An interim solution would be to separate out a lane on existing freeways, plus dropping urban speed limits...

It's a misconception that cycling is dangerous. Statistically, driving a car is about twice as deadly as cycling, and we get in our cars quite happily and without undue worry. Cycling looks unsafe, and perception is everything when people estimate risk without having any statistical basis to work from. But the average commuting cyclist (someone who cycles every day), given immortality, would live around 140 lifetimes before getting killed on a bike (motorist commuters get only about 80 lifetimes). Having said that, road stats are indeed appalling - after all, one roadway death is one too many, and more needs to be done to fix the fact that cars kill a million people per year worldwide. Fortunately, the fixes are coming, whether we want them or not, since resource depletion will force us to drive less, to reduce the distances we commute, and to drive lighter and slower.

Cycleways and segregated lanes complicate the roadway and tend to push bikes into a subordinate position on the roadway, which actually tends to increase the hazard to the lighter vehicles. Cycleways and bike lanes are popular, but they have a terrible safety record - studies show they are even less safe than the road, because they complicate driving and make smaller vehicles less visible. We need integrated solutions, not segregated ones. One thing that will make a big difference would be to drop road speeds to cycling speeds - 20mph limits on all full access roads would reduce accidents, enforce fuel efficiency and allow cyclists to ride fully integrated at the road speed limits.

I do agree with making cars lighter and dropping speed limits on urban roads (though why not all roads?). But as I said before, these changes will happen naturally as fossil-based energy becomes scarcer.

[seenmostofit]

And what is its primary task? Transporting around 200lbs a distance of about 10 miles, 5 days a week. My 30lb bike can do that, albeit a little slower (though not always), using 100% renewable energy. Cars are hugely inefficient.

They are inefficient. And it is more like 40 miles, 7 days a week (figure on the weekend you have shopping, church, visiting relatives, etc etc). Hugely inefficient? Absolutely. But it does allow the American motoring public to continue motoring in a manner upon which they have become accustomed. American antics developed during the pre 1970's era of cheap gasoline can continue,you can stoplight race EVs, take them to work, pick up a burger while scoping chics at the local heart attack in a sack fast food joint, and of course you are using 100% homegrown fuels powering the local economy to power the thing.

Having said that, bicycles beat these things every day of the week and twice on Sundays. But this is still America, and people will have their cars, one way or another.

The problems of resource depletion will never be solved by anything that looks like this. Until auto manufacturers start trimming the weight from their vehicles, we won't even begin to start finding solutions to the problem.

Depends on what you consider the problem I suppose. Substituting electricity for crude based fuels solves the peak oil, liqud fuels problem, given time, but resource depletion in general is a much trickier "problem", particularly considering substitution (in the economic sense) and the even more interesting angle that changes in behavior alone can make most of the consequences of it go away. Bicycles instead of a car is a CHOICE for many people, one I had always hoped peak oil would force upon the country. Unfortunately, peak oil has had not nearly the effect on personal lifestyle choices that I expected. Sure, some gadget freaks like me get to experiment with new technowizardry, and there are a few more scooters on the streets, even a few more bicycles, mass transit is more popular (even used it myself a time or two as of late, something I had never done before) but not nearly the side effects that $4/gal fuel should have caused.

[ennui]

This statement is telling:

"It's a misconception that cycling is dangerous."

People's buying habits are often irrational. Cars are more than just utilitarian items. They are status symbols, fashion statements, an extension of our bodies to some. As such, you can not just trout facts and figures. You have to understand the psychology behind it.

Instead what you have here is a lot of proselytizing which didn't work in the 70s and won't work now.

The Volt looks like it does not because GM are idiots, but because if they made it like the EV-1 or (gasp) the Aptera it would have been dead on arrival. At least they have a viable niche car that people don't mock as "not a car".

When we get to the pain-threshold where maslow's heirarchy of needs reorients transportation not as an extension of ego but as a life-line, then things will change, but it hasn't yet.

[rangerone314]

People's buying habits ARE irrational. And they will pay the price for their irrationality.

[seenmostofit]

People's buying habits ARE irrational. And they will pay the price for their irrationality.

Could be. But it probably won't have anything to do with, or caused by, peak oil.