No, the speed limit is 40 mph, but this is florida. doing 38 in a 40 will get you killed either by a teen on her phone and a senior suffering dementia.
Printable View
No, the speed limit is 40 mph, but this is florida. doing 38 in a 40 will get you killed either by a teen on her phone and a senior suffering dementia.
That's fair enough. If I had 2 cars, I'd probably be comfortable with an electric car for commuting right now, but using the other car as needed for longer trips. Unfortunately, we're not paying another $175/month just for the privilege of parking our second car. An alternative is to use Zipcar or the equivalent for longer trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Just out of curiosity but would you still buy it w/o the tax credit?
Scanned this out of the paper today, google the author's name and you will find the same article posted around the net, but without the organized little chart
Nissan's latest designs are... interesting. They obviously don't do random drug testing over there. The Leaf shares a lot of styling designs they use on the Juke
Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I've driven the Volt and its pretty cool inside if you like techno bells and whistles. I've never even seen a Leaf but IMHO the Volt is a better option strictly because of the range issue. You never know when you're going to have to drive further than you expected and with the gas engine in the Volt, you will have all the range you'll need in the event of an emergency of some kind. If you have time to wait, Ford will have a full battery-electric Focus in about two years and the new Focus looks better than the Volt, IMO. And Ford's got the best bells and whistles these days if you're a technophile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I read the Volt's battery is supposted to last 10 or 12 years after which you will need to replace it, which can be done at the dealership for a hefty $12k or something. Might be better off just getting a new car... maybe. In 10 years I'm thinking cars are going to be much cooler than today. I drive a 10 year old car right now and its not nearly as cool as the new ones coming out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I drive a 40 year old car and it's way cooler than the new ones coming out. :o
You should watch the most recent Top Gear episode. There they reviewed the Nissan Leaf. Well, Jeremy Clarkson isn't exactly the great environmentalist and is quite satirical about it, but the drawbacks he points out does make you feel reserved buying one. Like battery experts saying that it'll last 5-10 years, that it can take 13 hours to charge, that the predicted remaining battery life alters significantly as you drive, that its acceleration is slightly shady for overtaking etc.
Of course. LiIon-batteries don't age well. That's why laptop batteries should be replaced after 3 years. This aging process is independent of use, mind. If you don't have an intelligent charging system, you'll further damage the cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland
For example, the last 10% are the most demanding because the current becomes the greatest - that's why the battery system on my laptop does not begin to charge the battery unless the current charge has fallen below 90% of capacity.
Then again, the BMW i3 looks interesting ;)
Why do so many auto companies insist on making their electric cars so ugly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It's a concept. I don't think the actual car will look like this ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Then again, it's already been spotted in Sweden.
It has to keep the same style ques from the i8, the BMW's original "i" concept that some how got the green light with very little being changed from when it was called the Vision EfficientDynamics Concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
All the first gen BMW i cars are going to have those same lines. It might work well on the original i8 when accounting for aerodynamics, but it looks like ass when you take it away from its original coupe form.
Though the design does remind me of the ones I've seen in my Shadowrun source books :)
Lol, when do the i5 and i7 models get out? xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I like the look of the i8, but the i3 looks like something an i8 shit out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The hell it is. All that car does is tell the casual observer you're gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Excuse me? Are you a nine year old?
He has a point, its even that Prius Blue color.
It's a pretty different color. On two very different cars. But more miffed that Chaloobs would bump an almost-20 day old post to exclaim "ghey".
Well, might not be the best idea to rely on Top Gear for electric car info. Or, the BBC in general, for any info, but that's a whole other can of worms. I personally don't think electric cars are a good idea (yet), nor do I think it's a smart idea to be an early adopter on the 2nd-most expensive item most people will ever buy, but I don't need to lie to support my opinion. Cain >> BBC. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland
So, then, your objection is that Choobs didn't warn you soon enough about your car making you look like a gay? :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:haha::haha::haha:
I'm sorry man, but that's just funny.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Anyone with the slightest inkling of knowledge on this however, knows that Top Gear is entirely an entertainment show, not a motoring magazine.
Everything in each and every episode is utterly contrived, usually to fit Wilman's or Clarkson's own agenda.
This has been known for more than 25 years, ever since Clarkson stated that the Ford Escort was rubbish and no one would buy it, then it subsequently became Britain's best-selling car.
Disagree.Quote:
Or, the BBC in general, for any info, but that's a whole other can of worms.
The BBC's documentaries and fact-based programs are world-renowned and of the highest integrity and quality.
Agree.Quote:
I personally don't think electric cars are a good idea (yet), nor do I think it's a smart idea to be an early adopter on the 2nd-most expensive item most people will ever buy, but I don't need to lie to support my opinion.
Hydrogen fuel-cells are the future. Electric cars are an expensive and inefficient stop-gap.
Disagree. :pQuote:
Cain >> BBC. :p
Right, but that's part of the problem, actually. You Brits have been absolute masters of PR and propaganda and have proven particularly adept at suppressing horrifically nasty laundry, in a way no other nation has managed... and the BBC's been a big part of that in the modern era. So, the cognitive dissonance of trusting present information from the BBC with what I know about a lot of their prior... "informational record" is simply too overwhelming for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Applies to a lot of your "world-renowned" historians "of the highest integrity and quality" too, if that makes you feel better, or me look like more a racist.
Sure he exaggerates to bring across his points as entertaining, and Nissan have complained about that too. But the core sentiments are the same, and not to be undervalued: electric cars are still not reliable enough. :p
In my mind were Attenborough's swathe of award-winning nature documentaries, Brian Cox's leading programmes on the solar system and the history of the universe, Walking with Dinosaurs, etc etc etc - the fact-based programmes which are sold to worldwide audiences, and are indeed highly regarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I'm not so au fait with historical documentaries.
People like Attenborough are world-renowned, as are his BBC-produced documentaries. I don't know any historians of world-renown, British or otherwise.
Oh its good to know that its not "only Top Gear" to blame for the deaths of those people :rolleyes:Quote:
This is dangerous territory. Boy racers, in many parts of the countryside, are among the greatest hazards to local people's lives. Where I live, in rural mid-Wales, the roads are treated as race tracks. Many of the young lads who use them compete to see who can clock up the fastest speeds on a given stretch. The consequences are terrible: a series of hideous crashes involving young men and women driving too fast, which kill other people or maim them for life. In the latest horror, just down the road from where I live, a young man bumped another car through a fence and into a reservoir. Four of the five passengers drowned.
Of course I'm not blaming only Top Gear for this, but it plays a major role in creating a comfort zone within which edgy driving is considered acceptable, even admirable. Top Gear's political agenda also persists in stark contradiction to BBC rules on impartiality.
I suppose the Guardianista would put Top Gear ahead of the driver in order of responsibility though. Nice independent and trustworthy source that one :rolleyes:
Well, did you read the link? It seems to me like the couple of examples they gave are misleading to the point of being outright lies (regarding driving ranges on a full charge and a lack of warning... when you've got a charge display and a warning from the satnav system). Sounds like a much bigger deal than just an entertaining exaggeration. The problem, the "core sentiment" isn't that electric cars are a bad purchase because they'll "unexpectedly" run out of charge, or they don't go as far as advertised... the problem there is that the supporting infrastructure is so underdeveloped that you have to worry about it at all (and the batteries are so heavy that acceleration is sluggish, and all the other stuff too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland
I didn't know it was an entertainment-first show, honestly... but if that's the defense of factual errata, it just supports my point so much more - it's probably not a smart move to base ~$20,000 purchase on the contents of the show. Either because it gets the facts wrong, or because it's an entertainment product, rather than an informational one... or for both reasons, even. :p
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Well, sure, I'd trust those from the BBC, and even rather like the ones I've seen. They're informative without being an insomnia aid, unlike the American ones I've seen, that are more effective than prescription sedatives. :D But by the same token, the information in those products is, for all intents and purposes, universally accepted, undisputed and not really capable of bias or "spin." It's objective data that we all agree on, in essence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I was thinking much more of informational programs on more subjective subjects... primarily history. I honestly didn't even think about the fact that lots of [other] people enjoy informational programming on subjects that are largely objective.
Yeah, clearly the Guardian's a leftist rag. I know that. But I happened across that article on Reddit, and it was exactly on point here, so I figured I'd pass it along. But it's not like the allegations of substantially misleading "facts" in Top Gear are fabricated or untrue, are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And again, cut me some fucking slack already. I come from a country where you can pick up any news source and get a relatively decent, fairly balanced reporting of the news, without revealing your political affiliation to the entrie world. I'm sorry. This wasn't my choice, I was born here, in a place that at least tries to subdue political biases and affiliations in journalism.
It's NOT MY FAULT I wasn't born on some crazy, messed up island where every freaking new source is affiliated with one of your political parties, all of which are just fringe groups of one flavor of nutty radicals or another anyway. A whole freaking nation, tens of millions of people, and not a single, relatively unbiased news source anywhere. Lunacy. :mad:
Seriously, your entire country's nuts.
Life with David Attenborough > Life with Oprah Winfrey
If the British know anything, its how to make a good documentary
Was it really that easy to get distracted when the subject was on how Top Gear flat out lies when it comes to the operational parameters of electric cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We're talking about the car show which raced a G-Wiz versus a table right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtGp8Sha_mA
edut: Just realised this may be from any of Clarkson's personal shows, not Top Gear. Excuse my BBC-unlike uninformedness.
Depends, are you referring to your nation as the USA or Canada today?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
A comment piece by George Monbiot is on about the same level as a comment piece by Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore on perhaps moveon.org - your nation's not at all nuts either?
:):up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When the source article deliberate chose to start ranting about the politics of Top Gear and Clarkson and blaming them for the deaths of people in his town? Yes. I quoted from the source article, I didn't exactly go extremely off field did I?Quote:
Was it really that easy to get distracted when the subject was on how Top Gear flat out lies when it comes to the operational parameters of electric cars?
EDIT: That Table v G-Wiz is hilarious :haha:. I love the accident :D. I want to see Table v Smart Car now ...
WTF? George Monbiot's ridiculous comment piece was written on 5 August (3 days ago) based on a Guardian article written back in March. Source
He neglected to mention that back in April the Guardian issued an update that the 55 mile figures never even came from Top Gear but from Tesla themselves.
EDIT: Here's their full response, seems fair to me.Quote:
4 April update: Andy Wilman, executive producer on Top Gear, has responded to the claims on his blog, writing: "We never said that the Tesla's true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: "We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles". The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster "The Supercar. Redefined." it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla's boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles."
Certainly not as clear cut asQuote:
Tesla vs Top Gear: Andy Wilman on our current legal action
You may know that Tesla has issued a writ against Top Gear for defamation and malicious falsehood over the road test that we broadcast of the Tesla Roadster in December 2008. The normal procedure for the BBC in a legal case is to acknowledge receipt of the other party’s claim, and then say no more and get on with preparing its defence for court.
Tesla, however, doesn’t seem content to wait for the legal eagles to settle matters. On the contrary, it’s been very busy promoting its side of the argument through the media. Why even last night the Top Gear office accidentally received an email sent from a Public Relations firm to The One Show, asking if it would like to have the Tesla spokesperson on their programme to talk about the case. It says: “PHA Media represent Tesla and this could make for a fantastic interview.” And the PHA man’s not finished there. “The presenters could have some fun with this.” He adds. “Matt and Alex could even take the Tesla for a spin and test it out, reaffirming its virtues?” Plenty of respect for editorial independence in that last line there and I wish the chaps from PHA Media all the best in their crusade.
However, back to Top Gear, and yes, normally we would follow the pre-legal etiquette of keeping schtum until we get our day in court, but since the other side are being quite noisy with their views on how we conduct ourselves, I just would like to point out one or two things to Top Gear viewers:
1. We never said that the Tesla’s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: “We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles”. The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster “The Supercar. Redefined.” it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla’s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.
2. We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating. We said the car had “reduced power”. This was true.
3. Tesla claims we were lying when we said the brakes were “broken”. They now say that all that had happened was that the fuse to the vacuum pump had failed, which meant that the brake just had to be pushed down much harder than usual. Well – to my mind, if the brakes are broken, then they’re broken, and if this happened to your car, you’d take it to the garage to get it fixed. Odd it seems so trivial to Tesla now, because on the day of filming they insisted on repairing the fuse before we could carry on driving the car.
The above points will be argued over in the near future by brainy people wearing wigs, but in a layman’s nutshell, this is where we stand on the matter. Before I finish though, I must clear up one important issue: scripting. It’s alleged by Tesla that on the day of filming one of their employees caught sight of a script that had been written, before the car had even been driven, already containing the verdict that in the “real world” the Tesla doesn’t work. This, they say, proves our guilt, because we’d condemned the car in advance. May I just say in reply:
a) The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance
b) Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based mainly on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it’s based. It takes a long time to recharge, so you can’t use it as easily for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving. You can actually reach that conclusion without driving the car. As it happens, when it did come to the subjective area of how the car drove on the track, we were full of praise for its performance and handling.
c) Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day. If we’ve driven it ahead of filming, as we do with most cars, we will also have an idea how it feels to drive. But, and this is crucial, as we uncover fresh information about a car whilst filming it, it is entirely normal for the treatment to be modified as the day unfolds. Jeremy is always tweaking the scripts to reflect what his driving experience has actually been on the day.
There you go. I’ve said my bit, and now we’ll hopefully shut up and prepare for our day in court.
PS: As this is going through the courts right now, we’re afraid we’ve had to turn off comments on this one, but we wanted to let you all know how we see it.
Noam,Michael, George made it appear.
Environmentally friendly acid. Jeremy has cracked me up for every single episode the last 10 seasons, at least. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Are you offended? What's wrong with being gay??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Who is "Chaloobs???" I replied almost 20 days later because I didn't see your reply to me before then. Is there a time limit to reply to posts now? If so, what is it? 18 days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
He also sits down to pee, so . . . . :oQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
That's not how it works. Someone calls you gay, then you reply and say there's nothing wrong with being gay. Unless you're a nine year old. Which is what you're acting like, using gay as an insult.
You can pick either. My nation my might be nuts, but at least we're nuts in a more normal fashion. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That G-WIZ vs Table is :haha:
~
Makes for interesting reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
All goes to show that so much depends on how the car is driven.
A range of 55 miles is indeed hopeless, but drive a car hard and the effects are there to see.
Top Gear may be silly, contrived, factually woolly and hilarious, but they do bring up some excellent points;
In another episode, they raced a Prius against a BMW M3. The Prius was raced flat out; all the M3 had to do was keep up.
The M3, with a 414bhp V8, had the better mpg (gas mileage) at the end of the test. Verified. :bulb:
Not that surprising, engines aren't designed to run on 100% power all the time (because that rarely happens) so they are not at their best. In this case the electric engine is mostly dead weight, but this is not what it is designed for (and won't be used for) anyway.
Fine. I think you're overly sensitive on this, but I recognize what I think isn't what matters most. I'm sorry for saying your bug makes you appear gay. I didn't mean to imply you really were gay but only that your lady killing might be hindered as compared to, say, driving a 'Vette or a Mustang. However, if you were gay that would be fine and dandy. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As far as VW bugs are concerned I think they are generally feminine - old or new. Sorry, that's the impression I get. A pretty woman in a bug is that much prettier. A man? Not so much. It's like carrying a purse.
You're not alone. The feminine impression the current bug cultivates is so strong it was starting to damage the reputation of the rest of VW's line and performance prowness. Its one reason the new bug was designed into its current form, and why the first commercials advertising it all go on about how its the new hotrod to have.
You want a manly bug you need one with the engine busting out its trunk, or go full on dune buggy.
