Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cirrus pete]

On the Prius vs m3 comparison.. pretty obvious that the m3 was drafting. I would also wager that the m3 's grippy tires, while a economy loss in real world driving, are a win on the racetrack because you can coast around the corner instead of powering through, slipping the whole way.

Regarding "it's not what you drive, it's how you drive it":
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3/2008
16.6 mpg average. 18.3 mpg best. 19 mpg imperial = 23 mpg US.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/2008
45.4 mpg average.

If we assume Clarkson's claim is accurate and a reasonable representation of on-track economy, then it's very much about what you drive.. because the m3 gets worse economy in real world driving than it does in some spurious show test.

OK, at the risk of being outed as an terribly inconsistent environmentalist but a passionate owner of vehicles, I think I am in a pretty good position to judge this one as I have owned both a Prius (2006) and a 2008 M3 (6mt). Both driven for the same mission: mostly local driving, little to no highway commuting or long distance driving, and a rather hilly location in the NE of the US, so big temp swings. Our cumulative average MPG in the Prius was ~35mpg, a bit better in the summer and a bit worse in the winter. Our average MPG for the M3, which is by its nature driven WAY more aggressively for the exact same mission, ~14mpg. When my wife did commute into NYC with the Prius we could get the MPG just north of 40 for those commutes, the M3 into the city it will see mileage just a tick above 20MPG for that same ride. Of course, if you mash the accelerator down and drive it the way it wants to be driven, that 20MPG drops like a stone into the mid-high teens, whereas the prius mileage would only decline marginally with "aggressive" driving.

[Tudor]

Very interesting topic.

I'd like to add my point of view regarding buying an used ICE vs new Zero.

English isn't my native language but I think the saying 'Putting money where your mouth is' is applicable here. Talk green - invest green. Zero is paving the road for the future e-bikes. The more successful Zero is, the more attention e-bikes will get and the big ICE brands will start to invest in EV too.

Owning and using a vehicle (or any product for that matter) is product-placement in real-life, whether you like it or not. Just by riding a e-bike you may cause butterfly effects to have other choosing EV over ICE.

Also - less of your money to the oil industry.

[machone]

Not disputing the pros - I believe in EVs for at least our short term personal transport, enough to already put some money where my mouth is followed next Feb by a whole lot more.

What I'd like to do, is have solid answers to the environment question. There are plenty of misconceptions over range, speed, acceleration, practicality which are easy to put right but the environmental question, if not tackled in an overly simplistic way - 'I have no exhaust pipe therefore I don't pollute', is complicated.

You can't just right off environmental and social concerns because you don't fill up at a gas station. Yes, it's great that you don't. It's great there's low maintenance, it's great that the power delivery is constant and linear but I'm convinced, I'm trying to sway others. I can't help thinking if I would have some sort of grasp on where the parts were made, how the labour is treated and paid well by western standards, how the carbon in transport is offset, how delivery to my Zero branch is carbon offset, how the water used in production is recycled I'd have an easier time of arguing the environmental case. I'm sure all the bases are covered but where are the facts and why aren't they highlighted, surely it's a selling point?

The Clarkson video like most TopGear set pieces, is cooked up bollox, I posted it to illustrate the general direction people approach EVs and the Environmental benefit of buying them - the cradle to grave argument. I thought the data might be out there but it doesn't seem to be readily available.

[firepower]

Clarkson family (great-great-great-great grandfather, John Kilner (1792-1857) owned glass manufacture of famous English Kilner Jars. An 1871 court case brought by the estate of the Earl of Scarborough against the Kilners. It was argued that smoke from the Thornhill Lees factory was polluting land around the factory. The judge ruled against the Kilners arguing that, “no man has the right to interfere with the supply of pure air”.
 
The Kilners were given three months to buy six gas furnaces at the then huge cost of £1,500 each. Jeremy has stumbled on the “dawn of Greenpeace”. No fan of environmentalists, he’s not impressed, preferring to point out that Huddersfield’s grand civic buildings were “paid for by smoke”.

http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/episode/jeremy-clarkson

Fully Charged videos explain alot about electric vechicle and solar tecnologhy



edited with facts from original story I read.

[skeezmour]

Clarkson family (great grand parents ~1800) owned a glass manufacture of famous english pickle jars. They were forced to close it and move because the polution was killing fruit orchards and crops nearby . farmers took them to court and judge ruled in the farmers favour that clean air was right and closed the factory down. That why clarkson hates greenies and green technology.

fully charged videos explain alot about electric vechicle and solar tecnologhy

I love the Fully Charged videos. Look forward to some day meeting him. Nice to see someone in the media who GETS it.

[machone]

I'm finding myself arguing against the 'side' I'm on but that's the point, buying a Zero should/does stand up on it's own but if there are chinks, I want to know about them.

Not sure how you guys interpret the opening sequence of this:



but I've got my take on it.

As far as I'm concerned, journalists and actors are not the best sources of information for anything other than acting and journalism. Their motivation is to sell copy or up ratings. They have to put food on the table just like anybody else and that usually means pandering to the masses. I don't think, unless you've talked to him, you can possibly know what Clarkson's motivations or even his views are. Watching his very successful light entertainment programme where he continues to do what made him successful in the first place doesn't mean you know where he is 'coming from'. Neither do you know where Robert Llewellyn is coming from. Look in the bottom right of the screen on many fully charged videos and you'll see British Gas. Now google fracking.

What I find a little frustrating is that having decided that EVs are the way forward, many people seem to be making the same mistake journalists and politicians make by thinking they are more intelligent than everybody else. 'There's no point letting people know the facts, just give them the bullshit'. Maybe these people are right and the old adage of 'bullshit baffles brains' really does work. It doesn't work with me(I'm more intelligent than everybody else )! If Zero are producing parts in Asia with workers on less than MacDonalds salaries, I want to know about it, because I think that's exploitation and wrong, even if everybody else is doing it. If the energy difference to produce my 2013S over a cheap kawa is massive, I want to know about it because it is significant.

WRT environment impact I believe in EV technology and know we have to grow the industry by buying. I'm buying. However, I still don't want to be handed bullshit to swallow, give me the fact, even the nasty stuff. I can take it.

[CliC]

Nothing wrong with questioning one's assumptions, or "conventional wisdom". It's healthy.

I guess it's a good thing that "being green" wasn't my primary driver for buying a Zero. I don't know how one can even locate all the information needed to do pinpoint comparisons of environmental impact of manufacturing different motorcycles. You could go crazy trying to figure it out.

I simply tell people that after riding a Zero, I believe that electric is a superior drivetrain in many ways to IC, and will become so in many more ways as the technology and infrastructure develop. I also tell them that I'm doing my part to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.

[emotofreak]

Several points I would like to make.

1st. Most of the material used in a battery are recyclable. So, as more batteries are recycled, and more completely recycled, the environmental impact goes down. In no way, shape, or form,, can any educated person draw a comparison to the extreme measures currently employed (fracking, etc..) to extract oil and other "fuels" from our earth.

2nd. Even if the current design, manufacture, and use (the entire wells-wheel process) is less than perfect currently. The only path to success is to put your money where your mouth is and show there is a market, and to enable the companies developing these technologies to continue improving. We will not get there in one single, massive, leap.

3rd. EV's are and "energy neutral" technology. I hate the argument that "your energy just comes from a power plant instead" and "your exhaust is now coming out of the smokestacks of the power plant". This is true only if you choose that to be your energy source. You can pay for "clean energy" over the grid, or make or obtain your energy elsewhere.

4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.

http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf

Personally, I am a bit on the fence, and I think in the end it really comes down to your specific situation.

Bottom line? E-Bikes, of whatever flavor, are indisputably the lowest impact form of personal transportation available.

[manlytom]

I don't mind Top Gear /  Clarkson and some of their topics make me laugh and are good fun. Any test or comparison or ranking they do cannot be taken seriously ! Its not their intention to compare anything on practical or real life terms, guess is more the "British Humour" than anything else.
I believe as well that most viewers get that, as it means most often that big sports car that they favour is not affordable to 99% of their viewers ...
So would we have them test a Zero ? It would generate publicity - right ? Certainly they would thrash it and make unrealistic comparisons... still the product is being promoted.

[ed5000]

An example of the ridiculousness of the study:
"claiming that a Prius will last only 109,000 miles, well below the stated "industry straight average" of 178,739 miles—not to mention the whopping 379,000 miles ascribed to the Hummer H1."

I'm in big trouble.  My '07 prius has over 107,000 miles and according to these guys the car will die at 109,000 miles.   The funny thing is the car drives almost like new, just a little more "broken in".  The car has been very reliable.  I only had to replace a water pump and that I bought online for $33 for a toyota manufactured pump plus $8 shipping (I know because I just did it last month ).  The only other things are routine maintenance items like oil changes, etc.  No brake work because of regen.

[CliC]

4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.

http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf

Interesting study. Ride an e-bike and lower your environmental impact, but get less exercise and die earlier. Or go the 100% human-powered route, live longer but in a more-damaged landscape you contributed to. What a choice

E-bikes are cool, and I can see their utility. But for me personally, if I ride a bicycle, I want as much exercise as I can stand. With few bike routes where I live and generally non-cooperative weather, I'm enduring discomfort or even danger for little other benefit. The only e-bike I'd probably be interested is something like LFP's deathbike. At least then I  get an adrenaline shot or two. Otherwise I'll just stick to elmotos

[trikester]

And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.
   

Good luck with that!

Trikester

[Tudor]

And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.
   

Good luck with that!

Trikester

Haha takes one to know one!

[kcoplan]

4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.

http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf

Personally, I am a bit on the fence, and I think in the end it really comes down to your specific situation.

Bottom line? E-Bikes, of whatever flavor, are indisputably the lowest impact form of personal transportation available.

I am really really skeptical of claims that "bicycling has bigger impacts than X because of all the environmental impacts of the extra food production needed."  That might be true for someone on a starvation diet who really needs to make up the extra calories burned through exercise.  But all of us in the developed world (including even poor people n the US) get plenty of calories and can afford to burn quite a few without adding to their diet (for people at the poverty level, it's not the number of calories, but the quality of the calories that is the problem).

I even remember hearing about some British tabloid that claimed that walking across town had a bigger impact than driving a Land Rover (is there a theme here?). To reach this conclusion, they assumed the walker would make up allow the extra calories burned by eating STEAK! (With all the GHG impacts of meat production).

Me, I often bicycle 23 miles to work when not riding my Zero . . . nd I don't eat anything extra.  OK, maybe one cookie extra.

-Karl

[machone]

I got a reply from Zero after enquiring about their green credentials. They said they would keep me updated when they update their website with regard to sustainability. One thing I found interesting was their mention of the scheme for taking back used batteries where possible. They also sent me some links, one of which, from the Guardian Newspaper, is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment

Full marks to them for responding to me as it wasn't a 'stock' reply. Good points have been made on this forum and as is so often the case, for a whole raft of reasons, fact is very difficult to come by in this emerging industry.

One thing is clear, in the long term, if coupled with policy changes in energy generation, EV usage can dramatically reduce the impact personal transport has on the environment. At the moment, due to the small scale of EV production, the comparative time a Zero takes to 'pay for itself' in terms of production cost(financial AND energy/pollution) with an ICE bike is longer than I expected. However, the fact that it will eventually 'pay for itself' in terms of energy emission and finance should be enough for the entire commuting motorbike community to make the leap to electric.