Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] update on GM Trying To Quash Driving Of All-Electric EV1 Restorations By Universities

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mills
    The missing part of the discussion is the availability of a vehicle to discuss. If you remember the past, the ACTUAL vehicle, a 100% electric vehicle
    Message 1 of 31 , Jan 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The missing part of the discussion is the availability of a vehicle to discuss.

      If you remember the past, the "ACTUAL" vehicle, a 100% electric vehicle scattered over southern California and available from airport rental facilitys was a "FACT OF LIFE"; therefore there was something to actually discuss.

      During those discussions, I was the only one who discussed the actual problem I saw coming which was the issue of "WHERE'S MY ROAD TAXES"???

      Since the issue was dismissed by most people for one reason or other, the end result, which surprised many people, was when the vechicles were actually taken to the crusher and a government official stood guard while the machine actually crushed them.

      Aw, Gee whiz, poor me, I wanted, etc., is what discussion actually followed.

      As for the 2 different types of vehicles available, the 100% electric vehicle and the hybrid vehicle, if you remember, the 100% electric vehicle required it's own specialty charger and the hybrid system was entwined within a computer which did not allow for a plug in charger capability to circumvent the actual use of a plug in charger which forced its system to be 100% of it's motive power being accomplishd using gasoline which by the way had all the road taxes paid at the pump and first!! This is still true today for 99.9% of the hybrids out there today.

      Remember that none of those hybrids out there today get any of their motive power from any source other than gasoline. The only change that actually happened is their ability to better utilize the energy from the gasoline they burned thus creating more miles per gallon.

      As for the new design, the GM Volt is concerned, I have not followed it's building or growth that has been done so far but I suspect that "NONE" have ever been sold or actually placed in service for the use of the general public. I can also pretty well guarentee that this will remain that way until a suitable situation can be accomplished to satisfy government as to it's 100% ability to collect it's road taxes while watching television or playing on the internet.

      In simple terms, "AUTOMATICALLY AND FIRST"!!

      Let's face it as it is, Government could care less what energy source is available to power a motor vehicle over the road. Government only has 2 concerns to deal with; "SAFETY", and building and maintaining the infrastructure of roads and highways. This only happened because the people voted this into law to be done and the entity was created by congress for this purpose.

      What you and I are dealing with today is government's reaction to our ability to build and design a vehicle which can and will interfere with their inflow of money to do the mandated job we the people ordered done and agreed to pay for with road taxes collected before the vehicle actually used the fuel on the roads and highways of America.

      You state that the idea's I presented using today's technology are good and that you basically understand and accept the technology presented as a solution to getting it accomplished.

      Now, think back to how it was accomplished by government. It cost them nothing to accomplish the collection and a small bookeeping system to deal with it called an oil company which agreed "FIRST" to doing it and second to depositing their money and providing the reports at no charge to government.

      Do you see a system for collecting it and a "FREE" collection entity who will do it for governemnt in the wings standing by to solve their problem they are facing?

      Neither do I yet.

      This has been my point from the beginning of the creation of a viable electric car which I believe will solve a lot of secondary problems like "SMOG" and now pending oil shortages without a money printing press at hand which will ultimately create enough inflation through "GREED" to bury this country in the future.

      What is actually happening here is that the auto industry and the public don't want to solve the problem today. "NOT MY PROBLEM" is the cry so far.

      I guess that they might change their minds when they don't have any usable roads left to drive on.

      We also have a government and a congress that we already pay. Do you suppose it might be a good idea to ask them to create an entity to deal with the electric car and it's road tax collection problem?

      Now the "BIG" question; "Do you or do you not want an electric car in your future"???

      Food for thought from me since 1990.

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@...> wrote:

      Those are some great ideas on how to implement the collection of road taxes from electric vehicles. The concept of applying road taxes to electric vehicles is fairly easy to understand and its implementation is not too difficult to grasp.

      What seems to be missing is interest in the subject? As I recall, last time this subject came up you and I were about the only two who got into it. There doesn't seem to be much if any discussion of the need to apply road taxes to electric vehicles on boards such as this one. Possibly there is and I'm just missing it. I don't think Tesla has ever mentioned the subject, as if they need another obstacle. Please point me to any you are aware of who are discussing the application of road taxes to electric vehicles.

      To add a wrinkle to any proposed EV road tax plan, we must be considering something like the (currently nonexistent) GM volt or any of the other plug-in hybrids. If plug-ins are taxed by miles traveled, but no one knows what percentage of those miles are powered by gasoline or by electricity, how does one work out the tax?


      Robert Mills <rmills7759@...> wrote: After sleeping on the issue, I think the solution is at hand and available to solve this problem today. I don't think that was true even 3 or 4 years ago much less 1990.

      A new car today is nearly 100% computer controlled for one reason or another. Everything from GPS to smog and mostly for the benefit of government so, why not for road taxes as well.

      Do you do any banking on-line?
      Do you send money on-line to buy something from E-Bay?
      Do you pay your utility bills on-line?
      How about credit cards and satellite tv from Dish or Direct tv?

      Many already do and YES, so do I. I have almost forgotten how to write a check anymore.

      Are odometers in new cars today all electronic to show you the milage?
      Then why can't they show you prepaid road tax milage available as well?
      Can banks pay government on your behalf today? Yes, they can and do so every day.
      It is no more complicated than using your credit card at the gas pump.

      Is a wifi connection available most everywhere you go or drive today?
      How about wifi at home so it can upgrade prepaid milage while you sleep?
      Why not let it upgrade from the workplace parking lot?

      Then why can't the bank pay the government for road taxes on your behalf and the wifi system at Starbucks update your system while you have their $4.00 coffee inside?

      When you come out of your coffee break, you will notice the road tax milage has increased when you start up the car especially if it flashes at you until you push a button to say that you have seen the upgrade of available milage made while you were inside the store.

      These type of systems could be made to automatically do it when the number of miles availabe got down to say 300 miles to go by programming to the onboard computer which will wait until an available wifi connection became available to it. It can also warn you strongly if it has been unable to update itself before it leaves you in the parking lot by shutting the car down until government see's some money.

      This programming could be done by the dealership when they sold you the car if necessary.

      This similar type of programming can and is being done today by the young generation with their cell phones all over America. Most of them today are "PREPAID" are they not?

      And at the same time, none of this could happen unless you the owner allow the computer to make it happen by telling it what to do and when.

      So, if you can get a manufacturer to build you an electric only car, government will see the automatic "DID YOU PAY ME" switch send them their money and you can get all of your electricity from your solar panel for "FREE" if that's what you want to accomplish.

      Gee, even government might be happy with this one......

      Tell this to GM and/or Toyota and watch the process begin quickly!!

      This might well cause a drop in demand for oil and gasoline might just come down in price as well. Wouldn't that be a sad thing to happen???

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@...> wrote:
      The challenge of applying road taxes to all-electric vehicles does remain a tough nut to crack, but understanding those challenges is fairly straightforward.

      If government did get together with industry to contractually build an escape mechanism into the EV experiment before it began, some shred of evidence of this would seem to have leaked out by now. If this all occurred and the only evidence we have of it is anecdotal, that simply raises more questions.

      In the meantime no one appears to have much interest in figuring out a way to tax electric vehicles, which is understandable because there aren't any electric vehicles to tax, which may be because we don't know how to tax electric vehicles.

      Robert Mills <rmills7759@...> wrote: Nice thought but no one cares about where or how you get the electricity except maybe the pollution people. What is at issue here is the taxes that were imposed originally "BY WE THE PEOPLE" to be collected by our government and used for the purpose of building and maintaining roads and bridges in America.

      Let's compare it to your home and mine. We are taxed with property taxes for the sole reason of supporting and running our local government and it's associated systems like the fire department, schools, etc.

      Would you feel bad towards me if I got an exemption from property taxes on my home and you didn't?

      Would you then feel bad toward me if I got my energy source "FREE" from the sun and you had to pay the oil company for yours?

      In both cases, you would resent me for being able to "BEAT THE SYSTEM" when it comes to taxes but you would have NO BAD FEELINGS if I inherited my home and thus paid nothing for it or got my electricity "FREE" from the sun would you?

      Remember here that we "ALL" agreed to pay taxes for the roads and highways in a share equal to our individual use of the public facility. We also agreed to use the same measurement system in how we were taxed for this use. Ultimately, it ended up a gallon of gasoline which was the only fuel available at the time the law was made.

      Ultimately, the fairest way to tax the electric vehicle is to allow the user "EQUAL" energy value, "HEAT ENERGY" and tax it equally for all based on heat value of the energy being used. That is exactly how the system was set up for propane as a motor fuel when it began being used on the roads and highways back in the 1940's. It was taxed by the gallon but at a slightly lower rate than gasoline simply because it contained 10% less energy value per gallon.

      The goal here is to tax the vehicle for it's use of the public infrastructure not the energy it used. We ultimately settled on the idea that a small car getting 30 mpg verses a big car getting 6 mpg both did about the same damage for their milage on the road claiming the little car was easier on the road than the bigger car. They then ended up taxing the fuel by the gallon as a universal way to equally measure the energy used.

      Since the decision was universally accepted by the people around 1940, it has been that way since taxes for roads and highways began.

      The only problem we have with electricity and it's use as a motor fuel is how to tax it equally and fairly for all users concerned in the matter. Of course, today, we want everything "FIRST", just like the hamberger or the gallon of gasoline. Pay me First!!

      Now, if we could only get our paycheck before we earn it, things would be much less of a battle, "RIGHT"!!

      Unfortunately, no one has come up with a way to deal with the issue and be fair to both sides of the issue so, "WE JUST OUTLAWED IT" by not allowing it to be built in the first place.

      Find a way to satisfy the tax collector and they will build you a car.

      Yes, it's a tough nut to crack but if society supports government on this issue as it stands today, "YES", society is calling the shots even today.......I firmly believe that if you go out and do it anyway without paying your fair share of road taxes, society will put you in jail and take your wallet in the process. The public's silence in the matter will give government all the support they need to accomplish the goal.

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@...> wrote:
      If you can charge it up from a wall socket, you can charge it up from a wall socket that's powered by rooftop photovoltaic panels. I've read stories of EV owners who do just that and are very proud of it. But one could use wind or mini hydro or wood fired steam generators or hamsters running in a wheel. None of which can be taxed. Plug-in vehicles would unquestionably be a great thing for the human race and would probably spark a lot of new ways to generate electricity, but the juice still couldn't be taxed easily.

      I love the idea of battery swapping. Me and about six other people. Battery swapping solves so many issues and is so doable with modern robotics. Unfortunately battery swapping would require the world's corporations to voluntarily standardize as they have with smaller replaceable batteries and countless other items. So while vehicular battery swapping may be great for the planet and for society, society isn't calling the shots in 2008.

      Robert Mills <rmills7759@...> wrote: I have to disagree with you on the issue of taxing the electricity used in an electric car.

      Electricity being measured as a Kilowatt hour, KWH, is simple and done every day with all electric meters in the country. A KWH is simply 1,000 watts of electricity and contains 3,414 btu's of energy in it.

      Measuring this is no different than measuring natural gas by the cubic foot or the gallon of gasoline. They are simple measurements called standards.

      Natural gas has a standard of 1,000 btu's per cubic foot and is allowed a correction factor for supplying more or less btu's of heat value that is actually in the gas being supplied and can vary as much as 50% from the standard originally set up.

      You can see this on a residential gas bill and is labeled as a correction factor on the bill. The ultimate goal is that of the customer getting 100,000 btu's of heat in the now named "THERM" of gas which must contain 100,000 btu's of heat value within it.

      Road taxes are paid based on heat value of the energy supplied and is only available to industry today. Natural gas to the public may make into our future but is probably down the road a bit.

      Gasoline began this value as 100,000 btu's per gallon but smog regulations and the like have kept that standard on a roll ever since smog rules began being applied. The cost is adjusted accordingly by the supplier just as natural gas has always done since it got caught way back in the late 1950,s.

      Using electricity for the motive power of a vehicle can be measured very accurately and is relatively easy to tax by applying the standards already out there today for other fuels.

      The effective energy ultimately transmitted to the wheels of the vehicle is much like that of gasoline and is dependent on the engineer's design factors. A good example here is the heat losses to the radiator or the exhaust pipe in a gasoline powered vehicle. The more effective the engine is at using that waste heat, the better milage the vehicle will get.

      Since road taxes always have been collected at the pump for the most part by government, they can see no simple way to continue the collection chain and the ultimate automatic flow of dollars into their treasury. That is the problem we are facing today with the electric vehicle.

      You are correct in your statement about the lack of an effective way to collect these taxes and is the primary factor involved today.

      Can you imagine the problem with maintenance of our roads and highways if everyone got an electric car and just said "NO" to the tax collector and the system up and working today?

      5 years and we would not have any usable roads to drive on!

      As for the original group of electric cars put out for the 2 years and being crushed at the end of the test; It was all done with "POWER OF CONTRACT" right from the beginning that this would be the process before the government ever allowed the test to begin.

      You can bet your life on that one....

      If you or anyone else could come up with a totally automatic measuring system that was accurate to both sides of the issue and automatic and "FIRST" to the government's treasury before you could use it on the roads and highways of this country, you would have electric cars tomorrow...

      One idea that played for a while but was given up was the exchange battery method which could be described as another tank full of electricity. They couldn't find a viable way to keep spare batterys out of your garage and your knowledge of how to charge your battery at home which could cimcumvent the collection system and increase costs.

      No one has come up with a viable option so far...

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@...> wrote:
      Not an easy nut to crack. Government wants it's tax dollars instantaneously which is understandable considering cash flow realities. But there is no clear-cut way to tax electricity pumped into a vehicle as there is with petroleum fuels. The unique nature of petroleum makes it easy to single out and tax, while the ubiquitous nature of electricity makes it nearly impossible single out and tax.

      If there were a device in every vehicle that sent “miles traveled” data directly to the government, the government would still need a way collect the tax. Installing such a device in every single vehicle is an extremely daunting prospect. Achieving near 100% reliability of such a device is more daunting. If collections were made electronically and automatically ALL vehicle owners would have to be able to participate and ALL would have to maintain an escrow account from which government could extract their tax. That places the cash low problem on to the backs of the vehicle owners. But before we even got close to this "plan" the justifiable cry of Big Brother would be deafening.

      Something very interesting happened a while back when every single car company recalled, bought back, tracked down, crushed and disappeared every single EV they had built to comply with CARB law. The assRav4s and Rangers that escaped the crusher must be considered the lucky few who got away.

      The explanations that this historic EV crushing spree was due to poor public acceptance of EVs or lack of range or any of the other excuses sometimes offered is simply impossible for the rational brain to believe. Such universal crushings must have had a powerful driving force behind them and the lack of a simple way to tax EVs is about the only plausible explanation. Sure the car companies didn't want to be pushed around by an entity like CARB and sure the oil companies don't want their customers switching to electricity as their primary transportation fuel. But the lack of an appropriate way to tax personal electric transportation devices must have somehow played a role in the death of the electric car as it was just emerging in modern form.

      Still have no idea how government and auto manufacturers might have gotten together and worked all this EV crushing out so successful. Still haven't heard anyone come up with a workable way for Government to tax EVs. Still can't buy a highway capable production EV anywhere in the world in the year 2008, with the exception of one EV scooter. Whoopy.

      Robert Mills <rmills7759@...> wrote: I am more inclined to push the issue of road tax collection into a position that will satisfy the government that they will be getting their road taxes at their "DREAM STATE" of 100% of the liability and get on toward the goal of promoting and supplying alternative fuel vehicles which are blocked at every turn in the path by governemnt who fears that they are not going to get their financial cut of the money they are entitled to.

      To press the issue further, I began a career in the PROPANE industry in 1968. It was interesting and I was young and curious. I ended up in Bakersfield California doing propane conversions for the agriculture industry which included over the road vehicles which were converted new and run their entire lives on propane.

      Since this included over the road vehicles as well as agricultural functions like pumping irrigation water to the fields as well as harvesting equipment used in those fields, blending of on highway fuel and off highway fuel was common place in every day operations. Farmers and their employees would fill up a tractor directly from the pickup tank which usually carried close to 100 gallons of fuel to the job site.

      This process ended up with the pickup getting it's fuel from on-site storage tanks and the fuel being used both on-highway as well as off road or in the fields all coming from the same supply of fuel.

      What ended up here is that government lost tax revenue due to the blending of on highway use with off highway use. Government knew that this was happening but were pretty much helpless to deal with it until the "SMOG CHECK" rules came about and the physical modification rules stopped the pickup's from converting to the same fuel.

      While that stopped the tax losses in that catagory, they discovered that the problem was not nearly as severe as they thought as far as road taxes not being paid and the entire issue went away with the smog check program still out there today.

      The issue today concerns government and their road tax issue in a much more severe potential problem than that of the 1970's. Using an electric car or truck and charging it up every night is one issue to address but, there is the issue of the charging station in the daytime parking lot of today as well as other places that does make it a severe collection problem at the least.

      One example to give you some prospective in the issue;

      You drive an electric car and commute one way to work at a rate of 150 miles per day.
      You charged up your car overnight at home and again at work while it set there all day.

      This could accumulate 1,500 miles per week or 75,000 miles per year based on 50 weeks per year at work. This could add up to $1875.00 per year in road taxes, both State and Federal that never came into the coffers of government much less the automatic collect at the pump that we have today.

      It should therefore be easy to see just why government is fighting the issue by denying the electric car and/or other alternative fueled vehicles to be used on the roads today.

      The problem at issue is the collection of the road taxes that are today being handled by the oil industry at the refinery for the benefit of government with little or no problems to speak of.

      Now the question; How can that be accomplished to the satisfaction of government all over America?

      Yes, it is a tough problem to deal with and answers are hard to find.

      Now you know why the electric car "FAILED"!!

      If government should release the use of the alternative fueled vehicle to the roads and highways of America today, the roads and highways would fail through lack of money to maintain them.

      Pure and simple economics....No money to pay the bills.

      If you are inclined to see the severity of the collection problem today, just stop by a McDonalds that is not real busy. When you go in, watch the cook stare at his or her computer screen. That person will continue to do so even though your order is on their screen until such time as the computer tells the cook that your hamberger has been paid for. they will then go to work and place your hamberger patty on the grill.

      Blew me away the first time I saw that one happen......It was within the last year.

      What's next??

      Bob

      Ron Cochran <rcochran@...> wrote:
      Based on this post from Robert Mills, it is too bad
      that this tax was not based on dollars spent instead of
      a per gallon tax. At least a tax based on dollars
      spent would tend to penalize owners of gas-guzzlers.
      On the other hand, this also means that Congress would
      only need to make slight changes in the Federal Highway
      Tax in order to increase taxes on such gas-guzzlers. I
      would vote for that!

      Ron

      _____

      From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Robert Mills
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:15 PM
      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] update on GM
      Trying To Quash Driving Of All-Electric EV1
      Restorations By Universities

      When federal highway taxes were implemented back in the
      1940's it was for highway building and repair and was
      put on as a money tax per gallon purchased; example;
      "10 cents per gallon of gasoline".

      Differnet amounts for diesel and an exemption from the
      tax if it was purchased and used for fuel oil heating
      in the home or business and agriculture as well..

      These taxes were also named Federal Excise taxes by a
      lot of people and have been there for over 60 years
      now.

      Of course, they have been changed as the cost of
      building highways went up along with the Golden Gate
      Bridge in San Francisco, etc.

      The problem government has today is not with the taxes
      itself but how do I collect them "FIRST" and with 100%
      accuracy that was guarenteed to them when it was
      collected at the pump by the refinery delivering the
      fuel.

      Yes, it can be measured in lot's of ways and calculated
      accordingly. The problem that government is trying to
      deal with now is; "How do I collect it "FIRST",
      "AUTOMATICALLY", and with 100% accuaracy like the
      credit card at the gas pump and do so without
      collection costs like I have today with gasoline.

      The biggest fear that government has is that of you
      plugging a charger into your garage plug and filling up
      your electric car and I don't get my cut "FIRST"!!

      This fear also exists at the State level for their road
      taxes.

      Any suggestions short of not allowing the electric
      vehicle to be made and put out there?

      Be careful with your answer or you might just discover
      the reason for the electric cars being sent to the
      crusher in 1992.

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@yahoo. <mailto:heprv%40yahoo.com>
      com> wrote:
      So, a follow up question, for anyone.

      Are road taxes collected by the total gallons pumped?
      Or by the total $s spent at the pump for those gallons?

      Robert Mills <rmills7759@yahoo.
      <mailto:rmills7759%40yahoo.com> com> wrote: Remember me
      and "Where's my road taxes?

      Bob

      murdoch <murdoch@herecomesmo
      <mailto:murdoch%40herecomesmongo.com> ngo.com> wrote:
      GM, by contract with the Universities (although the
      contract itself
      has not been published, so this is 2nd-hand) apparently
      has tried to
      keep the donated cars from being converted back to
      all-electric (We
      have to ask: _*WHY?*_) and seems also to have tried to
      keep them from
      the public eye when they are so-converted.

      http://www.seattlee
      <http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1_WWU_Resurrection
      #GM_Reacts>
      va.org/wiki/GM_EV1_WWU_Resurrection#GM_Reacts

      [...]

      >Our take
      >
      >GM in their infinite wisdom to promote their green
      image and
      >new EV design studio is warning universities to stick
      to
      >their signed agreements regarding donated EV1 carcases
      a
      >half decade ago. Turns out the schools technical
      departments
      >were able to revive their EV1's as part of the process
      of
      >hybridizing them as intended in the donation
      contracts[4].
      >Unfortunately the schools let some people see and
      video tape
      >the vehicles and also may have let their tires touch a
      roads
      >surface, which is apparently prohibited. Another part
      of the
      >agreement was that the schools would not mar GMs
      image,
      >which they feel the videos of the car may have done.
      So why
      >is GM upset about all this?
      >
      >* It's ironic that it's not the crushing of a small
      fleet of EV1's
      >which were loved by their drivers that tarnishes the
      GM image,
      >but rather video of the cars being driven on roads
      when a group
      >of university student restores one which mars GMs
      image.
      >* Perhaps access to the EV1 would be considered
      cheating for members
      >of GMs new EV design studio which will be working on
      the new Chevy
      >Volt. [5]
      >* It takes the edge off the Volt Hype if people know
      that the
      >EV1 existed a decade ago and was already slated to
      become a series
      >hybrid. GM even had a running 4 seat EV1 at the EVS-18
      in Beijing
      >(1998) which was a series hybrid with as much range as
      the Volt.
      >[6]
      >* To ensure that only GMs own pre-approved and focus
      group branded
      >"Green Image" is promoted, being green is subjective
      after all,
      >isn't it?
      >* GM likes to talk green (EVs, PHEVs, and E-Flex), but
      in the
      >end they are really still all about the yellow
      (ethanol, Flex
      >Fuel).
      >* Perhaps because GM has become <insert expletive
      here>?

      ---------------------------------
      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast
      with Yahoo! Search.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
      Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • murdoch
      Hi Bill: Sorry to truncate your post, but I did label my response as side-bar issues. I did not necessarily disagree with that which I truncated. I will
      Message 31 of 31 , Jan 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Bill:

        Sorry to truncate your post, but I did label my response as side-bar
        issues. I did not necessarily disagree with that which I truncated. I
        will repair your post here in this one, so it is all there at the end.

        As to what I "must think", I'm pretty sure I'm on record, over years
        (if not decades) in bringing attention to what is for sale versus what
        is not for sale. In a way, I got started following the EV story when
        I noticed the disconnect and blatant dishonesty between what Auto
        manufacturers were saying and what they were doing, about real-world
        EV availability.

        While Robert Mills's thesis is counter-intuitive to some, and he tends
        to focus in on one issue to the exclusion of other critical ff&v
        issues, our discussion in this group of a wide variety of
        better-vehicle-related issues means that we sometimes we may appear to
        veer off-course.

        I have myself had lengthy discussions with Robert in the past, and
        some disagreement, as to his very singular focus on this one issue. In
        a group of more than 700 nominal participants, I think we must keep in
        mind that one single poster who is posting a lot on one particular
        issue does not necessarily represent the views of anyone outside
        themselves. It's been a long time since we have had Robert's views on
        things, and I'm glad to see what looks like a pretty robust
        discussion.

        I like to recommend to people that if they do not want to read one
        particular poster in an e-group, that a way to do this is to ignore
        that poster or delete their posts in your email program (if you access
        the group via email, which some of us do). A problem with this method
        is that it should (in my view) only be used sparingly, so as to reduce
        consternation and improve your focus. Otherwise it becomes petty and
        can result in a disjointed group discussion.

        Thank you for bringing us some hard information about the Zenn. I
        have always wanted to see more exchange of international information
        here in this group as to real-world vehicle availability in a variety
        of countries.

        You seem frustrated with your initial interchanges here, but ... maybe
        try to pace yourself a bit. Many of us have been discussing things
        for years, not to mention making personal time and resource and money
        sacrifices as activists.

        Honestly, I think you'll find over time that what you have to say will
        reach people.

        Anyway, glad to have you aboard.

        murdoch/
        forum owner/co-moderator.




        [Default] On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:08:36 -0500 (EST), bill wicksted
        <bwicksted@...> wrote:

        >For some people you have to spell out everything.
        >
        >What hybrid can you buy to day that stock will give you 50mpg or better?
        >
        >You must think that because 90mpg was done in the past it is
        >magically going to be produced by a car industry, oil cartel
        >driven government whether it be ICE only or hybrid electric?
        >With sales of SUV's going up and oil at $100.00 barrel let's
        >produce a small highly efficient ICE with 100mpg or an e-
        >model that only needs electricity, no oil changes, and none
        >of the usual oem parts and service.
        >
        >We will do this and put 1/2 of our dealerships into
        >bankruptcy because all those people at Future Fuels and
        >Vehicles are concerned about the amount of damage heavy cars
        >are doing to the roadways, but we could put in computers to
        >collect a road tax for you, SIR.
        >
        >Murdoch if you want to comment on only a small part of a
        >post you do me or the group no favour. Include the whole
        >post!

        Here is a whole post that you made previously:

        >From: bill wicksted <bwicksted@...>
        >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:45:06 -0500 (EST)
        >
        >So if a vehicle that only gets 20mpg weights more than the 40mpg the road use works out to about the same!
        >
        >What about the Hybrid's mpg (not plug in as there are none available for sale) What is the highest mpg for a hybrid? 50mpg and that's pushing it.
        >
        >The Government is getting it's pound of flesh we are the ones bleeding, as we know it's not just Government or GM or the Oil Cartel but the combination of all 3
        >
        >They keep bringing up new battery chemistries, water turbines, flywheels, Fuel cells, biofuels, ethenol, and now it's algae producing biofuel from carbon emissions (but they won't be ready for consumer use until....... you put in the excuse) just to keep the consumer from catching onto there games.
        >
        >"We The People" killed the electric car!
        >
        >Most states allow the use of e-bikes as long as they are only as efficient as a bicycle so no competion for the ICE machine.
        >
        > Two side-bar things here:
        >
        > 1. I believe the Honda Insight non-pluggable hybrid got something
        > like 60 or 70 mpg. They were light-weight and incorporated things
        > like special tires that arguably sacrificed some comfort. That
        > particular vehicle has been discontinued, but it showed that a hybrid
        > could get in excess of 50 mpg, just as we know a non-hybrid can.
        >
        > PHEVs are harder to figure, but I think in terms of overall energy use
        > (translating their plug-power to gasoline power) they have been
        > measured up in the 90 mpg range. However, PHEVs have not been widely
        > for sale, so just responding to the non-pluggable aspect of this, I
        > think some hybrids have been known to get 70 mpg.
        >
        > 2. All vehicles are not alike in terms of the damage they do to
        > roads. I believe I heard the metric that a vehicle which weighs twice
        > as much will do four times the damage. (If I am remembering this
        > correctly, it is something I saw discussed once in an article about
        > downtown road repairs necessary in San Diego.). So, depending on
        > trying to balance keeping things simple versus trying to tax those who
        > are causing the greatest expense, it is possible that the computer
        > systems should be asked to handle vehicle identification and taxing
        > them at different rates per mile.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Regards Bill W.
        >
        >bwicksted@...
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.