Reply With QuoteRange Rovers are the furthest thing away from an affordable 4x4.Originally Posted by jzamp
But what difference does distances play as long as you drive on asphalt roads?
Range Rovers are the furthest thing away from an affordable 4x4.
depends a lot, if you start talking about electric cars and infrastructure to sustain them, as well as maximum distance allowed on one charge. (I am talking about alternate fuels here, and alternate methods of solving the issue....I didn't make that clear)
Electric cars are interesting. The biggest issue there is the battery duration and overall life. However, places like China are going with a standard battery, swappable at service stations in only a few minutes. In city is obviously a different story as it would be for feasible there to build an electrified grid for the cars to use (almost like slot cars).
I think that it's a difference in attitude/habits more then distance. At distances like these most europeans would opt to go by train or bus.
American cities on the most part aren't set up for mass transit. Step off an airplane or bus in almost any city on the West Coast and you have to spend money on a rental car or taxi because you'll be going nowhere fast.
The materials for batteries, at least one used in vehicles, are rarer and more expensive than oil. I just don't see the economics feasibility if you scale it up for hundreds of millions of drivers.
Personally, I say, more focus on hydrogen-related fuel/engine.
I know, I've tried it!
That's an infrastructure project worthy of stimulus money if I ever saw one.
Very possibly. Americans are a bit spoiled too I think and if they can't drive, most will fly rather than bus or train. Also trains here are not nearly as "good" as in Europe. (using the term "good" to cover a multitude of things)
It is going to be a multifaceted approach.
I suspect in about 20 years (unfortunately I won't be around to see it) - we'll have hydrogen fuel cell cars, electric, electric hybrids, diesel, diesel-hybrids to go along with gasoline only vehicles on the road.
Diversifying fuel sources sort of helps with the peak demand and lets people buy what suits their lifestyle.
For commuting to work - I can see a two passenger small battery powered vehicle that has an effective range of 50-100 miles to be quite good. In addition, battery weights quickly goes up if vehicle weight goes up - making fullsized vehicles less practical and economical. (More battery to power higher weight motor to move more battery for more range).
A hydrogen fuel cell car for luxury consumers, electric-hybrids for hauling/transportation, and gasoline only for cheap econ mobiles & performance sport vehicles.
The less gasoline people use for commuting short/urban distances - the more gasoline will be available for the weekend Miata cruise around the mountain coast roads.
Regarding prior comments re why Europeans enjoy more efficient diesels and vehicles in general?
In the United States, the government is more concerned with diesel emissions (i.e. particulate/smog) than the EU. It is a costly endeavor for auto manufacturers to get an engine certified, and because Americans associate diesel with old smokey oil burners of old... there just isn't a lot of incentive. Plus... diesel in the United States is costly because of our over-reliance on trucking... which keeps a constant high demand for diesel fuel (but not sufficiently so to increase diesel supply from the refinery).
As for European gasoline efficiency? More Europeans are willing to put up with 0-60 times of 15 seconds. If you've never driven on the autobahn - I think it is a life changing exp to ride in a VW Lupo 3 cylinder diesel... 15 seconds to 100km... top speed of 165km... but we could never get there.
Last edited by Andrew Chalmers; 08-28-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Oh and that map is rather useless since they've cut out a large part of Europe which is ~3,9M sq miles vs. the US ~3,8.. However Europe has a higher population density.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of my keyboard as I type.People tend to do that around here...
This is true! For instance....if a person from California flys into the DFW airport....there is no rapid transit (surface train transit) from the airport to Ft. Worth, and there was none to larger Dallas either, they are talking about it, but for many years the DART (dallas area rapid transit) had zero connection to the international airport.
Dumb planning, based on economics I guess.
Well so am I, if I can't drive I'll fly.. However I am probably not representing the avg. European.
Yes, so I've gathered, which is a bit ironic since the big railway revolution took place in the US.
In certain parts of the country - previously profitable and viable mass-transit systems (e.g. electric rails on a schedule not buses on public roads) were systematically bought out and ripped up/cemented shut to encourage cars/buses.
The political institutions still have this bent. It is easier to get budget to widen a road by two lanes which reduces congestion for a mile or two until the next bottleneck than to get funding/support for extending an existing subway/trolly system.
Posting Permissions
