Work from home - 0 miles. 
the alternative personal transportation thread
I did a commute of 65 miles one-way for a year back in the late 90's. Longest year of my life. Luckily, those 65 miles only took about 50 minutes.
Are you on peak/off-peak pricing? I'm just on a straight up flat rate here... a very expensive flat rate. Gah. Long Island Power: 21 cents/kWh. It's about as cheap to drive our Prius as a Leaf would be per mile because of this, car payment for a new vehicle vs. our cheap-ass $11.9k CPO ride entirely aside.
Assuming you do have variable rate charging then the Leaf has you covered at least with Carwings, which lets one start and stop (and schedule) charging via one's smartphone. An extra perk is the ability to dial in an interior temperature from the phone prior to hopping in the car, while it's still tethered by its umbilicus to the charger. I imagine GM has something akin to this for the Volt.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/carwingsRange/index#/leaf-electric-car/carwingsRange/index
I was temporarily leaving in my parents' cabin when going from renting to buying a house (7 months, through the winter) that was 75 miles each way to work. Only sucked when there was a bad snowstorm.I did a commute of 65 miles one-way for a year back in the late 90's. Longest year of my life. Luckily, those 65 miles only took about 50 minutes.
Ever since I got my license I'm good for 35-45k miles a year, so driving never bothered me. Even DH day trips with a 4.5hr drive to and from the mountain.
it's .40 cents where I live depending on how much you use
Post up the tariff chart. I'm almost certain that your rates start much lower (.10-.15/kWh) and ramp up to 0.40 only for really, really high use.
Another nice honda ebike
More info: http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/mugen-honda-tt-zero-bike/#more-28665
More info: http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/mugen-honda-tt-zero-bike/#more-28665
I thought you were going to publish the latest soy shots of the VW XL1, or whatever it's called... I didn't do so because it's both still vaporware, and if it ever comes to fruition, will likely be utter crap (like that Fisker above).
its all marketing right now. it sounds amazing on paper (to a point,) but will it ever see production? probably not in the guise they originally showed.
making the car completely out of carbon fiber isnt practical/economical but making it out of metal means it wont achieve the numbers they originally boasted about.
it does look better then the first protos IMO
i am excited to see the Porsche 918 moving along...especially if it produces the power they said it would 770hp/553tq (700tq in overboost mode)
making the car completely out of carbon fiber isnt practical/economical but making it out of metal means it wont achieve the numbers they originally boasted about.
it does look better then the first protos IMO
i am excited to see the Porsche 918 moving along...especially if it produces the power they said it would 770hp/553tq (700tq in overboost mode)
Last edited:
i posted it several pages ago. and it does look fantastic
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198412&p=3761790&viewfull=1#post3761790
Last edited:
Curious what you guys' take on this is.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-transportation-natgas-idUSBRE82C17420120314
Cole's notes: Oil rich Koch family basically pays to discontinue subsidies to natural gas industry to perpetuate US' dependence on oil...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-transportation-natgas-idUSBRE82C17420120314
Cole's notes: Oil rich Koch family basically pays to discontinue subsidies to natural gas industry to perpetuate US' dependence on oil...
He must have paid off quite a few to get the Honda Civic GX awarded 2012 green car of the year when fracking sourced NG is dirtier than coal. For 2013 the Honda Civic Tar Sands Edition is slated to win.
The initial CU fracking study was recently bolstered by observations in the field:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338505/title/Natural_gas_wells_leakier_than_believed
http://onlocation.consumerreports.org/2012_new_york_auto_show/Infiniti_LE_Concept.html
My own take on it is that it's not going to save the world, similar to the Prius, yet may present a nice slightly-lower-total-impact choice for consumers who want a taste of luxury (including a near-silent drivetrain!) along with their granola. That class of consumer may well include my wife, and she probably will be looking for a car around the time this one or its successor is actually released in 2014.
One feature not mentioned in the blurb above is that this concept features an inductive charging mat (visible underneath the rear bumper in the rear 3/4 shot), over which the car positions itself automatically using self-parking technology. I gleaned that bit from the Infiniti promo video itself.
My own take on it is that it's not going to save the world, similar to the Prius, yet may present a nice slightly-lower-total-impact choice for consumers who want a taste of luxury (including a near-silent drivetrain!) along with their granola. That class of consumer may well include my wife, and she probably will be looking for a car around the time this one or its successor is actually released in 2014.
1) This thread is positively littered with vaporware and stillborn (or outright fraudulent) products from failed companies. I collated all the abortions and broken promises over in a thread on endless-sphere.com: Vaporware and failed EV companies. As one might gather from having followed this thread over the years, there are more false promises than ones upheld.
2) One of the few companies that have come through with their promised vehicles is Nissan and their Leaf. My wife and I got to ride in one at the NY Auto Show this past weekend--the culmination of a then-fading dream after the multiple aborted attempts last summer on the Drive Electric tour. Both of us actually really liked it, with my wife hopping out of the passenger seat saying "I want a Leaf!"
All of the stars seem to be in alignment: we'll be relatively flush thanks to our cheap living arrangements (MIL's house) and my own (pending) lack of a car; Seattle City Light rates are downright cheap and can be entirely offset with renewable energy for just $12 more per month; The EV Project gives away chargers to Seattle metro residents in exchange for usage information; and there are 74 EV charging stations in the Seattle metro area as of today, with more surely to come by next summer.
A blue Leaf with the 6.6 kW onboard charger and leather (both to be options on the 2013 model) would do it...
There is the minor hitch that I don't know where we'll be after 2014--my fellowship in Seattle is but a year long and I'll be scrounging for a job offer during that time. I'm pretty sure that wherever we'll live will have electric service, though, and the house has a full-size dryer then it has 240V service... Sure, we'll probably take a bath on charger installation costs in a rental place at some point down the line, but this wouldn't be about penny-pinching or saving the world, but rather about indulging our inner geeks.
2) One of the few companies that have come through with their promised vehicles is Nissan and their Leaf. My wife and I got to ride in one at the NY Auto Show this past weekend--the culmination of a then-fading dream after the multiple aborted attempts last summer on the Drive Electric tour. Both of us actually really liked it, with my wife hopping out of the passenger seat saying "I want a Leaf!"
Well, I thought about the logistics when we got home that evening, and I think it'll be finally time to pull the (electric) trigger when we move back to Seattle in a mere 15 months.me said:
All of the stars seem to be in alignment: we'll be relatively flush thanks to our cheap living arrangements (MIL's house) and my own (pending) lack of a car; Seattle City Light rates are downright cheap and can be entirely offset with renewable energy for just $12 more per month; The EV Project gives away chargers to Seattle metro residents in exchange for usage information; and there are 74 EV charging stations in the Seattle metro area as of today, with more surely to come by next summer.
A blue Leaf with the 6.6 kW onboard charger and leather (both to be options on the 2013 model) would do it...
There is the minor hitch that I don't know where we'll be after 2014--my fellowship in Seattle is but a year long and I'll be scrounging for a job offer during that time. I'm pretty sure that wherever we'll live will have electric service, though, and the house has a full-size dryer then it has 240V service... Sure, we'll probably take a bath on charger installation costs in a rental place at some point down the line, but this wouldn't be about penny-pinching or saving the world, but rather about indulging our inner geeks.
How has your Prius worked out?
Nicely done. We are in the midst of the same kind of time frame to replace a car (Subaru) and the Leaf is at the top of our list ATM. This will be our families primary car for day-to-day driving, primarily my wife. A photovoltaic system for our home will follow in '14. CANT WAIT.1)
A blue Leaf with the 6.6 kW onboard charger and leather (both to be options on the 2013 model) would do it...
CP
No issues, aside from a sometimes-recalcitrant left sided HID bulb that needs the headlight switch turned on twice maybe one 1 of every 20 times in order to get it to light up. Still getting great gas mileage: 39-45 in the city typically, 42-55 on the highway depending on weather, tires, terrain, etc. It swallows two bikes with the front wheels off and is wonderfully quiet when driven sedately.
Things I'd change about it: a touch more rear headroom. Less engine noise when merging (it's really quiet otherwise, and especially at stoplights with the engine stopped completely). Longer lower seat cushion, and more adjustments for the front seats in general. Telescoping steering column. Oddly enough, its speed and softly tuned suspension don't bother me that much. Go figure.
I must note I have an aunt and uncle who each have lower-trim Prii, with grey on black interiors, that I don't nearly as much. Our top-of-the-line Prius's leather steering wheel, cream colored leather seats, built in navi, HIDs, tint, and even the stupid auto dimming Homelink mirror make a big difference perceptually. Of course, it also helps that ours is kept really clean (thanks to me) while both of theirs were absolutely filthy before I gave them a vacuum. (Now theirs are only moderately filthy. I don't think they vacuumed out the interior since they bought them new in 2005 and 2006, respectively!)
Nice! I'm envious on the prospect of getting a solar system. While we should be able to jump right in and get the car as soon as we get to Seattle (July 2013) it won't be until 2016 or so until we actually own a house. I've vowed to not buy a house until I've been at a practice for two solid years, and adding solar to a short term rental house would be pissing away money. In the meantime, Seattle's Green Up! program will be nearly as good.
Last edited:
boo to no KERS!
599 HY-KERS
http://blog.caranddriver.com/ferrari-patents-a-mostly-conventional-hybrid-system-not-kers/
599 HY-KERS
Focus Electric Quick Spin Review:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/24/2012-ford-focus-electric-quick-spin-review/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/24/2012-ford-focus-electric-quick-spin-review/
I like the additional rear seat room, as compared to the Leaf. I don't like the styling, rising beltline/small rear window, the dash, or that profits from it would go to paying Mullaly's and the Ford board's inflated corporate salaries and pensions. (Renault-Nissan is better in this regard although Ghosn makes a big chunk of money. The pure-Japanese companies such as Honda and Toyota have much less greedy executives iirc.)
The Focus looks like a traditional car and drives more like one plus its actually slightly more efficient and already has the faster charging system. Ghosn and Mullaly are on par with each other. I think I'd rather have a plug-in Prius than a Leaf but being an early adopter of automotive technology is usually never a practical idea.
Not sure if this is the right place to post (otherwise I might start a separate thread), but has anyone got any experience with the new Mazda skyactiv engines? I'm now in the market for a (stupid-friggin-ugly useless-against-my-better-judgement) mini-SUV and I'd like the most fuel efficient that comes in at under than 25K. It seems that what best fits the bill is the new Mazda CX-5.
The reason for "needing" a new vehicle is that last week our neighbour who has (had) the same vehicle as us, a 2006 Mazda 3, was rear-ended in an intersection (by a stoopid teen-ager driving daddy's truck). Dude tried to outrun the amber light, didn't notice that a car in front our our neighbour was stopped waiting to turn left, and rammed into the back of the car. He didn't even hit the brakes. The back of her hatch was kissing the back of the front seats. Luckily, their kids weren't in the cars. But that got my wife thinking that maybe our car isn't the safest for our little monkey. So something higher and bulkier appears to be in my future. I've always hated the thought and notion of those mini-SUVs, with a roof box we have plenty of cargo space. But the sight of their car and what happened to the baby seats won't be forgotten any time soon.
It's not the end of the world, caus' our car is paid off, and is starting to get at that point in it's life that several major expenses are in it's future (new rear shocks, rust spots that need to be taken care of, winter tires are 5 years old and will need to be replaced soon, and the engine is making a funny sound on startup).
So.... it appears the candidates in this class of vehicle (I'm in Canada) from the Japanese automakers are the CR-V, the Rav-4, and the CX-5. I might have considered a Tiguan, but from what I gather, it requires premium gasoline. I want a manual transmission, which probably rules out a great many vehicles... and good fuel efficiency is a heavily weighted factor in my decision-making process.
Anyways, any thoughts of skyactiv engines, or on the cx-5 in particular?
thanks monkeys...
The reason for "needing" a new vehicle is that last week our neighbour who has (had) the same vehicle as us, a 2006 Mazda 3, was rear-ended in an intersection (by a stoopid teen-ager driving daddy's truck). Dude tried to outrun the amber light, didn't notice that a car in front our our neighbour was stopped waiting to turn left, and rammed into the back of the car. He didn't even hit the brakes. The back of her hatch was kissing the back of the front seats. Luckily, their kids weren't in the cars. But that got my wife thinking that maybe our car isn't the safest for our little monkey. So something higher and bulkier appears to be in my future. I've always hated the thought and notion of those mini-SUVs, with a roof box we have plenty of cargo space. But the sight of their car and what happened to the baby seats won't be forgotten any time soon.
It's not the end of the world, caus' our car is paid off, and is starting to get at that point in it's life that several major expenses are in it's future (new rear shocks, rust spots that need to be taken care of, winter tires are 5 years old and will need to be replaced soon, and the engine is making a funny sound on startup).
So.... it appears the candidates in this class of vehicle (I'm in Canada) from the Japanese automakers are the CR-V, the Rav-4, and the CX-5. I might have considered a Tiguan, but from what I gather, it requires premium gasoline. I want a manual transmission, which probably rules out a great many vehicles... and good fuel efficiency is a heavily weighted factor in my decision-making process.
Anyways, any thoughts of skyactiv engines, or on the cx-5 in particular?
thanks monkeys...
Before ditching the fully-paid-off Mazda3, I'd do some research to ensure that whatever you're buying is at least safer than your current car. The fact that the idiot in question didn't hit the brakes means that his bumper was a normal height, and probably quite a bit above the Mazda3's. Usually when there's a rear-end collision the car in back hits the brakes hard enough that the bumper is a lot lower, which is why quite often the car in back usually ends up getting far more damage than the one he/she hits.
I'm also not sure whether those CUVs are really that much more tough/rugged than a hatchback of the same size. Maybe Bizutch might have some additional information being in the insurance industry?
I'm also not sure whether those CUVs are really that much more tough/rugged than a hatchback of the same size. Maybe Bizutch might have some additional information being in the insurance industry?
Pipistrel Panthera:
202 knots burning 10 gallons an hour. That's about 24mpg, and no worries about traffic. 1025nm range with 45 minute reserve and a full load of passengers. It also has an airframe parachute to convince nervous fliers to get in the ****ing plane. Should come in at under 500k.
http://www.pipistrel.si/plane/panthera/overview
202 knots burning 10 gallons an hour. That's about 24mpg, and no worries about traffic. 1025nm range with 45 minute reserve and a full load of passengers. It also has an airframe parachute to convince nervous fliers to get in the ****ing plane. Should come in at under 500k.
http://www.pipistrel.si/plane/panthera/overview
Last edited:
This thread (shikataganai == Toshi) of mine over on NASIOC is very relevant to your interests:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2195556
With regard to the CX-5, I wasn't impressed at all with its interior layout or quality at the recent auto show. Your impressions may well vary, and the drivetrain itself has been garnering praise far and wide.
Thanks for that Toshi. I really appreciate it.
So I have two questions:
1. if those cross-over SUVs are getting lighter, are they still (slightly) safer? I'm not sure how much credence to lend to their claims, but Mazda says that part of the skyactiv philosophy is to make the vehicle lighter. I've read that it has lost over 500lbs on its predecessor...
2. is traction control really that helpful? I was under the impression that the statistics indicated the opposite. People draw a false sense of security from it and wind up driving like @sses. I live in an area that gets frequent snow fall, freeze/thaw cycles, and the most amount of freezing rain in all of Canada (heard it on the news just last week). I tend to think that my front wheel drive Mazda 3 with winter tires driven carefully is all I need to get to where I want to go (ski hills in distant places via ugly roads). I was thinking of avoiding traction control (why pay for it when it's really a gimmick?). But the stats you quote seem to indicate otherwise... or am I wrong?
3. actually I have three questions... why only focus on driver deaths. In reality, I'm more concerned with the health and well being of my offspring. I realize that if I'm not around he'll have a hard time caring for himself, but still... he's what matters to me, not me. I'd like safety stats for children killed or injured while in child seats in the back seat. Does that exist?
4. ok fine, I have a bunch of questions! Are there any stats on the incidence of the types of impacts and which ones are most "injurious" (if that's even a word?). I.e. we see all these crash tests done replicating full frontal impacts, but how often does that really happen. I would imagine that the highest frequency "serious" accidents are rear-ending another vehicle, and spinning out and hitting an immovable object such as a traffic barrier, light-post or trees. And then there's the accidents involving moose, deer and bears. Those are the ones that well and truly keep my speed in check on a highway. I have an irrational paranoia of hitting one of those animals as they jump out in the road completely unexpectedly.
again, thanks for posting all that. I really appreciate it. We're crunching the numbers now. Once that's been done, then I'll start going to have a look. But all my research suggests that the CX-5 (in 2wd with the manual tranny) is the most fuel efficient of the CUVs. I've been happy with my 3 for the past 6 years, so unless the CX-5 is egregiously bad on the inside, it may just fit the bill for me and my family.
still, I will always resent that I was forced by idiot drivers in bigger vehicles to purchase one of these. it goes against every fibre of my being. who needs a xtra large pickup truck in the city? other than contractors. and should people under the age of 25 really be allowed to drive them in the city? why?
So I have two questions:
1. if those cross-over SUVs are getting lighter, are they still (slightly) safer? I'm not sure how much credence to lend to their claims, but Mazda says that part of the skyactiv philosophy is to make the vehicle lighter. I've read that it has lost over 500lbs on its predecessor...
2. is traction control really that helpful? I was under the impression that the statistics indicated the opposite. People draw a false sense of security from it and wind up driving like @sses. I live in an area that gets frequent snow fall, freeze/thaw cycles, and the most amount of freezing rain in all of Canada (heard it on the news just last week). I tend to think that my front wheel drive Mazda 3 with winter tires driven carefully is all I need to get to where I want to go (ski hills in distant places via ugly roads). I was thinking of avoiding traction control (why pay for it when it's really a gimmick?). But the stats you quote seem to indicate otherwise... or am I wrong?
3. actually I have three questions... why only focus on driver deaths. In reality, I'm more concerned with the health and well being of my offspring. I realize that if I'm not around he'll have a hard time caring for himself, but still... he's what matters to me, not me. I'd like safety stats for children killed or injured while in child seats in the back seat. Does that exist?
4. ok fine, I have a bunch of questions! Are there any stats on the incidence of the types of impacts and which ones are most "injurious" (if that's even a word?). I.e. we see all these crash tests done replicating full frontal impacts, but how often does that really happen. I would imagine that the highest frequency "serious" accidents are rear-ending another vehicle, and spinning out and hitting an immovable object such as a traffic barrier, light-post or trees. And then there's the accidents involving moose, deer and bears. Those are the ones that well and truly keep my speed in check on a highway. I have an irrational paranoia of hitting one of those animals as they jump out in the road completely unexpectedly.
again, thanks for posting all that. I really appreciate it. We're crunching the numbers now. Once that's been done, then I'll start going to have a look. But all my research suggests that the CX-5 (in 2wd with the manual tranny) is the most fuel efficient of the CUVs. I've been happy with my 3 for the past 6 years, so unless the CX-5 is egregiously bad on the inside, it may just fit the bill for me and my family.
still, I will always resent that I was forced by idiot drivers in bigger vehicles to purchase one of these. it goes against every fibre of my being. who needs a xtra large pickup truck in the city? other than contractors. and should people under the age of 25 really be allowed to drive them in the city? why?
isnt TC/SC mandatory?
Size and weight both help. With regard to size, see RMI's page . They have more buried in their site on how a lightweight-but-big car could be pretty safe.
The CX-5 itself is neither tiny nor flyweight. 3300 lb estimated curb weight. It's an IIHS Top Safety Pick, for what that's worth. I add in the "fwiw" disclaimer because IIHS tests vehicles vs. fixed objects, not vehicles vs. larger vehicles…
Traction control can be replicated with a light foot. Stability control, on the other hand, can brake individual wheels and otherwise do things that you simply can't do with two (or three) pedals and a steering wheel alone. I think it's a great thing to have on a road-going car.
I'd be surprised if such granular data were available. There were "only" 1314 child traffic accident fatalities in 2009, for instance , so each individual car model probably only accounts for several dozen. I can't see there being enough power in there to draw any conclusions, especially since there are huge confounding factors. Namely, drunk parents, unbelted parents, unbelted kids, and incorrect choice or use of child seats all have a large effect.
http://www.ancap.com.au/faqs
ANCAP said:
Last edited:
Step aside, Nissan Leaf: A usurper has taken your place in my oft-changed vehicular plans, just as I predicted a month ago. May I present the 2013 Toyota RAV4 EV, just introduced formally by Toyota at EVS26.
Key stats:
- 38.3" rear legroom, assuming 2012 dimensions, which is ample for rear-facing child seats
- 41.8 kWh of Tesla lithium-ion batteries powering a similarly Tesla-sourced 115 kW electric motor, good for 0-60 in 7 seconds and 100 miles of range
- 9.6 kW Level 2 charger, which implies that charging from empty will take 4.5 hours
- Available for outright sale (!) to the public in "late summer 2012", assuming one lives in Sacramento, Bay Area, LA, or San Diego
- 2600 to be built over a 3 year run, which would more than double Tesla's cumulative car output
One can clearly see that it's simply much larger in every measure than the 31.1" legroom, 24 kWh battery, 80 kW motor, 3.3/6.6 kW charger Leaf. There is a price for this largeness, of course, and that'd be a 4100 lb curb weight, a $49.8k price tag before applicable tax credits, and higher per-mile energy consumption.
The upside is that $49.8k is "only" $12k more than the price of a Leaf SL (and a hell of a lot cheaper than the luxo-barge gas SUVs that I'd been salivating over just a few months ago). The other huge upside is that Toyota named a price at all, indicating that this is not going to be a lease-only model. This in turn implies continued factory support at least at some level, as opposed to prior lease-only EVs' fate of being relegated to the crusher at the end of the lease term.
If I'm lucky then Toyota will expand sales to the Seattle metro region by the time my wife and I move out there (summer 2013). If not, then we will fly down to Cali, buy one in the Bay Area, and truck it back home, Consumer Reports-style. It will happen--or some subsequent version of my ever-evolving plans will, at least…
Key stats:
- 38.3" rear legroom, assuming 2012 dimensions, which is ample for rear-facing child seats
- 41.8 kWh of Tesla lithium-ion batteries powering a similarly Tesla-sourced 115 kW electric motor, good for 0-60 in 7 seconds and 100 miles of range
- 9.6 kW Level 2 charger, which implies that charging from empty will take 4.5 hours
- Available for outright sale (!) to the public in "late summer 2012", assuming one lives in Sacramento, Bay Area, LA, or San Diego
- 2600 to be built over a 3 year run, which would more than double Tesla's cumulative car output
One can clearly see that it's simply much larger in every measure than the 31.1" legroom, 24 kWh battery, 80 kW motor, 3.3/6.6 kW charger Leaf. There is a price for this largeness, of course, and that'd be a 4100 lb curb weight, a $49.8k price tag before applicable tax credits, and higher per-mile energy consumption.
The upside is that $49.8k is "only" $12k more than the price of a Leaf SL (and a hell of a lot cheaper than the luxo-barge gas SUVs that I'd been salivating over just a few months ago). The other huge upside is that Toyota named a price at all, indicating that this is not going to be a lease-only model. This in turn implies continued factory support at least at some level, as opposed to prior lease-only EVs' fate of being relegated to the crusher at the end of the lease term.
If I'm lucky then Toyota will expand sales to the Seattle metro region by the time my wife and I move out there (summer 2013). If not, then we will fly down to Cali, buy one in the Bay Area, and truck it back home, Consumer Reports-style. It will happen--or some subsequent version of my ever-evolving plans will, at least…
Last edited:
Why yes I would like to have a play in one of those..... or in/on almost anything on that track.
Brammo Empulse R priced at $19k.
Key specs:
- $19k price if you didn't read that last sentence
. Yikes.- 54 hp motor, unclear if AC or DC, liquid cooled, air cooled, etc.
- 10.2 kWh of lithium
- 6 speed gearbox (!)
- 120 mile range in the city, 56 miles on the highway
I find it interesting that the highway range is so much shorter than that in the city. Goes to show that the aerodynamics of an unfaired motorcycle (and even a faired one) are pretty ****ty.
If one lives in California then state and Federal tax incentives bring the effective price down to ~$15,850. Oregon residents--I'm looking at you, jimmydean!--get more from the state in direct incentives but have no state sales tax to deduct, so the math comes out to about the same, +/- a few hundred $. Washington residents just get a sales tax exemption, with no direct state incentives, so would only benefit from the 10% Federal tax credit (courtesy of the ARRA): $17,100.
That's expensive any way you cut it.
Last edited:
Math time, or "a long post in which the purchase price + 'fuel' price is considered for a RAV4 EV and an Empulse R."
Shared assumptions for both cases:
- Average gas price over the next 6 years of $4 in today's dollars, which I personally feel is very conservative.
- Average electricity price of $0.10/kWh, also conservative and higher than the current Seattle City Light rates that range between 4.7 and 9.8 cents/kWh, iirc.
- Charger efficiency of 90%, which is more than fair unless one's talking inductive charging
RAV4 EV case-specific assumptions:
- 12k miles/year, even though that might be practically challenging to achieve in the EV due to the range.
- V6 4WD RAV4 Limited with navi/Entune as the relatively feature- and performance-matched gas contender, which gets 22 mpg combined and costs $29.9k before destination as described
- Single trim EV model, which costs $49.8k before destination and uses about 0.440 kWh/mile (based off of published Leaf efficiency * scaling factor of 1.2 for weight)
- An EV buyer with an adjusted gross income sufficient to qualify for the full $7,500 Federal tax credit ($55k for a married couple filing jointly), and who lives in Seattle, where EVs are exempt from the 9.1% (iirc) sales/use tax on new vehicles and EVSE is provided free by The EV Project. California's incentives are even more friendly, of course.
Motorcycle case-specific assumptions:
- 4k miles/year, as that's about how much I have personally averaged on two wheels over the last 4 years
- Triumph Street Triple R as the gas motorcycle for comparison purposes, since it's a relatively quick naked standard with some fancy trim bits and adjustable suspension, as is the Empulse R. MSRP $9,599.
- Empulse R MSRP of $18,995, with an out the door price in Washington State of $17,095 per the 10% tax credit under the auspices of the ARRA. I don't imagine anyone buying a new bike of any sort doesn't have a high enough AGI to qualify for a full $1,900 tax credit.
- Empulse R energy use of 0.128 kWh/mi, which splits the highway/city figures from Brammo's PR
- Street Triple mpg of 40
General gas price formula: A miles x B years * $C/gal / D mpg
General electricity price formula: A miles x B years * $N/kWh * M kWh/mile / 90% charging efficiency
RAV4 case: Plug in A = 12,000, B = 6, C = 4, D = 22 for the gasser and you get $21,818 in fuel costs. RAV4 EV electric costs with A and B as above, N = 0.10, M = 0.440 come out to $4,693. Net "fuel" cost savings over 6 years and 72,000 miles therefore come out to $9,570. The net initial purchase price difference = $49.8k - $7,500 - ($29.9k * 1.091) = $9,679.
Therefore, the RAV4 EV breaks even at just over 6 years@12k miles/year, and that's before accounting for lower maintenance and increased resale value, the latter of which for used RAV4 EVs has historically been far greater than used gas RAV4s.
Motorcycle case: For the Triumph, A = 4,000, B = 6, C = 4, D = 40 yields $2,400. The Empulse R, with A and B as above, N = 0.10, M = 0.128 would drink $341 of electricity. Net "fuel" savings over 6 years, 24,000 miles would be $2,059. The net purchase price difference is $17,095 - ($9,599 * 1.091) = $6,622. It would take about 25 years, roughly speaking, before one recouped the cost difference.
I don't think the math for the Empulse R looks nearly as rosy as that for the RAV4 EV, needless to say, although it does have that intangible benefit of not using gas at all. Plug in a cheaper Zero or a more expensive gas motorcycle into the equation and one can come to a different conclusion, of course, but that wasn't the specific question being answered.
Shared assumptions for both cases:
- Average gas price over the next 6 years of $4 in today's dollars, which I personally feel is very conservative.
- Average electricity price of $0.10/kWh, also conservative and higher than the current Seattle City Light rates that range between 4.7 and 9.8 cents/kWh, iirc.
- Charger efficiency of 90%, which is more than fair unless one's talking inductive charging
RAV4 EV case-specific assumptions:
- 12k miles/year, even though that might be practically challenging to achieve in the EV due to the range.
- V6 4WD RAV4 Limited with navi/Entune as the relatively feature- and performance-matched gas contender, which gets 22 mpg combined and costs $29.9k before destination as described
- Single trim EV model, which costs $49.8k before destination and uses about 0.440 kWh/mile (based off of published Leaf efficiency * scaling factor of 1.2 for weight)
- An EV buyer with an adjusted gross income sufficient to qualify for the full $7,500 Federal tax credit ($55k for a married couple filing jointly), and who lives in Seattle, where EVs are exempt from the 9.1% (iirc) sales/use tax on new vehicles and EVSE is provided free by The EV Project. California's incentives are even more friendly, of course.
Motorcycle case-specific assumptions:
- 4k miles/year, as that's about how much I have personally averaged on two wheels over the last 4 years
- Triumph Street Triple R as the gas motorcycle for comparison purposes, since it's a relatively quick naked standard with some fancy trim bits and adjustable suspension, as is the Empulse R. MSRP $9,599.
- Empulse R MSRP of $18,995, with an out the door price in Washington State of $17,095 per the 10% tax credit under the auspices of the ARRA. I don't imagine anyone buying a new bike of any sort doesn't have a high enough AGI to qualify for a full $1,900 tax credit.
- Empulse R energy use of 0.128 kWh/mi, which splits the highway/city figures from Brammo's PR
- Street Triple mpg of 40
General gas price formula: A miles x B years * $C/gal / D mpg
General electricity price formula: A miles x B years * $N/kWh * M kWh/mile / 90% charging efficiency
RAV4 case: Plug in A = 12,000, B = 6, C = 4, D = 22 for the gasser and you get $21,818 in fuel costs. RAV4 EV electric costs with A and B as above, N = 0.10, M = 0.440 come out to $4,693. Net "fuel" cost savings over 6 years and 72,000 miles therefore come out to $9,570. The net initial purchase price difference = $49.8k - $7,500 - ($29.9k * 1.091) = $9,679.
Therefore, the RAV4 EV breaks even at just over 6 years@12k miles/year, and that's before accounting for lower maintenance and increased resale value, the latter of which for used RAV4 EVs has historically been far greater than used gas RAV4s.
Motorcycle case: For the Triumph, A = 4,000, B = 6, C = 4, D = 40 yields $2,400. The Empulse R, with A and B as above, N = 0.10, M = 0.128 would drink $341 of electricity. Net "fuel" savings over 6 years, 24,000 miles would be $2,059. The net purchase price difference is $17,095 - ($9,599 * 1.091) = $6,622. It would take about 25 years, roughly speaking, before one recouped the cost difference.
I don't think the math for the Empulse R looks nearly as rosy as that for the RAV4 EV, needless to say, although it does have that intangible benefit of not using gas at all. Plug in a cheaper Zero or a more expensive gas motorcycle into the equation and one can come to a different conclusion, of course, but that wasn't the specific question being answered.
stevew, did you already post this?
Electric '34 Ford Project, by EV Consulting, Inc.
Rolling chassis
Battery boxes
What's inside those battery boxes
Under hood view
Set up for the dragstrip. NHRA certified (with a roll cage, too) to 8.5 seconds.
It's no joke:
- 1296 A123 26650 LiFePO4 batteries, nominal pack voltage of 356.2V, maximum current between the two battery boxes of 2800A (!!), which yields a maximum theoretical power of 997kW (!!!)
- Two Zilla (as in the drag bike) Z2K-EHV motor controllers, each of which is more than up to the power thrown at them by the batteries
- Two DC motors rated for 400 peak horsepower and 1000 ft-lbs peak torque
Yowza. That project had to have cost in the six figures…
Electric '34 Ford Project, by EV Consulting, Inc.
Rolling chassis
Battery boxes
What's inside those battery boxes
Under hood view
Set up for the dragstrip. NHRA certified (with a roll cage, too) to 8.5 seconds.
It's no joke:
- 1296 A123 26650 LiFePO4 batteries, nominal pack voltage of 356.2V, maximum current between the two battery boxes of 2800A (!!), which yields a maximum theoretical power of 997kW (!!!)
- Two Zilla (as in the drag bike) Z2K-EHV motor controllers, each of which is more than up to the power thrown at them by the batteries
- Two DC motors rated for 400 peak horsepower and 1000 ft-lbs peak torque
Yowza. That project had to have cost in the six figures…