Spoken by someone who hasn’t seen the film at all! Do you know what the context of those quotes from the trailer are? No. Do you know whether some of your issues re: the electric car have been addressed in the film? No. Do you ever consider the possibility that they’re promoting the movie to net your classic “liberal” arthouse viewer, reducing the argument within the movie to a more accessible soundbite? No.
If you saw The Inconvenient Truth, you’ll immediately note that the tone, the factual rigor, and the commitment to building an argument in the film are very different from the 5-bell hyper-alarmist scarifying of the trailer.
So is that conceivably what’s happening here? Nooooo! Based on 3 minutes, you already know it’s a “brainless environmentalist wankfest”! :rolleyes:
By the way, you mention the website, but don’t mention any of the features beyond the trailer. Have you seen the “Questions & Answers” section (which is teeming with footnotes)? Have you read the cases made against the various “suspects”?
Those are things I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on. Your responses in this thread have been very informative, but your hysterial, ill-informed, knee-jerk reaction to a trailer that is meant to sell a movie (not an argument) is categoricaly stupid. Who knows–maybe the movie is a superficial gloss, but prejudging it sight unseen is something I expect from others here.
The thing that a lot of the people supporting electric cars seem to forget is that while 90-95% of all American driving is going to take place inside that 80-100 mile radius for an electric’s operational range, most Americans will want to use their own vehicle for that 1 in 10 or 20 trips that will go longer. This leaves the consumer in the position of either buying a special purpose vehicle for long range travel, or having to find other options.
This is a flaw even looking at Evil Captor’s scenario.
The plug-in hybrid concept had some nice perks, yes. But that’s very different from talking about a pure electric vehicle.
(Speaking as someone living in an area with both frequent hills and 6 months of damned poor sledding.)
BTW, Archive Guy, if they’re marketing the movie this way, why can’t we judge the movie on the implications that they’re trying to bring forward? Certainly I judge other movies based on what I see of the trailers, certainly enough to let me judge whether I want to watch the movie or not. If the producers/marketers of this movie expect it to actually educate, wouldn’t they choose a less inflammatory means of marketing it?
But judging whether you want to see the movie or not is very different from presuming you know exactly what the movie is. TuckerFan didn’t say “I don’t want to see this movie”, he called it a “brainless environmentalist wankfest”. Not the same thing.
Because they need to make money. The film might be well-reasoned, balanced, informative, and full of historical perspective and argument/counter-argument. But if you market a film like that–sad to say–you’re going to net fewer people than if you focus on Conspiracy, Villainy, etc. That’s true with any movie, but especially true of documentaries since a lot of people already approach such films with trepidation (especially, if it looks like it’ll be “boring”).
Haven’t you ever seen a good trailer for a bad movie? Trailers are sales pitches, not thesis statements.
Have I got the vehicle for you: The Eco-Mobile. 2 wheels, enclosed cabin, outrigger wheels that descend automatically at low speed to keep the vehicle upright. The high powered version does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, will go 195 mpg, and gets 53 mpg.
Given the 5 or more year lead-time on coal power plant projects, we’re looking ahead to regional power shortages that will happen based on:
Current power supply
Decomissioning of existing plants due to environmental regs or overt State threats
Weak intertie connections preventing wheeling from saving the day
Failure of merchant plants to deliver
If a place was having blackouts right now or was likely to now, then I would suggest bringing in some simple-cycle 501s or LMs ASAP, doing a study to determine what the major malfunction is, and only then looking at a coal plant as an option.
Tight areas abound in the US, where the reliability of the power pool falls below the NERC recommendations. I’m not working on anything in any area where rolling blackouts are happening, or likely to happen in the next year, but we’re looking at 2010-2011 time-frames. I will say TVA’s region still looks really bad, given the summer peaks they had, but they have a solution coming soon…DelMarVa looks tight too, and I really think the Atlanta area is going to be headed for trouble. However, I’m not an expert on this at all, I’m working with the experts, so don’t take those gut feels as being a good opinion.
I’m also, FTR, working on a coal plant that simply does not need to be built. I think it’s a good idea to build it from an environmental reason (as part of the conditions of building it, two other plants must have serious environmental upgrades well in advance of regulation, so the net emissions from all three will be less than they are now…they also have to burn some biomass for CO2 reduction, but I digress), but really, this plant I’m thinking of will come online at a time when so many other plants come online in the area that they’re going to end up wheeling almost 90% of their power, selling it to people entirely outside of their area. I really can’t say any more than that.
So no, I’m not saying I’m working on anything that is addressing an immediate problem. With that explaination, hopefully there’s a shred of expertise left to respect on this narrow subject.
Do I really need to? No. Why? Because the trailer over and over states that “GM killed the electric car.” Verbatum. Not just one person saying it, but several. People with very important looking titles under their names. They don’t say, “GM foolishly killed their electric car program, and they wonder why the Japanese are taking over.” Nope. They say, “GM killed the electric car.” One company has prevented every company out there from building electric cars, by their statements. They showed electric cars which were not GM products being destroyed, implying, of course, that somehow GM had something to do with it. They have Ed Begley Jr. saying that “90% of all Americans can use an electric car.” which is patently absurd. If the trailer is going to be that misleading as to the facts of the matter, then how can I trust the film to be any more accurate (and more importantly, why should I blow almost $10 to see it)?
I haven’t seen the trailers for The Inconveinent Truth so I can’t comment on that, but I’ll note that Al Gore has a lot of street cred when it comes to the environment. He’s also a highly educated individual (something even his critics will admit), I can’t say the same about Ed Begley Jr, or even Ralph Nader (who had a debate with dolls during his last presidential bid).
I didn’t need to see more than the trailer for Jason X to know that it was going to be a suckfest. No need for me to think that I might have misjudged the film and go ahead and give it a shot anyway.
Again, why bother? If the information in the trailer is so suspect (as it is), then why should I waste my time scanning their website and digging for refuting cites? Do you think that someone who accepts the word of Ed Begley Jr. as gospel is going to listen to what I have to say, no matter how good my cites are? We’ve pretty much laid out the technical problems with EVs in this thread quite nicely, what more needs to be said? Sure, there’s the promise of improved battery technology on the horizon, but we’ve been promised that cheap, clean fusion power was “just around the corner” for about 60 years now.
If you lie to me while you’re trying to sell me a product, why should I believe anything you have to say? If you push the truth, using the same sleazy techniques as a used car salesman, how are you any better than a used car salesman?
It’s fairly simple: Legal liability. Normally, I’d say that GM was foolish for listening to their lawyers, but in this case I’ll admit that they’re right for a wide variety of reasons. First of all, the battery packs in those things won’t last forever, and they contain hazardous materials in them. If an owner just parks the car and leaves it to rot some place, no doubt someone will sue GM to get them to clean up the environmental damage caused by the car. Then there’s the issue of what happens if the owner sells the car to someone else. Anything goes wrong with the car, the new owner would probably sue GM over it. Heck, I can imagine a pregnant woman suing GM saying that the electric fields caused her baby to have birth defects. (GM would win the case, of course, but would no doubt be tied up in court and have to pay lots of money to lawyers.) Next, there’s the issue of what happens if the car’s in a wreck, and a rescuer gets electrocuted while trying to pull someone out of the car. They can sue GM (pointing out that the car’s pretty rare, and that GM didn’t provide training on how to safely extract people from the cars). Some rescue workers have also said that they wouldn’t pull someone from an electric car, for fear of getting electrocuted, so there’s another potential lawsuit.
There’s also the issue of disposing of the cars. GM minimized it’s costs (the cars cost an estimated $100K each, GM wouldn’t release the actual costs and last I heard, car makers were taking a loss on the hybrid vehicles they sold) by doing it all at once. Were they allow the owners to drive the cars until their wheels fell off, GM’s disposal costs would be much higher (and if a number of years went by between cars being scrapped, people might not know what to do or who to call).
Finally, by taking the cars now, rather than later, GM leaves people with a good impression of the cars. Had they waited longer, and the cars developed all kinds of problems (not too unlikely a scenerio), then people would have had a bad opinion of electric cars, thus making it harder to sell them when they finally did get all the kinks worked out.
Can’t really add much to the discussion, but it does bring back memories. The company my dad worked for had an electric car (and may still have it for all I know) and would occasionally let him have the use of it. As kids, my siblings and I would always get excited at the prospect of tooling around in this unique (hey, no one else in our town had one!) vehicle.
Snort, chuckle, gafaw.
::: Rick wipes tears of laughter from his eyes:::
OK, let’s look at this
Let’s look at just one model car from one car maker.
XC 90 Volvo introduced in 2003. Since then the engines available are:
5 Cylinder turbo 2WD
5 Cylinder Turbo AWD
6 Cylinder turbo AWD
V8 Cylinder AWD
Now a complete ready to run engine (alternator, starrter, wiring harness, fuel lines and all that is going to run about $10,000 each X 4 engines is $40,000. Who is going to pay that $40,000? But wait there is more. We have round numbers 400 dealers in North America. If my math is right that is $16,000,000 dollars of investment jst for one model We have 5 other models that we have not looked at yet. Furthermore, we can’t guarrentee that the one engine that blows this month will be on this model, so for this to work every dealer would have to stock every engine. All for the replacement of one blown engine per month. Christ, it would be way cheaper to give the guy a new car with a trunk full of cash.
Furthermore, just where are you going to store all of these engines? Most dealers don’t have a spare warehouse laying around empty.
Lastly, what are you going to do with the used engines when they are no longer needed? You can’t sell them as new. Most people won’t buy a spare engine, just becasue they might need it some day. Kinda wasteful isn’t it?
Don’t you think offering a loan car while the customer’s car is being repaired make a bunch more sense? Particularly since you can also use the loan car for repairs other than complete engines.
You answered your own question. People want heated seats, Other than you, who wants quick disconnects on their engine? ::: crickets chirping::
You have implied that more than once in more than one thread. I hate to break it to you, but auto design did not hit the apex of it’s zenith in the mid 40’s with the design of the Tucker.
Overlooking of course the fact that your 69 has first generaton emission controls and a worn out toilet bowl for a fuel metering device. Take a 37 year old Tucker with the same miles on it, that has been used as a daily driver you will probably get the same or worse gas mileage.
NO shit? Cool can you tell me just where I can buy a 1969 Kaiser-Frazer? I would love to add that to my car collection.
So you’re telling me that there’s a difference between the 5 cylinder 2WD engine and the 5 cylinder AWD engine? :dubious: And why have such a variety of engines available as rental units? Why not simply have one? The V8 would, IMHO, be the only one you’d need. Heck, drop the V8 in the car of someone who has a 5 banger, and you’d probably get people saying, “You know, I really like how much better the V8 engine performs than mine. I’d like to trade this car in for one with a V8.”
Care you talking the complete wiring harness, or are you talking about the pigtails on the engine block? Same with the fuel lines. Are you talking the complete fuel lines from the fuel tank to the block, or just the ones on the block?
So you’re telling me that the range of engines available in the SUV Volvos are entirely different than the range of engines available for the Volvo sedans? Seems kind of wasteful to me to do such a thing. After all, if you’ve got 5 models of vehicle (for example) and each of those models has 5 different types of engines, and the engines available for those models are unique to those models (IOW, the V8 used in the sedan is entirely different than the V8 used in the SUV.), that’s pretty inefficient from an inventory and manufacturing standpoint. You’d have better economies of scale, and lower inventory costs by using the same engines across the entire model line.
Well, that all depends upon how many engines you make available, isn’t it? Additionally, it’s not like Tucker was suddenly foisting these on existing dealers. The company was starting up with this in mind. But still, if you had only small variety of engines available, it wouldn’t be that much of a problem to store them.
Not really. If you’ve rented the engines out enough, then you’ve more than paid for them, so you can offer them at a low price to customers who need an engine to replace theirs. Or you can sell the engine to one of the numerous engine rebuilding companies.
Hey, loan cars make sense, I’ll agree, but more choice is always better, don’t you think?
Talk to you mechanics. If they can get the engine in and out of the car faster, they can, if they’re paid by the job (which many are), they can make more money. Next, in all the various surveys I’ve had to fill out on how I liked my new car, I"ve never had the option of checking “Quick disconnect parts” or even a blank to put in what I’d like to see on new models. It’s always been, “Would you like heated seats?” or questions like that. Kind of hard for me to let the carmaker know what I want if they’re survey doesn’t give you the choice, now, isn’t it?
No, it didn’t. The new Bugatti that goes something like 240 MPH is a marvel of engineering. The McLaren F1 is a pretty neat car,a nd I like the Lambo models built in the 80s. I also like 60s era Mopars (which from an aesthetic standpoint are gorgeous, IMHO).
AFAIK, the Tuckers have held steady in their mileage. My Chrysler’s got 137K on the clock, and Tuckers have had more miles than that put on them.
Sure, they were called Jeeps in the US (Kaiser having bought Willys before this), but the same models as Kaiser was selling in the US in the 1950s were still being sold new in South America, after they ceased production in the US (IIRC, they also sold 'em in Israel).
To be more clear, I was trying to find out what you were basing
on. Like I said, Googling didn’t turn up much about domestic power plant construction protests, and nothing really outside a couple of mountain-state Indian reservation protests. I’m in the middle of the Delmarva area, which is one of the areas you cite, and I’ve heard nothing about any protests of new power plants.
yes jackass that is what I am telling you, the mounting points on the block are different.
Well except for the fact the engine computers are completely different, the sensors are completely different, the fuel line connections are completely different, the high speed data network is completely different, the air filter and intakes are completely different, the transmission is completely different, the exhaust is completely different, the sub frame that mounts the engine is complete different and in the case of a 2WD 5 cylinder the rear axle and fuel tank are different. Oh, and the all wheel drive coupling, control unit for the same, and wiring harness for the AWD control unit would have to be added, and you will also need a drive shaft. Did I mention that due to the weight difference the spring and shocks are also different?
Other than that I can’t think of a single reason why this would not work. :dubious: Yourself. :wally
Just the engine wiring harness, and flex lines to the on car hard lines. Which come to think of it are all ready a quick disconnect of a sort.
No I never said that. But not all of the engines are common. S40’s (old version and new version) have three engines that are not same as any other models. S80’s used to have a normally aspirated 6 cylinder that was not shared with any other car.
Feel free to start your own car company. I am guessing that my company probably knows just a tad bit more about inventory control than you do. Furthermore, while many of these castings are the same from model to model, during the computerized machining process for one car a hole may be drilled and tapped, for another it may be left out, or the hole is located somewhere else. So we do get the economy of scale, and different engines.
As I stated before we replace about 1 engine per month under warranty. 400 dealers @ 4 engines each is 1600 engines. Each year about 12 of them would get used. That leaves you 1588 gathering dust. And you are telling me my company does not know how to manage inventory? :eek:
Some sense? If a customer has bad brakes, offering them a rental engine makes no sense, offering them a loan car does. If you can’t see that, you are a grade A idiot.
Ah, just a quick reminder I am a master automotive technician, and I teach professional technicians for a living. I talk to them every day. None of them that I can think of would be in favor of such an idea.
Yes they are, I agree. But when talking about everyday driver cars over and over again you brag about just how great the Tucker was, and how it is better than car X. Dude wake up and smell the motor oil. For its time the Tucker was pretty cool. For its time. Its time was almost 60 years ago. Technology marches on. Back in the day if you got 1 HP/ cubic inch you have a high performance car. I have a station wagon parked out back that gets just a hair less than 2 HP per cubic inch, and it meets 2007 smog regulations.
Missed the part about the emission controls did you?
Well by that rather convoluted line of reasoning I guess a Jeep liberty is a Kaiser. Who knew? According to this site, the Kaiser’s last year of production was 1955.
The hole you are in is getting pretty deep, do you want to stop digging now, or are you going to keep shoveling away?
Cut to shot of chreubic, apple cheeked boy brushing teeth
Narrator: We’d like to take a break from this weeks episode of Who’s Got the Bigger Dick?: Automotive Edition to remind all of you kids out there to brush your teeth before bedtime. Tooth decay is nothing to play around with! It is well known that Communists, terrorists and other subversives don’t brush their teeth. Strike a blow for capitalism! Brush your teeth! Right Jimmy?
Apple Cheeked Cherub: Right Mr. Narrator!
Narrator: Good for you, Jimmy! Now back to our regularly scheduled program, Who’s Got the Bigger Dick?: Automotive Edition.
Let’s see… Debating sports teams is okay, debating video games is okay, debating just about every other freaking thing on this board is okay, but if we talk about cars, it’s all about who has a ‘bigger dick’. Is that it?
You may find this hard to believe, but some of us actually LIKE talking about cars. We like engineering. We like debating technological tradeoffs. If you don’t, fine. Don’t take part in the discussion. Otherwise, why don’t you take your smug attitude and cram it?
Electric cars are a bad idea, but plug in hybrid cars are a good idea. A plug in hybrid can go 20-40 miles on electric charge alone and can be done for $3000 more than the cost of a non plug in hybrid. Since most people commute less than that and travel less than that a day this means much of US transportation would be electric and not gasoline based if people plugged in at night.
Also I was watching Thomas Friedman’s report on energy last week and he interviewed a physicist who said we could triple fuel economy by replacing steel with carbon fiber which is just as durable but much ligher, which would double it, then make the cars hybrid which would triple it. We’d have a world of 70mpg cars and we already have the technology to do it. We have the technology now for plug in hybrids and carbon fiber cars which, if everpresent would cut car energy usage down dramatically, probably by 80%. Not only would cars use less energy if they were carbon fiber & hybrid but power companies are more efficient than gasoline. Gasoline only converts about 20% of its chemical energy into mechanical energy. Power plans convert closer to 40-80% of their energy into energy that can be used to power a hybrid car.
I can drive for 200-250 miles without stopping. When I do get low on fuel, I can find gas almost anywhere and 5 minutes later I’m on the road again. That is why I don’t have an electric.
The hybrids are interesting and I may look at them in a couple of years when I get a new car, but I think by that time hydrogen fuel cells will be in the near future (I hope).
Why would you say that about 