# Electric Cars? Are You Serious?



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Matt Master, a writer and car tester for Top Gear magazine, expresses his opinion about the viability of electric cars.

More...


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Matt Master, a writer and car tester for Top Gear magazine, expresses his opinion about the viability of electric cars. ...

And that is all it is...."His opinion" and......he......could.....be........wrong!

He needs to look around in here a bit more....


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

Sadly he made his decision on electric cars from this:








The Reva electric car, also known as the G-Wizz. An Indian-built shopping trolley that is classified as a "Quadricycle" to avoid passing safety tests. 

Here's another angle, after a crash test at just 40mph (just under it's top speed):









For comparison, here's a similarly sized car, the Smart ForTwo after a crash test at the same speed:









While I try to stay neutral on most issues, I am vehemently opposed to the Reva/G-Wizz for too many reasons to list. No, no and NO. They are an embarrassment to electric cars and any logical government would ban them due to being a monumental public safety hazard.


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

I tend to agree on the safety issue but have noticed of late that there is some local noise here in AUS about the "NEW" REVA currently being tested for certification. It's claimed to be much better in the Safety stakes and is airbag equipped. Once thats sorted it shouldn't be any worse the something like the SMART FOR2 citycar and should have a place in highly congested cities. So I wait to see what unfolds regarding it.

I don't know what it is with British press and particularly TOP GEAR that they cant see past these "Toy Cars" and cry USLESS but love the P-50. (this sound familiar) and refuse to look at all the really cool stuff thats happening with EV"S


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

KiwiEV said:


> Sadly he made his decision on electric cars from this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I 100% agree. There is supposed to be a newer safer version of the car out by now. But NEVs in general are a disgrace.

The Gwizz is a symptom of a larger problem. Carmakers, regulators and victim's rights advocates have pushed the bar up for car safety so high that the red tape alone would easily kill any of us if we were to make an honest attempt at building an electric car for sale to the public. Big automakers on the other hand, have no genuine interest in EVs and never will since they owe their prosperity to slow pace advancement of ICEs and automatic transmissions.

The solution is the low speed vehicle, or LSV. If we talk electric cars its NEVs, or neighborhood electric vehicle. Since its too expensive for a small private firm to equip the car with all the latest safety features and have several prototypes subjected to destructive testing (there is also none destructive testing that must be done) they make a car that has its top speed limited under the assumption that it is not safe to drive above a speed determined by the regulating body. In canada, that speed is 40 KPH, so the cars are governed typically to 39 KPH.

This is not an easy problem to overcome. On the one hand it is slightly easier to make the car legal for public roads, but on the other hand, its most likely unsafe to its occupants as well as other motorists. If I'm to jump off the fence, let me tell you that I have NO patience for some one that is not driving the minimum speed limit for no apparent reason.

As an EV proponent, I see NEVs as a bad idea. If for no other reason than public perception. I would never be caught dead in an NEV and I say that as some one who desperately wants to drive an EV. Imagine what the average individual would think if all he/she saw or knew about EVs was the reva/Geewiz? They would write of EVs as being ugly, slow and limited in range, which is the exact lie that the public has been fed for the better part of the 20th century.

The marketing ploys that are often used by builders of NEVs often revolve around playing on fears and guilt about the environment, in other words quasi-religious fear mongering to make some one buy the product. Again, WRONG way to go about it. I could go on all day with my rant, but I've said plenty already.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

DVR said:


> I don't know what it is with British press and particularly TOP GEAR that they cant see past these "Toy Cars" and cry USLESS but love the P-50. (this sound familiar) and refuse to look at all the really cool stuff thats happening with EV"S


They love the P-50 because it burns gas. If it doesn't give out CO2 and make a nice putt-putt noise, it's useless.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

Another reason NEVs exist is that they have to be flimsy enough to go anywhere on lead acid batteries. If they used lithium, they'd be too expensive. So they stay in the shallow end of the pool, so to speak.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

I think that the article was much more harsh than it needed to be, but it is basically correct. For the immediate future (as in the next year) there really isn't a viable replacement for the internal combustion powered car. Battery technology simply needs to be more affordable. 

The author could have mentioned that battery technology will probably become more affordable in the next few years but he either decided not to or he was unaware. Even so, the extent to which battery prices will drop is unknown, so any speculation on how viable electric cars will become in the next few years is just that, speculation.

The author could have also mentioned that more than half a dozen cars will soon be on the market that will have capabilities far superior to those of the Gee Wiz and I do wish that he had.


----------

