Top Gear lying about EVs again.

[BCO]

Sports cars aren't sold as Bundu bashers, your illustration is spurious.

EVs are not sold as cross-country vehicles therefore Top Gear's conclusion was spurious.

I don't see them slagging the electric milk truck, a vehicle intended for a specific purpose.

To most people their car is a general purpose vehicle.

While I generally choose small economy cars for use in urban centres I have also used my cars for extended 600Km trips, used it lug sand and firewood, used it on muddy farm roads.

I do not leave home every single morning with a full tank of petrol, nor do I stick to a planned pre-determined route.

In order to compete with the internal combustion car, or even the hybrid, the EV needs to be general purpose. It doesn't have to do all these tasks well, but it does need to do them "Good enough", that is to say as good as a comparatively sized small hatchback.

Right now the EV's are struggling to do these things "as well" as a 1958 Austin 850.

For all practical purposes the technology is 50 years behind.

I disagree. In a normal 2 car household it is perfectly feasable to have one normal ICE car and one EV. My wife would never ever need more than a 200km range. Why then, does an EV not meet her needs perfectly?

 

[alloytoo]

They went out of their way to esnure the vehicle failed, and then bemoaned the technology afterwards. For many people - but not all - an EV would meet their motoring requirements, and as long as the charged the car each night they would not have any problems. The fact that an EV has a limited range is NOT a problem or a failure of the technology. If you require a vehicle with a range of longer than 200km then don't get an EV.

EV range is a problem for the practical uptake of the technology. That is what they illustrated. They illustrate that a deviation in route (Your sister needs a lift) may well be beyond the range of the current generation of EV's. For a PV it's a simple five minute stop for fuel, not so for EV.

It's particularly a problem when compared to the extended range of modern diesels.

Producing hydrogen takes a hell of a lot of energy and storing it is difficult. Ostensibly, there are far fewer hydrogen filling stations out there than even EV charging points, so I'm not sure how a hydrogen vehicle "works today" compared to a battery EV.

It takes five minute to full.

Depends on the energy supply. In countries with high nuclear and renewable inputs into the grid, EVs are definitely cleaner.

They're also a massive addition drain on the grid during peak times. [-]Renewable[/-] Zero emmission inputs are not necessarily easy to upscale. Hydro and Geothermal power have limits and are often supplemented by peak period gas turbines and coal generation.

Again, for MANY people, an EV is perfectly up to snuff. I'd wager that the majority of motorists even in Joburg do well under 200km a day. No, EVs aren't perfect. Yes, they are limited, but Top Gear went out of their way to misrepresent the Leaf, purposefully exaggerating its shortcomings.

I found it very easy on a busy day to rack up 200kms in Durban, nevermind Joburg.

It's more of a mispresentation to assume that everyone is always going to begin their journey fully charged.

 

[alloytoo]

EVs are not sold as cross-country vehicles therefore Top Gear's conclusion was spurious.

EV's are being sold as very expensive urban commuters. I can take my not so expensive PV urban commuter and visit my friend in the next city.

I can get there and back without refueling, I can leave empty and refuel enroute with very little delay, when I get there I can leave when I want to, not when the car is recharged.

I disagree. In a normal 2 car household it is perfectly feasable to have one normal ICE car and one EV. My wife would never ever need more than a 200km range. Why then, does an EV not meet her needs perfectly?

Your wife's needs are specific and not general.

Of course the 1958 Austin 850 remains more practical as it could still in an emergency perform as an adequate general commuter. Say what does happen in an emergency and your car is not there.......oops we have to wait for recharge.....or 5 minutes at a fuel station for my Austin.

ETA: Ironically ICE is often an accronym for "In Case of Emergency"

 

[eug]

Nonsense, EV's just result in a concentration of pollution around oil and coal fire stations. Unless the vast bulk of your electricity supply is generated with a small carbon footprint the EV has (given it's higher production and disposal costs) a higher carbon footprint over it's lifetime.

Nonsense, Its generally considered better to have a point emission (such as a power station) than a whole bunch of little distributed emissions (such as car emissions) as it is easier to clean a point emission (scrubbing, ccs, etc...) than distributed emissions.

 

[alloytoo]

Nonsense, Its generally considered better to have a point emission (such as a power station) than a whole bunch of little distributed emissions (such as car emissions) as it is easier to clean a point emission (scrubbing, ccs, etc...) than distributed emissions.

Platinum Catalysts.

 

[OverKill69]

bleh

The show made the car run out of juice to prove a point... and to entertain.

EV's prove themselves to be silly all on their own... no need for Top Gear to do it for them

1) Price
2) Power to Cost of charge ratio (The car has few kW for the price of a full charge)
3) Range
4) Battery life
5) Bunny hugging window dressing when the manufacturing process pollutes more than ANY other car.

 

[Pyro]

Yes TG is scripted - nothing new there.

As for EVs? Not yet practical.

Yes for my normal routine it's nice. But what if I need to go out to see a client, and have a dinner date that evening? Suddenly my normal 50km becomes 200km, and I take a risk of sitting next to the road.

Resale value would also probably suck, as a new battery is likely expense for second owner, and significantly better EVs are likely to be around in 5-10 years, probably making them actually practical machines. This expense would likely overpower the fuel saving over the period, as electricity isn't exactly free.

For the moment Hybrids are a better option, at least until we've got some proper energy storage tech that can rival fuel better.

 

[Maddmatt]

bleh

The show made the car run out of juice to prove a point... and to entertain.

+1
They're right. EVs just can't compete with petrol cars... yet.
They did it to show the drawbacks, and face it, you can't argue with the drawbacks.

What are EVs good for at the moment? Just commuting, city life, what people in first world countries can just rely on public transport for.
There's no good reason for a person to buy one over a petrol car yet.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

EV's of the not to distant future will have a recharge in almost the same time as a normal gas refill.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/08/mit-students-develop-liquid-fuel-for-electric-cars/

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/flow-batteries-0606.html

 

[Creature]

Jeremy and May might have been driving around in circles, but it still doesn't change the facts. Evs are dof!! Done.... POWER!!!!

 

[Ou grote]

Their show has done more good for EV's than any other I've seen.

 

[Park@82]

I'm actually more surprised that anyone takes Top Gear (the TV show) seriously.

+1
This is more or less what I was going to say.

 

[Shayd]

Personally I would get something like the chevrolet volt than a pure electric.

It runs pure electric for up to 64 kilometers and the kicks in a petrol generator to keep it going.

My daily commutes, the vast bulk of my driving, would cost next to nothing and my long distance trips would use fuel.

The car uses about 200 watt hours per kilometer without air conditioning etc, so that translates to about R2 per 10km. A lot less than my fuel cost.

Electric vehicles will serve a purpose going forward, of this there is no doubt. And they will get significantly better, but they will require a change in our driving styles and personal habits.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using MyBroadband Android App

 

[howardb]

TG is some light-hearted chewing gum entertainment for the mind IMO...that's why I enjoy it! There are some valid tests and some skewed tests - take from it what you will...

EV's have a place, based on the consumer needs - if you need to travel 5km's to work every day, and you have the facility to charge overnight, then it's perfect. With the current battery technology, don't expect a quick charge of 15 minutes to be on your way.
In SA, EV's could be practical in certain instances, but the technology is just not there yet - look at the initial vehicle cost (nearly double), versus the running costs: it would take more time to recoup your initial outlay on the service/running costs, and the battery pack would in real-world terms only last about 5 years, with added high-cost to replace it.

Althoug a very good concept, just not real-world practical IMO, well ot yet anyway

 

[moose007]

I think the purpose of this whole situation was to prove that the lack of an instant "refuel" option is what makes these cars useless at the moment.If you forget to charge you're car one night(stupid mistake but highly possible)then you are screwed.Or if you live in SA and you're power gets shut off by Eskom you're screwed.

And electricity is about as pricy as petrol in SA

 

[Fazda]

When you get to my age, you can still clearly remember people saying that the PC would never be around, as it had no perceivable use at the time (1980).

Cell phones would never take off as they had a battery life of a couple of hours, and who wants to carry a brick in a bag with them (1988)

Internet? surely the only viable use is military? (1989)

The list goes on, and writing off an EV because you personally cannot see it working, is totally myopic!

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

When you get to my age, you can still clearly remember people saying that the PC would never be around, as it had no perceivable use at the time (1980).

Cell phones would never take off as they had a battery life of a couple of hours, and who wants to carry a brick in a bag with them (1988)

Internet? surely the only viable use is military? (1989)

The list goes on, and writing off an EV because you personally cannot see it working, is totally myopic!

Yeah, but there are alternatives to EV. That wasn't the case with the other things you've mentioned.

 

[MFour]

An EV might have a place in a "well-to-do" household as the local run-about, but certainly very not very practical for most people in SA. Not many people can afford to buy a vehicle for different uses, and as such I think the point illustrated by TG was very valid, regardless of how they got to the end result.

In my view the story they told was simple, i.e. If you can afford to buy only one vehicle, do not buy an EV, it will leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere, and when it does, you will spend half a day waiting for it to recharge. More true in the SA context, where the great distances between laces make such a vehicle absolutely useless.

They did not say the vehicles do not work, in fact, they paid the various vehicles many compliments during the program. A fact you cannot dispute (regardless of how it was proven) is that it will run out of "fuel" (unless you can easily recharge it) and it will take half a day to recharge when it does. No lies there, no miss representation, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Top Gear responds:

Andy Wilman, Top Gear’s executive producer, responded to Nissan on the Top Gear website...

"Mr Palmer, Nissan’s own website for the Leaf devotes a fair amount of space to extolling the virtues of fast charging; but nowhere does it warn potential customers that constant fast charging can severely shorten the life of the battery

"It also says that each Leaf battery should still have 80% of its capacity after five years’ use and that, to a layman, sounds great. But nowhere is it mentioned that quite a few experts in the battery industry believe a battery down to 80% capacity has reached End Of Life status. Peugeot, for example, accepts 80% capacity as End Of Life."

During the episode viewers were not told that the battery had less than 50% charge and we're left to assume that the LEAF was fully charged. May's iOn (a rebadged Mitsubishi MiEV) was also shown to be low on charge but viewers are not told if it, too, died.

Wheels24 watched the episode and understand that it was an attempt to show what would happen if an electric vehicle ran out of charge nowhere near a charge point. We suppose the show could’ve been tweaked to highlight the fact that while several manufacturers are building electric vehicles, the infrastructure needed to maintain them (charging stations, points etc.) is still in its infancy.

Instead the episode portrays the LEAF, and in fact all electric vehicles, in a poor light.

'THAT'S HOW TV WORKS'

Wilman claimed that the show was not testing the vehicles' range and was aware that Nissan was monitoring the vehicle remotely.

"We never, at any point in the film, said we were testing the range of the vehicles, or that the vehicles wouldn’t achieve their claimed range. We also never said we were hoping to get to our destination on one charge."

"We were fully aware that Nissan could monitor the state of the battery charge and distance travelled via onboard software. We weren’t bothered about it, because we had nothing to hide."

 

[4Motion]

How many manufacturers are investing in Hybrids at the moment?
How many have got them right?
Its been more than 5 years already. Its a wasted resource imo.

Apparently cars, trucks, boats, trains, buses etc etc are the 5th most pollutant of the environment. What are they doing about the top 4?