Would you trade in your gas powered machine for one of these?

[ReconRat]

Don't forget that electric bike might well mean all-wheel drive. That might be interesting.

[redkow97]

When I buy an electric car, I'm ditching internal combustion for good. No more oil changes, timing belts, transmission service... bye-bye forever.

 

I seriously looked at the Nissan Leaf a while back, but commuting 80 miles a day killed the idea for me.  Someone who does less driving on a daily basis would have a lot less range anxiety though.

 

Until the range extends by a lot, or the charge time drops to under 20 minutes though, I'll always want a gasoline vehicle in my garage along side the electric car.

[C-bus]

My '94 Sentra consistently got 42-44MPG. Wife's '89 Tercel got a bit better than that. So what did we do to screw up our cars so 28 is considered great now? I think the Prius only gets like 48-50.

[Tpoppa]

My '94 Sentra consistently got 42-44MPG. Wife's '89 Tercel got a bit better than that. So what did we do to screw up our cars so 28 is considered great now? I think the Prius only gets like 48-50.

 

• Emission standards lower MPG as vehicles must run very lean to pass.  Lean running doesn't result in max MPG.
• Your Sentra or Tercel would never pass today's collision tests.  Vehicles need to be built heavier and stronger, which of course lowers MPG.
• I believe the calculations/process used to measure MPG have also changed.

[C-bus]

• Emission standards lower MPG as vehicles must run very lean to pass. Lean running doesn't result in max MPG.
• Your Sentra or Tercel would never pass today's collision tests. Vehicles need to be built heavier and stronger, which of course lowers MPG.
• I believe the calculations/process used to measure MPG have also changed.

Thank you. As for your third point though, I haven't changed the way I do it.

[Tpoppa]

^^

Right, it should be something like how far can you travel on a gallon of gas, or the average of many gallons.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml 

[C-bus]

I fill up every time. I take the miles driven and divide by the gallons filled. Sure, there may be a small deviation if a particular pump doesn't top off as well as another, but pretty consistent for the most part. My bike gets about 38-40 (my FZ6 consistently got 50). My Pilot about 19.

[Pokey]

When I buy an electric car, I'm ditching internal combustion for good. No more oil changes, timing belts, transmission service... bye-bye forever.

 

I am confused, I thought you liked wrenching?

[redkow97]

 

• Emission standards lower MPG as vehicles must run very lean to pass.  Lean running doesn't result in max MPG.
• Your Sentra or Tercel would never pass today's collision tests.  Vehicles need to be built heavier and stronger, which of course lowers MPG.
• I believe the calculations/process used to measure MPG have also changed.

 

 

winner x 2.

 

look at the side-view mirrors on the Ford Fiesta.  They have 2-piece side mirrors now because the A/B/C pillars are thicker than they used to be.

[motocat12]

Powered by Coal\ Powered by Petroleum. What's the difference?

[smccrory]

Powered by Coal\ Powered by Petroleum. What's the difference?

Not much, green-wise. But the other attributes are interesting.

[swingset]

Powered by Coal\ Powered by Petroleum. What's the difference?

 

As we do it right now, in this particular part of the world/country? Not a whole lot. But, what if it were clean nuclear powering all the electric bikes? Good hydro? Even efficient home-solar/wind?

 

I'm not a "save the earth" weenie about it, either, but there's potential for electric vehicles to be very very clean and more cost efficient. That's not the case with petroleum, not nearly as much, and at the very least something like nuclear puts less of an importance on the Saudi criminals and foreign interests.

 

That's a win, IMHO.

[vf1000ride]

 But, what if it were clean nuclear powering all the electric bikes?

 

Currently the way I see it we really don't have "Clean" nuclear power yet either.  It may not be dumping coal sludge into big pits, CO2 emisions causing global warming or the descruction of pristine land to mine the ever shrinking resources but what do you think those giant stockpiles of used fuel rods and the radioactive disasters like Fukashima are doing to the planet.  You have just shifted the harm to our environment in a different direction that the media and talking heads are not currently concerned about it.

 

And as an addon, who do you think has the largest Uranium mining operations in the world to get that nuclear fuel.  It's not the USA, we are like #8 or so.

Edited May 27, 2015 by vf1000ride

[Strictly Street]

Not enough range to be practical.

interesting, but so is a three legged dog, just dont hunt.

[swingset]

Currently the way I see it we really don't have "Clean" nuclear power yet either.  It may not be dumping coal sludge into big pits, CO2 emisions causing global warming or the descruction of pristine land to mine the ever shrinking resources but what do you think those giant stockpiles of used fuel rods and the radioactive disasters like Fukashima are doing to the planet.  You have just shifted the harm to our environment in a different direction that the media and talking heads are not currently concerned about it.

 

And as an addon, who do you think has the largest Uranium mining operations in the world to get that nuclear fuel.  It's not the USA, we are like #8 or so.

 

Not gonna derail the thread, but nuclear is vastly cleaner than coal, it's as simple as that...and can be even better but we've decided it's just too scary. There's no free lunch, never, but you pick your poison.

[smccrory]

Not gonna derail the thread, but nuclear is vastly cleaner than coal, it's as simple as that...and can be even better but we've decided it's just too scary. There's no free lunch, never, but you pick your poison.

It's the "holy shit, all apocalyptic hell has been unleashed" risk of nuclear disaster that always gets me. And the huge construction cost and plant build times.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

[swingset]

It's the "holy shit, all apocalyptic hell has been unleashed" risk of nuclear disaster that always gets me. And the huge construction cost and plant build times.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

 

And yet coal has killed far more people than nuke accidents have (and if you take out Chernobyl which was an engineering and maintenance clusterfuck we'd likely not repeat, the number is absurdly lopsided, something like 1 death per 4000 of nuke vs. coal).

 

It's costly, for sure, but long term? I'm not sure we'll ever find a better balance between clean/safe/efficient than nuclear power.

[zx3vfr]

It's the "holy shit, all apocalyptic hell has been unleashed" risk of nuclear disaster that always gets me. And the huge construction cost and plant build times.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

Maybe if new power plants could be built.

Some people just want us back in the dark ages.

[smccrory]

Also, not to get all "class warfare" up in this bitch, coal miners are considered disposable. It's far better now, because regulation has forced the hand of the industry, but the same could happen with nuclear plants. Only difference is when the shit hits the fan at the nuke shop, it isn't just a handful of miners that get taken out. That's the rub for me.

 

+1.  Having grown up in WV and losing my grandfather to black lung, I saw that first-hand.

[Scruit]

My bike is mostly for commuting so I'd rock it. 

[swingset]

Im all for renewable resources, so don't take this as an argument against changing our ways. I just think that stating nuclear vs coal is safer because "1:4000" is disingenuous. The numbers are low because there are far more coal plants than nuke plants.

Unless I'm wrong, which does happen..although far less frequent than 1:4000.

 

It's not a disingenuous statistic, the difference in manpower and number of plants needed actually makes the point that nuclear is a safer gig. It takes less human toil once things are in motion, there's less risk. Could be risk is something to factor in, but you also have to look at historical risk. And, it's pretty damned low.

 

It's not the end-all-be-all of power delivery, it's just a viable one that we've shut our minds off to because it's scary. Reminds me of GMO's....a little hysteria, Hollywood scare tactics, bad science and health blogs and now chains and restaurants are proudly not serving perfectly healthy food that is under more rigor than organic.

 

Insanity.