Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:06:11 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:40:15 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:53:46 -0700, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>No, GM pulled the electric car, because there was _no_ market for it, at
>>>least not one big enough to finish development and actually sell it. The
>>>car was leased to customers for good reasons, availability of spares being
>>>one of them.
>>
>> There has been enough of a market for hybrid cars such that the
>> factories can't make them fast enough. While *initial* estimates of
>> demand for the EV1 were low, there was plenty once the EV1 hit the
>> streets.
>
>Plenty being 800, not even close to enough to even gauge public interest.

There have been many who tried to buy EV1s, when GM started pulling
them and announcing their intention to not leave them on the toad.
BTW, there were 1000 initially.
>
>>>Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint
>>>nor from an economic one.
>>
>> I disagree.
>> As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense.
>
>They don't. They are unnecessarily heavy, dangerous in crashes because of
>the batteries,

Where did you hear this?
>
>> The major stumbling block is the electrical infrastructure to recharge
>> a klarge number of them isn't in place in the larger cities that would
>> be their perfect market.
>
>The major stumbling block is that the average American commute is
>something about 40 miles, which means you will have to recharge your
>average electric car at work or you won't get home safely. And that in the
>few places, where an electric car might make a bit of sense because of
>short commutes (e.g. SF downtown) there is no parking for them nor the
>infrastructure to charge them plus it is easier and faster to walk or bike
>to work.

The EV1 went far more than 80 miles on a charge.
>
>> Can you imagine several thousand electric cars in LA trying to plug in
>> and recharge between 5:30 and 7:00pm?
>
>Yes, I can. Can you imagine a million electric cars trying to recharge?
>
>Electric cars are a novelty item for the uninformed.

AH, now it's clear. Thank you.
>
>Chris

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:06:36 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> >The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5
>> >years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk
>> >your car after five years anyway.
>
>> Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old?
>
>'tisn't. Not even close.

I posted a cite stating otherwise yesterday.

Here it is again:


"The average age of passenger cars in Japan has reached a record 9.96
years.......Sources: Automobile Inspection
Registration Association, Nikkei Industrial Daily"

http://www.phaze3.com/Editions/g001113.PDF


> CH is correct; it is deliberately made
>economically almost impossible to keep a car more than 5 years old in
>Japan. They ship their used cars by the tens of thousands to New Zealand,
>Russia, and other countries around the world where RHD cars conforming to
>Japanese safety standards are permitted on the road.
>

So even if the statistic I found is incorrect, it's only because they
ship their used cars to other countries, not because the cars won't
last more than 5 years.

In fact, (some) Japanese cars have quite a reputation for longevity.

>DS

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:01:41 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:


>>>> The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years?
>>>
>>>The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5
>>>years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk
>>>your car after five years anyway.
>>>
>> Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old?
>
>Yesterday you posted, that the average age was 5 years, how is that twice
>as old as 5 years?
>

If you're not going to bother to read the cites I post, then I'll stop
wasting my time.

You seem to prefer to pull numbers out of thin air.

One set of figures was for the UK and was broken down by make.

The other was specific to Japan and did not break down the age of cars
by make.

What's interesting is that it specifically said that the average age
of a car in Japan is 9.?? years old.

And of course that means that many cars are older than 10 years.

>Plus the cars are not made to die after 5 years, they just don't care
>about supporting them with parts after more than 5 years.
>
>>>Try to buy a replacement battery for a 5 year old notebook. That's more
>>>or less impossible, because it needs a certain type (form factor,
>>>voltage) of battery. That laptop batteries are more advanced today than
>>>they were 5 years ago doesn't help you, because you simply don't get a
>>>battery that fits. Same is going to happen with the Prius, more modern
>>>batteries are going to be available, but they won't fit your old Prius.
>>
>> heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops
>
>The battery problem is the same.

Actually, it's not. The difference is that the connectors and the
space provided to put the battery in the laptop is very proprietary
and very customized and it's not really worth the effort to rig
something up, but you certainly could.

The power that they supply is not proprietary and is easily
reproduced.

>
>>>> Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual".
>>>
>>>That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a
>>>Prius.
>>>
>> no personal attack, there?
>
>No. You don't want to be seen as an intellectual and I reassured you that
>you are not at risk.
>

Yeah, whatever.

>Chris

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:10:30 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:06:11 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>Plenty being 800, not even close to enough to even gauge public interest.
>
> There have been many who tried to buy EV1s, when GM started pulling
> them and announcing their intention to not leave them on the toad.
> BTW, there were 1000 initially.

Wikipedia says 800, maybe there were 1000, doesn't really matter for the
question of public interest.

>>> I disagree.
>>> As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense.
>>
>>They don't. They are unnecessarily heavy, dangerous in crashes because of
>>the batteries,
>
> Where did you hear this?

From a fireman, who specializes in research in this field. For the Prius
they even have a special document for the firefighters because the Prius
is rather difficult to handle in case of fire.

>>The major stumbling block is that the average American commute is
>>something about 40 miles, which means you will have to recharge your
>>average electric car at work or you won't get home safely. And that in the
>>few places, where an electric car might make a bit of sense because of
>>short commutes (e.g. SF downtown) there is no parking for them nor the
>>infrastructure to charge them plus it is easier and faster to walk or bike
>>to work.
>
> The EV1 went far more than 80 miles on a charge.

.... under optimum conditions.

Chris

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, L Sternn wrote:

> >CH is correct; it is deliberately made economically almost impossible
> >to keep a car more than 5 years old in Japan. They ship their used cars
> >by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, Russia, and other countries
> >around the world where RHD cars conforming to Japanese safety standards
> >are permitted on the road.

> So even if the statistic I found is incorrect, it's only because they
> ship their used cars to other countries, not because the cars won't last
> more than 5 years.

Uh...I don't recall claiming that their cars wouldn't last more than five
years. However, there is little incentive for makers to sell particularly
durable vehicles in the Japanese market.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Big Bill wrote:

> >Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint
> >nor from an economic one.

> I disagree.
> As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense.

....except that they don't reduce pollution, and depending on how
electricity is generated, they can worsen it. Ontario, for instance, still
makes electricity by burning dirt (coal).

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>
>From a fireman, who specializes in research in this field. For the Prius
>they even have a special document for the firefighters because the Prius
>is rather difficult to handle in case of fire.

The "special document" just tells rescuers where to cut to avoid
electrocuting themselves.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:00:04 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> >CH is correct; it is deliberately made economically almost impossible
>> >to keep a car more than 5 years old in Japan. They ship their used cars
>> >by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, Russia, and other countries
>> >around the world where RHD cars conforming to Japanese safety standards
>> >are permitted on the road.
>
>> So even if the statistic I found is incorrect, it's only because they
>> ship their used cars to other countries, not because the cars won't last
>> more than 5 years.
>
>Uh...I don't recall claiming that their cars wouldn't last more than five
>years.

Good, because as far as I know, you didn't say that.

It was CH who said the lifespan of Jap cars was 5 years. I hope I
didn't confuse you too much.



> However, there is little incentive for makers to sell particularly
>durable vehicles in the Japanese market.

"Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
news:1113507788.3af6ab3c63c7d7017d82770babfdb07e@t eranews...
> From what you say all electricity comes from renewable sources, right?
> After all that's what manufacturers would use in the factories.

No reason it couldn't at least theoretically. And while nuclear energy is
not renewable, it's practically infinite.
Therefore, the energy needed to make an automobile is negligible, if you are
including powering the factory, machinery, and robots. OTOH, gas is not
renewable.

>
> Most stored energy is wasted, no matter how its conversion. The Otto
> cycle is not a particularly ineffective one.

The Diesel cycle is more thermodynamicly efficient. That was the whole
point of Rudolf Diesel's work. The only engines that will rival that
efficiency will be direct injection gasoline engines using lean mixtures,
but those won't be common in the US until after the sulfur is removed from
gasoline.

> If you're not speeding to pass, you are not passing anyone.

Not necessarily. What if I pass behind somebody, and there's nobody else
behind that car? If I cut off somebody, big deal. They don't have a right
to speed, they can be inconvenienced a little, it's part of driving. And if
they give me any crap, well, I will defend myself to the best of my
abilities. It's not like I go out of my way to screw over leadfoots, I'm
not that type of person, but I have a right to use the left lane too.

>
> You need to learn about EPA testing too. Hint: there's no driver in
> the car!
>

Oh really? The EPA website says their is a human driver. They use various
drivers, average their scores, and have them drive predetermined plans at
various speeds. They watch a display that tells them what speed they should
be driving at any given time, when they should stop, etc.

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> The energy comes from either oil/coal or nuclear plants, which are worse
> in terms of environmental risks. The amount of energy from renewable
> sources in car production is negligible.

Nuclear power has negligible risk. It kills fewer people than mining
coal does, and it also releases alot of air pollution. It's hardly the best
solution, but we don't live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, wind
an solar power would be enough. But I'm a grown up about those things.

> Almost exactly 0% of people, who buy a Prius, replace a SUV with it. More
> likely it is an old Volvo or Toyota, that is being replaced.

Well, you are wrong, alot of people do replace SUV's with Priuses. Ever
heard of Arianna Huffington? She's a columnist or something (I don't read
op-eds alot, but I saw her on C-Span once), but apparrently she used to
drive a Lincoln Navigator but now drives a Prius and she has some kind of
anti-SUV campaign. If gas hits 3 dollars a gallon, which it could in the
next few years, alot of people, especially working folks who aren't rich,
are going to be interested in saving gas.

The Prius has alot of room, enough cargo space, although it's probably not
up to your needs. The Ford Escape Hybrid might be, though. It can tow
several tons, it does have AWD as an option, although it might have problems
with a large enough trailer. Toyota is also comming out with a midsize SUV
hybrid.

> It may exceed the requirements of most drivers, but it doesn't exceed
> mine. But even econoboxes like a Golf 1.8t get acceleration times of
> 8s or less for 0-60.

Golf 1.8t is a "muscle box", hardly an econobox. The standard Golf is
around ten seconds, maybe more for the automatic.

Acceleration is relative. Only a few decades ago, sports cars had that
kind of acceleration these "econoboxes" you are lambasting have. Why do
people need more to just go get groceries and pick up their little beasts at
school?

>
> Don't worry, a lot of 18-year-olds like you think they know everything,
> and they usually grow out of it, when they start accumulating some real
> knowledge. And as one has invested much too much money in some rattely
> diesel fuel economy becomes the center of the universe and every argument
> is measured by how well it supports the assertion that the world revolves
> around the number on your last gas bill.

Well, maybe you don't care about fuel economy. Maybe you don't care
about environmentalism. Some people do. When you see 4 bad hurricanes
right after another, and the weather experts saying its caused by unusually
high water temperatures in the Carribean, well, you no longer have look
around hard to find proof of all this global warming stuff. It's no longer
academic. And I don't want to be part of the culture that causes that kind
of destruction. At some point I have to put my foot down and try every way
I can to reject that kind of thoughtless disregard, even if it doesn't
matter . At least my conscience will be clean.