Advocacy & Safety - I wonder if cars like this will lower speed limits...

OK apparently there is enough oil to sell gas at less than $3.00 a gallon, for now. It is a limited resource however. So are car manufactures going to go to vehicles like this:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/805/chrysler-introduces-city-friendly-peapod.html


The Peapod will be available as a one-seater, two-seater or utility van and has a 30-mile range per charge. The car was developed by Chrysler-owned Green Eco Mobility (GEM) and prices are said to start at around $20,000.

The company plans to build the cars in existing factories near key markets to save money and reduce life-cycle CO2 emissions. The downside is that the Peapod reaches maximum speed at 25 mph, which limits its use to either downtown or neighborhood driving.

So might uptake of "neighborhood vehicles" lower speeds on arterial roads?

http://l.yimg.com/a/feeds/us/grn/Green_EcoGeek/Peapod.jpg

Here is Tata's version... an air driven car. http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/fi/19/18/07.gif

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106040/Air-Cars:-A-New-Wind-for-America%27s-Roads

Max speed of 35MPH.

I would sure rather "share the road" with these, over 3 ton smog spewing SUVs.

i doubt you will see those outside of big cities, if you see them much at all.

theres plenty of cars like that in the works that can go faster, and im guessing those will be the more popular ones for anyone living in the suburbs

Yet another braindead idea from one of the not so big as they used to be, three.

Give it another 20 mph top speed and it's a good idea.

I wonder why such a pathetic top speed? It really doesn't take that much extra opwer to get from 25 to 45.

The only possible reason I can think of is they may be exempted from crash standards by limiting top speed. In that case, it might make some sense to build them that way.....then hack the speed govenors. :)

Are these not simply enclosed golf carts? They're no more or less deadly in the hands of a reckless anti-cyclist driver. It's small width might even encourage unsafe passing. Speaking of golf carts, I had a close run-in with one recently - tried to shove me off the road.

As for the AIR, get a load of the blind spots, not to mention the complete lack of rearview mirrors.

-Kurt

Give it another 20 mph top speed and it's a good idea.

I wonder why such a pathetic top speed? It really doesn't take that much extra opwer to get from 25 to 45.

Really? So all this time I've been pedaling along at 15-20 MPH, I could have been going 30-40 MPH with just a little less lollygagging?

Power is roughly proportional to the square of velocity. So to go twice as fast, you need 4 times the power. This is why a 50cc scooter is fine for neighborhood or downtown riding, but if you want to go on the highway, you should be looking at the 250cc models.

I don't get it. I can ride 30 miles on a bike. I can ride 25 mph on a bike. Why would I pay 20,000 for one of these things. It is just another lazy invention, similar to the Segway or whatever those things are. "I just can't walk 2 miles! Thats way too far!" These gimmicks aren't the key to our oil free life style. The key to the oil free lifestyle is getting off your lazy ass and doing some hard work.

GM just acquired Chrysler--you think they are going to keep any program going that might form any kind of competition for the Volt? Expect this little GEM to never hit market in the way it was intended by Chrysler.

GM just acquired Chrysler--you think they are going to keep any program going that might form any kind of competition for the Volt? Expect this little GEM to never hit market in the way it was intended by Chrysler.

GM has NOT acquired Chrysler yet, though they are still negotiating. Of course, the US federal government declined GM's request for assistance in relation to the take-over so that might scuttle the plan.


Give it another 20 mph top speed and it's a good idea.

I wonder why such a pathetic top speed? It really doesn't take that much extra opwer to get from 25 to 45.


The fact is, speed kills. Lower speeds mean safer roads and, often, faster travel.


i doubt you will see those outside of big cities, if you see them much at all.

We have a similar car up here, the ZENN (Zero-Emission No-Noise), designed and originally built in Ontario and while it is available for puchase in Quebec and B.C., they are not allowed in Ontario---because Ontario is so heavily invested in established car manufacturers (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda, among others). No product that cuts into their business will ever be allowed in Ontario so long as our provinvial government has all their faith in the big boys.

I don't get it. I can ride 30 miles on a bike. I can ride 25 mph on a bike. Why would I pay 20,000 for one of these things. It is just another lazy invention, similar to the Segway or whatever those things are. "I just can't walk 2 miles! Thats way too far!" These gimmicks aren't the key to our oil free life style. The key to the oil free lifestyle is getting off your lazy ass and doing some hard work.

While true, good luck convincing the majority of America that. Heck even bike "heavens" such as Amsterdam and Oulu Finland still have a majority of motorists.

The big weaning off of oil is still not going to change the fact that most Americans will want to drive... What needs to change is the perceived need to go 0-60 in 4.4 seconds with the ability to tow an aircraft carrier. Sure some folks have the need to drive long distances, haul lumber and farm equipment... etc, but frankly, that is not the case for most of us. The NHTSA has determined that most commutes are around 12-15 miles, and most errands are around 2-3 miles... so the fact is that most of us can get along on/in a much smaller vehicle... be it a bike or one of these econo cars.

GM just acquired Chrysler--you think they are going to keep any program going that might form any kind of competition for the Volt? Expect this little GEM to never hit market in the way it was intended by Chrysler.

Well without any help from the government, GM/Chrysler will eventually go the way of the dodo bird as they continue with their BIG VEHICLE programs... even the Volt is an "economy car" on steroids... and that reality will eventually dawn on them, too late... especially with the market price of $40K.

GM has a hard time moving away from their Good Old Boy ways of the past... and that will eventually sink 'em.

Really? So all this time I've been pedaling along at 15-20 MPH, I could have been going 30-40 MPH with just a little less lollygagging?

Power is roughly proportional to the square of velocity. So to go twice as fast, you need 4 times the power. This is why a 50cc scooter is fine for neighborhood or downtown riding, but if you want to go on the highway, you should be looking at the 250cc models.


You seem to be forgeting how weak humans are compared to small light weight motors.

One of those puny little 50cc motors will pump out a few hp all day long. A very strong cyclist might get over 1 hp for a very short sprint.

So, comparatively speaking, it really doesn't take that much more power. As speed gets much above 45 mph, it really does start taking considerable power.

I suspect the 25 mph speed limit has more to do with safety regs than it does with physics.

So, it is yet another case of government over regulation screwing us.

VW has a euro market 3 cylinder turbo diesel that will beat the pants off the prius in the fuel economy area. Trouble is, the safety weenies make it to difficult to import.

Yet, I can go down to the suzuki dealer and buy a 400 lb, 150 hp 2 wheeled rocketship.

Somebody 'splain how this makes sense to me.

Somebody 'splain how this makes sense to me.

Makes as much sense as all the 6000 lb "farm equipment" typically seen on the roads of our cities today. :rolleyes:

Power is roughly proportional to the square of velocity. So to go twice as fast, you need 4 times the power. Actually, if you're looking at air resistance and ignoring other forms of drag (which is appropriate for a bicycle going at a reasonable clip on flat ground), the power required is proportional to the velocity *cubed*. So to go twice as fast, you need *eight* times the power. More details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance).

You seem to be forgeting how weak humans are compared to small light weight motors.Indeed. A 1 lb R/C glow engine (0.46 in^3, about 8 cc) can put out more power (about 1.75 hp) for hours, more than even the most fit human.

VW has a euro market 3 cylinder turbo dieselReally, the number of cylinders doesn't have anything to do with it. You can easily have a really powerful one cylinder engine, or a weak twelve cylinder engine. The total displacement is far more important than the number of cylinders.

Ultimately, power needed to overcome air resistance is proportional to speed *cubed*, which is why it's so much harder to go even a little faster. It's also why bicycles work on so little power -- going down from 45 mph to 15 mph cuts the power required by a factor of 27 (assuming that air resistance is the only drag, which is a reasonable approximation.)

Any way you put it, getting away from the ICE is a good thing. It at least gives us opportunities to have cleaner energy off the grid.

A 25 mph top speed will keep those things from making it over the bridges leading out of DC, never mind most of the busy streets & roads. No way I'd get one.

A 25 mph top speed will keep those things from making it over the bridges leading out of DC, never mind most of the busy streets & roads. No way I'd get one.

Why, do you need to hit escape velocity to get over the bridges?

My point is that we have such high speeds on roads today because there is some "secret competition" to do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds... when in reality there is no such race going on... yet all car makers act as if there is.

Why can't we just have common sense transportation with lower speed roads such that cyclists of all ages feel comfortable mixing it up with the other traffic?

Why, do you need to hit escape velocity to get over the bridges?

My point is that we have such high speeds on roads today because there is some "secret competition" to do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds... when in reality there is no such race going on... yet all car makers act as if there is.

Why can't we just have common sense transportation with lower speed roads such that cyclists of all ages feel comfortable mixing it up with the other traffic?

I feel safer next to BMWs, Lexuses, and other high end vehicles with extreme power than next to SUVs, and lower end economy cars. This is because not only do they out-preform said SUVs but they are worth a heck of a lot more. No way some guy in his 80,000 dollar Viper is going to hit me. He is too worried about his car. With the plastic cars coming out nowadays, they can hit you and there is no dent or damage.

Give me a road full of Lambos and I would be the happiest cyclist in the world.

Actually, if you're looking at air resistance and ignoring other forms of drag (which is appropriate for a bicycle going at a reasonable clip on flat ground), the power required is proportional to the velocity *cubed*. So to go twice as fast, you need *eight* times the power. More details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance).

Ah, right, I was thinking force, not power. Shoulda thought it through. Carry on.

I feel safer next to BMWs, Lexuses, and other high end vehicles with extreme power than next to SUVs, and lower end economy cars. This is because not only do they out-preform said SUVs but they are worth a heck of a lot more. No way some guy in his 80,000 dollar Viper is going to hit me. He is too worried about his car. With the plastic cars coming out nowadays, they can hit you and there is no dent or damage.

Give me a road full of Lambos and I would be the happiest cyclist in the world.

In a way, probably correct... But highly unlikely. :D

Why, do you need to hit escape velocity to get over the bridges?

No, it's because anything that slow is either going to get run off the road itself or get other people to push themselves around trying to get past.

I know, a self-important person like yourself will just say, "F 'em", but I guess you can't remember that there's a whole world out there that doesn't think the way you do.

No, it's because anything that slow is either going to get run off the road itself or get other people to push themselves around trying to get past.

I know, a self-important person like yourself will just say, "F 'em", but I guess you can't remember that there's a whole world out there that doesn't think the way you do.

Must be heck on Cement Trucks...

They go just fine, in case you haven't noticed (and a hell of a lot faster than a mere 25 mph).

They go just fine, in case you haven't noticed (and a hell of a lot faster than a mere 25 mph).

...and when they start off slowly from a stoplight, every J.A.M. will dart around them as if they were part of some slalom course.

-Kurt

i'd rather just ride my bike.

Well, it shows they're at least thinking about the problem, even if the 'solution' isn't quite there yet.

Well, it shows they're at least thinking about the problem, even if the 'solution' isn't quite there yet.

Agreed -- it's more credible than yet another garage-based operation.

25mph means it takes me 1 hour to drive to work...unacceptable.

If I 1-7 miles from work that'd be fine.

25mph means it takes me 1 hour to drive to work...unacceptable.

If I 1-7 miles from work that'd be fine.

Such cars are designed for urban commuting where the average speed is 22km/h or 13mph, at least here in Toronto.

Premier McGuinty has stated to me in an email that his government is loking into allowing them (though I'm not holding my breath) and that his only concern is safety. But that is a lame answer. If bicycles and other slow-moving vehicles are rarely involved in traffic accidents, what makes him think that a vehicle that is considerably larger than a bike will be?

...
VW has a euro market 3 cylinder turbo diesel that will beat the pants off the prius in the fuel economy area. Trouble is, the safety weenies make it to difficult to import.
...
I thought the hangup was with the US exhaust emissions requirements. We're just now getting cleaner-burning diesel fuel, but I'm not sure they can come up to the standards even with that.

I don't recall exactly, but it seems like the oxides of nitrogen were one sticking point.

One way diesels are getting cleaner is cat's piss... I mean, "urea injection". Mercedes calls it BlueTec.

I don't get it. I can ride 30 miles on a bike. I can ride 25 mph on a bike. Why would I pay 20,000 for one of these things. It is just another lazy invention, similar to the Segway or whatever those things are. "I just can't walk 2 miles! Thats way too far!" These gimmicks aren't the key to our oil free life style. The key to the oil free lifestyle is getting off your lazy ass and doing some hard work.

This is the problem: The price. Sell these for $6,000 and I think you'll find a market. It won't be big, but it'll be something.

If you have to get rid of the engine to do so you still may have the market. The market is the light duty second car. It's what the smart car fills, in a lonely lonely way. Trouble with the smart car is that it's only a few thousand lower than a yaris, which has 4 seats and similar mileage.

Well, it shows they're at least thinking about the problem, even if the 'solution' isn't quite there yet.

They're thinking of a marketable object masquerading as a solution.

-Kurt

They're thinking of a marketable object masquerading as a solution.

-Kurt

+1. These are all gimmicks. They aren't interested in truly efficient vehicles any more than the medical industry is interested in truly curing cancer. There's far too much money to be made stringing people along than truly helping them. That's what makes capitalism so awesome!

it doesn't really take that much of a car to hit 50, which would be perfect for around here, a semi-rural area with lots of stop and go traffic. The drag polars I've seen for cars don't really pick up until around 35, and aren't bad at 50. I've never really figured out how my Prius gets the same gas mileage at 20 as it does at 85, it seems invariant.

I've never really figured out how my Prius gets the same gas mileage at 20 as it does at 85, it seems invariant.

Taller gearing at high speeds keeps the engine speed decently low, which burns less fuel. It's why even a Corvette can get better-than-expected highway gas mileage -- its engine is turning less than 1500 rpm at freeway speeds.

And, unless you can cruise at 20 mph for long stretches, it's hard to compare mpg. All that acceleration & deceleration does nothing for efficiency. Still, with your Prius, the fact that it can get mileage around town similar to what it gets on the highway is a testament to the hybrid system doing its job. The rest of us get less mpg in the city no matter what.

I guess the thing I've never done is cruise at 55.

The last time I got to cruise at 55, I got better mileage than at any other time. I was using smaller highways to do it, though.

I saw a video of a staged crash of a "smart car" into a concrete barrier. It was smashed to bits. Probably would have been a fatality, certainly serious injury.

They'd be an immediate commercial failure if that video got 30 secs of primetime airplay.

edit: here's a 5min youtube video - much longer than what i saw (i must have seen a short clip of original).

smart car crashed into barrier at 70mph:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

Looks like this to me

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/coffin-car.jpg

I saw a video of a staged crash of a "smart car" into a concrete barrier. It was smashed to bits. Probably would have been a fatality, certainly serious injury.

They'd be an immediate commercial failure if that video got 30 secs of primetime airplay.

edit: here's a 5min youtube video - much longer than what i saw (i must have seen a short clip of original).

smart car crashed into barrier at 70mph:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

I saw that one, too. And, really, it did very well. There aren't many cars that would do well at 70 mph.

Here's the usual 30 mph crash tests:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU&feature=related

^ The cars did fine, but the occupants would likely have died. Best to avoid 70mph crashes, I'd say.

I thought the hangup was with the US exhaust emissions requirements. We're just now getting cleaner-burning diesel fuel, but I'm not sure they can come up to the standards even with that.

I don't recall exactly, but it seems like the oxides of nitrogen were one sticking point.

diesels have been run out of this country the last few years due to emissions. now that we have low sulfur diesel, we are past that problem. the thing keeping the little tdi away is crash standards and really stupid folks at the helm of vw.

Indeed. A 1 lb R/C glow engine (0.46 in^3, about 8 cc) can put out more power (about 1.75 hp) for hours, more than even the most fit human.
Really, the number of cylinders doesn't have anything to do with it. You can easily have a really powerful one cylinder engine, or a weak twelve cylinder engine. The total displacement is far more important than the number of cylinders.

Ultimately, power needed to overcome air resistance is proportional to speed *cubed*, which is why it's so much harder to go even a little faster. It's also why bicycles work on so little power -- going down from 45 mph to 15 mph cuts the power required by a factor of 27 (assuming that air resistance is the only drag, which is a reasonable approximation.)

actually, number of cylinders does have an effect. make that little 1.2 tdi (or whatever size it is) into a v-8 and it will lose efficiency. more cams, more bearings, more pistons = more drag = lower efficiency.

there is more to it than that. there are instances where engine configuration might mean a v twin is more efficient than a similar sized 1 cylinder, but as a rule, fewer cylinders = better efficiency.

Interesting article about the 25 mph NEV law.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1259

even with the new laws in WA and MT allowing these to go 35mph, they would be useless in many situations. Heck, I'm hemmed in by two main drags where the speed limit is 40 mph and 45 mph. Even with the new law, I would be required to find some extremely creative alternative routes to use these cars. Plus the added safety requirements allowing it to go 35 mph would add even more to the price of the car, and reduce the range.

Personally, I'm all for lowering the speed limits everywhere in cities to no more than 35mph (heck, I wouldn't mind 30 mph, but that's probably not realistic), but that's not the trend and with the dramatic lowering of gas prices, I don't see these NEV's making any headway into the market.

I never thought I'd find out so much about cars in a bike forum.

Interesting article about the 25 mph NEV law.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1259

even with the new laws in WA and MT allowing these to go 35mph, they would be useless in many situations. Heck, I'm hemmed in my two main drags where the speed limit is 40 mph and 45 mph. Even with the new law, I would be required to find some extremely creative alternative routes to use these cars. Plus the added safety requirements allowing it to go 35 mph would add even more to the price of the car, and reduce the range.

Personally, I'm all for lowering the speed limits everywhere in cities to no more than 35mph (heck, I wouldn't mind 30 mph, but that's probably not realistic), but that's not the trend and with the dramatic lowering of gas prices, I don't see these NEV's making any headway into the market.

Yeah in my area to go either north or south I have a choice of 45 or 50MPH roads. If I go east, my next choice is either freeway or a 65MPH arterial. If I go west, I run out of road.

So, there you have it. The 25 mph speed limit has zero to do with the vehicle's capability and everything to do with some fed safety nazi.

Wonderful.

We could have thousands of lightweight cheap commuter type micocars running around. They would save millions of gallons of fuel and a load of raw materials.

And they would sell, I am sure.

But noooooo. We might hurt ourselves in them. So what if it's legal to sell motorcycles which are even more dangerous. Or cigarettes or alcohol for that matter.

Good thing motorcycles were already around before the safety nazis took over. They would never have a chance of being introduced now.

oh, it has nothing to do with safety, and it has all to do with control and money. There have been tons of studies that prove that artificial traffic engineering, whether it be stop signs, red light cameras, speed limits, etc. just don't improve safety. Oh they improve the state's bottom line, but that's about it.

I like the study they did relating to Montana's no speed limit back in the 90's. Sure was fun to drive back then (not really cycling related, but this topic really isn't about bicycles either).
http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

I never thought I'd find out so much about cars in a bike forum.

Hopefully there are enough people who do know something about cars and can help combat the ignorance I see all the time here.