What percentage of second cars (this would rarely be a primary vehicle) are used for the school run? At a minimum, we need 1+2 (i.e. 1 adult and two children) but preferably 1+3 to accommodate the nuclear family...
Lose the boot space for two extra (small) seats and you've opened up a whole new market.
I had a moped which did 0-30mph quicker, a higher top speed, better range, didn't get stuck in traffic, had space for a bag of shopping under the seat, cost £25 in fuel and oil per month, could be parked anywhere, and was £1750 brand new.
If you want an urban runabout, you go on two wheels. See Ho Chi Minh City for details.
You can buy a new, conventional 'supermini' for less then half that price, which is faster, more comfortable, has a greater range and takes only 3 mins to 'recharge' (with petrol) at a filling station.
The £8K saved will pay for 1000 days of London congestion charge, that's over four years of 5-day weeks! So even in London it's of extremely doubtful value.
Only greeeny zealots would even consider this thing.
I thought "I like it - looks a bit like a mini". Unfortunately,,I agree with your other points as well. It should be half the price and it doesn't exactly look like it has much in the way of crash protection (probably better than a moped though). Plus there's no way you'd get a ton of gold in the back.
Try Pontiac Aztec and Daihatsu Materia. That is one fugly vehicle. It only looks like a mini in that both are on the small side and have four wheels......
You know, I think this personifies the current (sorry) rash of electric powered vehicles. It's not really very versatile. It's performance and range is pretty abysmal. And the R&D has been kept to the bare minimum. But the most telling part is the price.
There is just no justification for asking so much cash for a vehicle with such a low parts count and lack of any infrastructure behind it, that provides vastly inferior protection, performance and practicality when compared to other vehicles, and has no meaningful reason behind it's design. These vehicles aren't being created to satisfy a demand but to make people a fast buck. And that is a fundamental mistake which today's market can see right through.
The article mentioned Issigonis, and it's worth thinking about him here in the context of designing an alternative fulled vehicle. The mini was created to respond to the sales of the bubble cars. Issigonis believed he could do far better and provide transportation to the average family within a small package. His focus was on that, not on raking in some quick money. Now, if he were alive today, I somehow doubt very much that he would conjure up anything quite so backwards or badly reasoned as the Tazzari - or the G-Wizz or Tesla or others. His ideas would not, in isolation, be far-fetched either. Just clever, practical and reasoned. But as a whole he would quite probably swat away these pretenders with something quite extraordinary.
Sadly Sir Alec was a real one-off. Gordon Murray, for his cleverness, is perhaps thinking along some slightly wrong lines with the T25 mentioned by another contributor recently - but he's about the only one having a real go. The rest, as so amply demonstrated by this misguided offering, are a complete waste of time.
How many charge cycles will the battery survive, and how much will a new battery cost? Electricity is cheaper than petrol (because of petrol tax), but a replacement battery puts the running costs vaguely level again.
I would not bet on these cars having any boot space at all. To fit a child behind the seats I think you will need a large liquidizer.
So it's twice the price of a G-Wiz with perhaps 25% more power and range. It also won't be crash tested, so maybe it is going to crumple just as badly. Also we only have artist mock-ups to go on. As for the driving modes - well I suppose that it's just a few electronic control gimmicks, but surely of precious little use (what does the economy mode do - just limit the power?).
The automotive industry is going to have to do a lot better than this unless it is to appeal only to a few well-heeled city dwellers who can afford to excorcise their eco-guilt with one of these contraptions.
£16k excluding VAT is £18,400 inclusive this year and £18,800 next year. Screw that. If it were under £7k it might have legs (or wheels, a ho ho) but £18.8k is taking the piddle. You could get a bunch of engineering students to build you something better for less and get it based on a car that you could survive a crash in.
As much as I like the the idea of being 'Eco' . . . #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 14:40 GMT
. . .there are small city cars that are almost half the price and despite them having infernal combustion engines ( to quote Jeremy Clarkson) 'all that comes out the exhaust are baby foxes'.
Is it really better to generate electricity to power fairly useless and costly vehicles or to develop vehicles for towns that not only are cheap, which encourages people to buy them, but also have some speed and range which makes them useful vehicles to own.
If folks are really, really concerned about saving the planet instead of playing the ' I am considerably greener than yaow' ticket with a leccy car use public transport instead. Then maybe use some of the extra income peple obviously have in order to afford a Toyota Pious and give some dosh to campaigns for real public transport.
My jacket is a yellow fluoro one even in the snow bikes work.
***"Electric cars are exempt from the congestion charge. it's still twice the price I'd be prepared to pay though.."***
Yeeees, that was the point I was making.
I'll spell it out more succinctly for the hard of thinking....
You could spend £8K, for example, on a new 1.3 Suzuki Swift (£7600 OTR) and the saving you make over this leccy pile of junk would fund your congestion charge on your £8K **petrol** car for over 4 years (nearly 5, actually, as I'd missed that leccy price was ex VAT)
"With the Zero due to go in to production later this year, we would have hoped for some rather less, well, imaginary images, but you can't have everything..."
Yes, what you certainly will not have is a production model by the end of the year!
I know what you mean, but if I had a choice of paying an extra £8000 for a car or pay £8000 Congestion charge, I'd choose the first. I hate paying tax etc.
I don't live in London anyway. But apart from the cost, that car would suit me fine. I could always hire a car if I needed to make a longer journey.
Because its not driven by enough wheels (4WD preferred)
Its less than 6 foot wide
Weighs less than 3 tons
Has a ground clearance less than 8 inches
Doesn't scare the bejesus out of normal car owners
Isn't Black
Doesn't have tinted glass
Won't survive the driver pulling away from the kerb into the path of traffic without looking
If you live in London you choose between the vehicle described above and buying new roadsprings every four months due to the profusion of 'sleeping policemen' everywhere. On a recent trip there I was given a lift in a 4WD and realised why it was so much more suitable than a normal vehicle.
Pioneer AVH-P3100DVD In-Dash DVD Player (MP3/WMA, 5.8" LCD, Bluetooth/Satellite)
Pioneer AVH-P4100DVD In-Dash DVD Player (MP3/WMA, 7" LCD, Bluetooth Ready)
Pioneer AVIC-F500BT In-Dash 5.8" Navigation System
Kenwood DNX-6140 DVD Navigation Receiver
Pioneer AVIC-Z110BT In-Dash GPS Navigatino System (MP3/WMA/AAC, 7" LCD, Bluetooth)
Tazzari specs up UK-friendly electric runabout
GreyCells
Same problem as Smart #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 10:35 GMT
What percentage of second cars (this would rarely be a primary vehicle) are used for the school run? At a minimum, we need 1+2 (i.e. 1 adult and two children) but preferably 1+3 to accommodate the nuclear family...
Lose the boot space for two extra (small) seats and you've opened up a whole new market.
Ash
16k of epic fail. #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 11:21 GMT
Why? Just WHY?
I had a moped which did 0-30mph quicker, a higher top speed, better range, didn't get stuck in traffic, had space for a bag of shopping under the seat, cost £25 in fuel and oil per month, could be parked anywhere, and was £1750 brand new.
If you want an urban runabout, you go on two wheels. See Ho Chi Minh City for details.
Eponymous Cowherd
No, No, No, No, NO!!! #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 11:21 GMT
Look, £16K for a leccy bug won't cut it.
You can buy a new, conventional 'supermini' for less then half that price, which is faster, more comfortable, has a greater range and takes only 3 mins to 'recharge' (with petrol) at a filling station.
The £8K saved will pay for 1000 days of London congestion charge, that's over four years of 5-day weeks! So even in London it's of extremely doubtful value.
Only greeeny zealots would even consider this thing.
Francis Boyle
When I saw the pic #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 11:58 GMT
I thought "I like it - looks a bit like a mini". Unfortunately,,I agree with your other points as well. It should be half the price and it doesn't exactly look like it has much in the way of crash protection (probably better than a moped though). Plus there's no way you'd get a ton of gold in the back.
TeeCee
Fusion? #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
Alfa SZ and Issigonis Mini? No way.
Try Pontiac Aztec and Daihatsu Materia. That is one fugly vehicle. It only looks like a mini in that both are on the small side and have four wheels......
Pete James
Another con job #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
You know, I think this personifies the current (sorry) rash of electric powered vehicles. It's not really very versatile. It's performance and range is pretty abysmal. And the R&D has been kept to the bare minimum. But the most telling part is the price.
There is just no justification for asking so much cash for a vehicle with such a low parts count and lack of any infrastructure behind it, that provides vastly inferior protection, performance and practicality when compared to other vehicles, and has no meaningful reason behind it's design. These vehicles aren't being created to satisfy a demand but to make people a fast buck. And that is a fundamental mistake which today's market can see right through.
The article mentioned Issigonis, and it's worth thinking about him here in the context of designing an alternative fulled vehicle. The mini was created to respond to the sales of the bubble cars. Issigonis believed he could do far better and provide transportation to the average family within a small package. His focus was on that, not on raking in some quick money. Now, if he were alive today, I somehow doubt very much that he would conjure up anything quite so backwards or badly reasoned as the Tazzari - or the G-Wizz or Tesla or others. His ideas would not, in isolation, be far-fetched either. Just clever, practical and reasoned. But as a whole he would quite probably swat away these pretenders with something quite extraordinary.
Sadly Sir Alec was a real one-off. Gordon Murray, for his cleverness, is perhaps thinking along some slightly wrong lines with the T25 mentioned by another contributor recently - but he's about the only one having a real go. The rest, as so amply demonstrated by this misguided offering, are a complete waste of time.
Flocke Kroes
Missed out the important numbers #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
How many charge cycles will the battery survive, and how much will a new battery cost? Electricity is cheaper than petrol (because of petrol tax), but a replacement battery puts the running costs vaguely level again.
I would not bet on these cars having any boot space at all. To fit a child behind the seats I think you will need a large liquidizer.
Steven Jones
No game changer #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
So it's twice the price of a G-Wiz with perhaps 25% more power and range. It also won't be crash tested, so maybe it is going to crumple just as badly. Also we only have artist mock-ups to go on. As for the driving modes - well I suppose that it's just a few electronic control gimmicks, but surely of precious little use (what does the economy mode do - just limit the power?).
The automotive industry is going to have to do a lot better than this unless it is to appeal only to a few well-heeled city dwellers who can afford to excorcise their eco-guilt with one of these contraptions.
Steve Anderson
Don't forget the VAT. #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
£16k excluding VAT is £18,400 inclusive this year and £18,800 next year. Screw that. If it were under £7k it might have legs (or wheels, a ho ho) but £18.8k is taking the piddle. You could get a bunch of engineering students to build you something better for less and get it based on a car that you could survive a crash in.
Anonymous John
@ No, No, No, No, NO!!! #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 13:07 GMT
Electric cars are exempt from the congestion charge. it's still twice the price I'd be prepared to pay though..
Elmer Phud
As much as I like the the idea of being 'Eco' . . . #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 14:40 GMT
. . .there are small city cars that are almost half the price and despite them having infernal combustion engines ( to quote Jeremy Clarkson) 'all that comes out the exhaust are baby foxes'.
Is it really better to generate electricity to power fairly useless and costly vehicles or to develop vehicles for towns that not only are cheap, which encourages people to buy them, but also have some speed and range which makes them useful vehicles to own.
If folks are really, really concerned about saving the planet instead of playing the ' I am considerably greener than yaow' ticket with a leccy car use public transport instead. Then maybe use some of the extra income peple obviously have in order to afford a Toyota Pious and give some dosh to campaigns for real public transport.
My jacket is a yellow fluoro one even in the snow bikes work.
spam
Pull the other one #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 14:40 GMT
Why not buy a second hand milk float? Same performance, much more space for the shopping and about 15,000 quid cheaper.
Eponymous Cowherd
@Anonymous John #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 14:40 GMT
***"Electric cars are exempt from the congestion charge. it's still twice the price I'd be prepared to pay though.."***
Yeeees, that was the point I was making.
I'll spell it out more succinctly for the hard of thinking....
You could spend £8K, for example, on a new 1.3 Suzuki Swift (£7600 OTR) and the saving you make over this leccy pile of junk would fund your congestion charge on your £8K **petrol** car for over 4 years (nearly 5, actually, as I'd missed that leccy price was ex VAT)
Anonymous Coward
Another fantasy car #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 14:40 GMT
"With the Zero due to go in to production later this year, we would have hoped for some rather less, well, imaginary images, but you can't have everything..."
Yes, what you certainly will not have is a production model by the end of the year!
druck
0. (Zero point) #
Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 15:51 GMT
Zero - is that the name or the sales target for this hideous, impractical, death trap of a battery shitbox?
Anonymous John
@ @Anonymous John #
Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 01:12 GMT
I know what you mean, but if I had a choice of paying an extra £8000 for a car or pay £8000 Congestion charge, I'd choose the first. I hate paying tax etc.
I don't live in London anyway. But apart from the cost, that car would suit me fine. I could always hire a car if I needed to make a longer journey.
Paul Stockwell
No Use for the School Run #
Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 17:37 GMT
Because its not driven by enough wheels (4WD preferred)
Its less than 6 foot wide
Weighs less than 3 tons
Has a ground clearance less than 8 inches
Doesn't scare the bejesus out of normal car owners
Isn't Black
Doesn't have tinted glass
Won't survive the driver pulling away from the kerb into the path of traffic without looking
If you live in London you choose between the vehicle described above and buying new roadsprings every four months due to the profusion of 'sleeping policemen' everywhere. On a recent trip there I was given a lift in a 4WD and realised why it was so much more suitable than a normal vehicle.