Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The EV’s Way, Auto-makers!

“Last year, AAA began asking Americans if they planned to buy an electric car. 15% said yes. AAA plans to ask the same question every year and track the results — at least until electric cars become the norm. This year, 20% of Americans said they are considering an electric car for their next vehicle purchase.
 
For statisticians, that is a 33% increase, which indicates the J Curve has ended and the S Curve has begun. For the rest of us, it simply means that attitudes are changing, more people are aware that electric cars exist, and the electric car revolution is moving forward more or less on schedule. It also gives the lie to the oft repeated auto industry claims that “nobody wants to buy an electric car.””
 
See AAA Survey Finds 20% Of Americans Plan To Buy An Electric Car
Basically, not everyone is an idiot. People can compare the purchase price, $cost/km and cost of changing oil and wornout moving parts and rationally decide that an EV is the way to go. Today. Not next decade. The EV is happening. If you won’t whole-heartedly make and deliver EVs get out of the way for someone else, like Electra Meccanica, for instance.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The EV’s Way, Auto-makers!

  1. DrLoser says:

    I can define those quantities in great detail if you want to be bored.

    Go on then, bore us. Here, I’ll start you off. Velocity (not speed) is a vector quantity, whereas energy in general (and it doesn’t really matter that we’re talking about “kinetic energy,”, because, for example, your woeful little tricycle could plummet into a ravine, which would be “potential energy,” as unlikely and irrelevant as that event might be) is scalar.

    That “great detail” you feel somehow qualified to add? Trust me. I will find it fascinating. Not in a Physical sense … more in a Psychological sense.

    Go ahead. Amaze us with your original first class knowledge of elementary Physics, Robert.

  2. DrLoser says:

    Should you still wish to discuss the “average between four wheels and two wheels” issue you raised, Robert — which is actually even more cretinous than your “This is what happens when you hit a brick wall” scenario …

    I’m up for it. ANd I warn you, it will involve eccentricity.

    (As a Physicist with at least one first class original paper reviewed by your peers, it’s fair to assume that you know what I’m talking about when I talk about eccentricity.)

  3. DrLoser says:

    Smaller is better when it comes to cost and efficiency which is what being Green is all about.

    An interesting observation.

    How come the Solo, which on that basis should be flying off the shelves, costs CA$20,000, then?

    Oh, and pardon me, but I thought being “Green” was all about Saving The Planet Whilst Your Far Better Half Drives Around In An SUV. Not “cost efficiency,” Robert. Not even “smaller.” Better use of available renewable power, quite possibly, but you’ve let your petticoats slip yet again.

    You just want to drive around without paying for the motive power, don’t you? That is absolutely the only thing you care about.

  4. DrLoser says:

    Further, the Corbin Sparrow was a precedent and almost good enough.

    I guess that depends upon what you classify as “almost good enough,” Robert. The Corbin Sparrow was very much “not good enough.” Nowhere near, in fact. The only thing I can say about it is that it makes the Robin Reliant (upon whose chassis it was presumably based) look like a car suitable for the Jetsons — and the Robin Reliant was a huge joke in the UK in the 1990s.

    I mean, have you seen the thing? Let alone examined its structural deficiencies. Here — have a look.

    It’s utter crap, isn’t it? And it didn’t sell. People other than you are not that stupid.

  5. DrLoser says:

    The average of two wheels and four wheels is three wheels… That’s as good an explanation as the doctor’s.

    How very Orwellian. “Four wheels good, three wheels better.”

    Regrettably, Robert, George Orwell was writing a satire about Stalinist Russia. Which didn’t involve common-or-garden engineering. And in common-or-garden engineering …

    Only a doofus would take the average between two wheel set-ups and proclaim it “sort of in between and good enough and we really don’t need to look into it any further, do we?”

    No, it isn’t “as good an explanation.” In fact it’s a rubbish explanation. Or, more precisely, it’s no sort of an explanation at all.

  6. DrLoser wrote, ” I think Jerry had some other excuse which didn’t make sense.
     
    But the real reason is that it gets around safety regulations for actual, Honest to God, automobiles with four wheels and all.”

    Crap! Jerry was into racing cars and motorcycles. The average of two wheels and four wheels is three wheels… That’s as good an explanation as the doctor’s. Further, the Corbin Sparrow was a precedent and almost good enough. The Solo is a modern design based on the same concepts. Smaller is better when it comes to cost and efficiency which is what being Green is all about.

  7. DrLoser says:

    No one who observed me back in the day thought I was not competent in the field and I did original work that was first rate for the time.

    Since you apparently need me (a man with a degree in History) to steer you away from speed/velocity towards the rather more relevant topic of kinetic energy, Robert … May I, as an Historian rather than a Physicist, enquire politely which peer-review process suggested that you came up with “first rate original work?”

    Clearly not in the field of structural engineering, which is fair enough. But what was it? Counting electrons in a cloud-chamber?

  8. DrLoser says:

    Work = force * distance, just to refresh your memory.

  9. DrLoser says:

    Both vehicles experience the same force by Newton’s laws. The driver of the truck would experience less force but the driver of the Solo can still survive if the speed is urban.

    One or the other applies, I think, Robert. Not both. Equal force, or non-equal force.

    Lovely change-up from velocity/speed (you never really explained the hyphenation here) to kinetic energy, to force.

    What’s next, “work?”

  10. DrLoser says:

    Incidentally, do you know why Jerry “designed” this appalling thing as a three-wheeler in the first place?

    It’s not to save money on tires, which you have advertised as in some way a compensation for paying CA$20,000 for a rolling death trap. I think Jerry had some other excuse which didn’t make sense.

    But the real reason is that it gets around safety regulations for actual, Honest to God, automobiles with four wheels and all.

    Great little wheeze that, until you drive a tricycle down the road and get yourself killed in it.

  11. DrLoser says:

    No. That doesn’t happen.

    Yes. It does happen. The only evidence so far for “beams” in the Solo is the chassis, which as I say is basically 10″ above the road. Check out your wife’s SUV: were something like that to hit you, it would do so at more like 30″ above the road. It has whacking great tires as well, which means it will probably ride straight over the chassis and into your soft little body.

    The energy is absorbed in the crush zones which are adequate.

    Sez who? Adequate by what standard? So far you haven’t provided any evidence that the stuff above the chassis is anything but lightweight plastic. What cursh-zones? More than one? Show, don’t tell.

    The energy is less, too, because the car is much lighter than other EVs and ICEd vehicles.

    Nice to see your finely trained Physics mind has finally come around to the point where we are talking about energy as opposed to velocity, Robert. Unfortunately, you are still adressing the wrong source of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy imparted by your wretched little tricycle is almost an afterthought in a collision. Here’s a few scenarios:

    1) You are rear-ended. Given the pathetic construction of your wretched little tricycle, this is possibly the least worrying eventuality. The SUV will push you forwards, which is where you’re going anyway, and unless you hit your fabled “brick wall example,” you’ll probably come to little harm.

    2) You’re hit in the front by an SUV. This one is going to be nasty, because the SUV has crumple zones and you don’t. (Also note E1 and G2 from my “structural engineering for dummies” cite.) With a bit of luck the damn thing just rolls over you (taking the entire tricycle body with it) and leaves you shaken and in a small puddle under the steering wheel, but no worse. If not, you, Robert, you, personally, you, your svelte body and all, is going to absorb most of the kinetic energy imparted by the SUV.

    3) Here’s the even nastier scenario. You get hit by an SUV driving into the side of your wretched little tricycle. Now, I’ve mentioned the difference in structure at various angles, but let’s just assume you get hit plumb on, at a right-angle.

    I imagine that you are capable of realising that the kinetic energy of your wretched little tricycle is completely irrelevant in this case. The occupants of SUVs and flat-bed trucks often survive this sort of collision. You won’t.

    I can go further into the damaging effects of moment force, if you like. It doesn’t get any safer.

  12. joepeatf wrote, “trycycle has light frame hence more force on trycycle user. Need I say more?”

    No. That’s enough to prove you’re an idiot. Read about crush-zones. They reduce the force on the occupant by absorbing energy and slowing the vehicle more gradually. Solo has huge crush-zones and very low mass. It slows rather gently in a collision. The occupant is almost stopped by the time the crush-zone is half-collapsed.

  13. joepeatf says:

    However you talk a lot of bla bla bla mr.physics expert…HOWEVER IT IS A IRRELAVENT ARGUEMENT Mr.Pogbrain…You will never get Jerry’s wretched trycycle!!! I rest my case.

  14. joepeatf says:

    Robertpogson is blind
    δt is the same for both idiot! They use the same clock and time-scales. What is different is the δV. The truck may be only slightly slowed while the light vehicle reverses. Both vehicles experience the same force by Newton’s laws. The driver of the truck would experience less force but the driver of the Solo can still survive if the speed is urban. Very few survive >110km/h because the vehicles are destroyed and the people within, both the truck and the Solo. It’s conservation of momentum in an elastic collision but a car/truck collision is inelastic. A lot of energy goes into destroying the vehicles. You know, crushing things and scattering debris, including bodies, about.=wrong
    Robertpogson does not interpret good…Jerry’s trycycle have same impact however stop by truck…Jerry’s trycycle have less Δt however stop by motrecycle…Jerry’s trycycle have more Δt. Less Δt=more force on Jerry’s trycycle however trycycle has light frame hence more force on trycycle user. Need I say more?

  15. joepeatf shows his ignorance with “if Jerry’s trycycle is stopped by other car…motrecycle impulse=truck impulse however motrecycle’s Δt>truck Δt”.

    δt is the same for both idiot! They use the same clock and time-scales. What is different is the δV. The truck may be only slightly slowed while the light vehicle reverses. Both vehicles experience the same force by Newton’s laws. The driver of the truck would experience less force but the driver of the Solo can still survive if the speed is urban. Very few survive >110km/h because the vehicles are destroyed and the people within, both the truck and the Solo. It’s conservation of momentum in an elastic collision but a car/truck collision is inelastic. A lot of energy goes into destroying the vehicles. You know, crushing things and scattering debris, including bodies, about.

    Here’s a report about a big truck colliding with several safety-certified vehicles. Were they any safer than if they were in a Solo? BTW, the truckers were not injured as their vehicle essentially climbed over top of what it didn’t knock about. Again, this is what highway speeds can do. No one is safe, not even the truckers.

    Here’s a collision of a pickup v semi. Both trucks destroyed. Given highway speeds nothing is certain to keep one healthy. Why isn’t joepeatf complaining that trucks are unsafe?

  16. DrLoser wrote, “what happens here, in a crash, is that the ~27 times “stronger” diverts the kinetic energy into the other parts, which aren’t ~27 times stronger. That would be the bits between your (thick) head and your feet”.

    No. That doesn’t happen. The energy is absorbed in the crush zones which are adequate. The energy is less, too, because the car is much lighter than other EVs and ICEd vehicles. Less energy is much easier to dispose of without catastrophic injury to the occupant. It’s on the roads in Canada and USA. It passed all the tests.

  17. DrLoser wrote, “Not being able to differentiate velocity from kinetic energy, perhaps?”

    I can define those quantities in great detail if you want to be bored. I studies physics for many years. I took 5 courses of physics from 1969 to 1972. I graduated. I worked in the field for years. I taught the subject. No one who observed me back in the day thought I was not competent in the field and I did original work that was first rate for the time. So, shove it where Sun doesn’t shine.

  18. DrLoser says:

    So what happens here, in a crash, is that the ~27 times “stronger” diverts the kinetic energy into the other parts, which aren’t ~27 times stronger.

    No, wait, it doesn’t! The basic laws of Physics don’t apply in this case! The kinetic energy just vanishes in a poof of really really hot super-heated air!

    No, just kidding. What actually happens is that the kinetic energy is converted into a really, really, large thunderclap, combined with the clouds parting (sort of a reverse lighting bolt) and God looking approvingly down on his Chosen One.

    “Pogson,” says God, “You may not have a clue about how cars collide, but to be honest I didn’t bother to explain that in Leviticus. My bad.”

    “But if you want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, for goodness’ sake stop lying about those peer-reviewed articles. I’ve read them. They were rubbish.”

    “Oh, and buy yourself a Nissan Leaf. I suppose I’ll have to put up with you eventually, but your dying right now would put a crimp in my holiday plans for the next ten years or so.”

  19. joepeatf says:

    Hence Jerry’s trycycle is stopped by motrecycle…motrecycle have to push Jerry’s trycycle for a lot of seconds…Δt is very big however motorcycle force is very small…Bob the trycycle idiot is not dieing

    However Jerry’s trycycle is stopped by truck…truck stop Jerry’s trycycle for small milliseconds…Δt is very small however truck force is very big…Bob the trycycle idiot is dieing!!!

  20. DrLoser says:

    Where does my ignorance lie?

    Not being able to differentiate velocity from kinetic energy, perhaps?

    One or two other things spring to mind. Perhaps dozens. But let’s just start with that one.

  21. DrLoser says:

    One more thing to consider, Robert, from a structural engineering point of view:

    The deflection of a beam varies according to the third power of the length more or less so a beam of the same sort three times shorter is ~27 times stronger.

    Let’s stipulate that, shall we? ~27 times “stronger.” Now, the thing about structural engineering and finite element models is that this is basically useless, because all it does is to transfer the stress force to the rest of the frame. Which would be nice, but the Solo doesn’t actually have a frame, does it? Just a rubbish light chassis with random bits of plastic glued on.

    So what happens here, in a crash, is that the ~27 times “stronger” diverts the kinetic energy into the other parts, which aren’t ~27 times stronger. That would be the bits between your (thick) head and your feet, Robert.

    I admire your desire to keep your non-available little piece of plastic crap safe, Robert, but so far it appears to be a death-trap from a human point of view.

  22. joepeatf says:

    I’ve earned B.Sc.(Honours) and M.Sc. in physics. I’ve studied all manner of forces and built many devices exploiting them. I was a member of IEEE and I published in peer-reviewed journals. Where does my ignorance lie?
    Robertpogson is stubborn.. Impulse=FΔt hence if Jerry’s trycycle is stopped by other car…motrecycle impulse=truck impulse however motrecycle’s Δt>truck Δt… If Bob need less hurt by acident, Δt need be big hence truck is safer then Jerry’s trycycle. John the truck man has bigger Δt then Bob the trycycle idiot.

    Robertpogson basicaly bigger Δt is less force/seconds in car acident.

  23. DrLoser says:

    And, to avoid pointless niggling:

    Mass times velocity squared.

    Half of that, of course. Which is a constant. Which means that if 2,000 lbs hits you, side on (for maximum damage, and I have yet to consider eccentricity and moment force), and your worthless little tricycle weighs 800 lbs … You die.

    A mercifully quick death, of course. So there’s that.

  24. DrLoser says:

    I didn’t say that at all. The length of the beam that is the roof is quite short.

    Well, that’s nice. Let’s see the Young;s modulus on the roof beam, then.

    The deflection of a beam varies according to the third power of the length more or less so a beam of the same sort three times shorter is ~27 times stronger.

    Well, first of all, “deflection” is SLS in structural engineering terms, Robert (S for “serviceability” — which basically involves flakes of plastic being shaken off and falling on your head). Any normal person would be interested in ULS, which is the point where the static model breaks, and so does your habitat. You die at that point.

    I refer you once again to my cite, which quotes the relevant constants for Young’s Modulus (elasticity) and shear strength (G2). Apparently you didn’t bother your little head to read that cite.

    It’s quite important if you have any interest in not dying. I have no interest in encouraging you either way. I’m just offering you the relevant information.

    Which is more than Jerry Kroll has done for you in the last two years or so.

    It sure beats a motorcycle.

    An interesting alternative perspective. Perhaps you should expand upon this lunatic notion. Because … it doesn’t.

  25. DrLoser says:

    The government-certified test is running a vehicle into a wall and carefully measuring a bunch of effects. In the process, the occupant is brought to zero speed.

    Well, that’s all right then. The goivernment has certified your no doubt expert ability to run straight into a wall. Splendid! Although not much to do with the general laws of physics, of which you still appear to be mystified.

    “Zero speed” is totally irrelevant. Speed doesn’t kill, Robert. Kinetic energy kills.

    Mass times velocity squared. Even Kurks and I know this. You presumably do, but for some reason you are reluctant to admit it.

  26. DrLoser says:

    Solo was designed using finite element analysis and proper engineering, not origami.

    Finite element analysis is a fundamental basis of structural engineering, Robert. It’s basically a two- or three- dimensional matrix calculation that depends upon using the structural engineering constants that my cite quoted. (It’s usually just two-dimensional, because three dimensions stress the model once you get down to a 3mm tolerance.) And it works on things like Young’s Modulus and Shear Stress and so on.

    They might indeed “use” it. But they’re presumably full of total incompetents like you, and they obviously haven’t come to the right conclusions.

    Consider a chicken’s egg.

    Yes, why not? Evolution has probably pushed a chicken’s egg as far as it can go, in structural engineering terms. You keep bringing irrelevancies up, Robert. Is a wall a chicken’s egg? Is either one of them relevant to the shear force in, say, a 2000 lbs vehicle hitting your nasty little worthless plastic tricycle at a 45 degree angle?

    I think not. I remind you that I have provided the engineering numbers. I remind you that you have not contradicted those numbers.

  27. DrLoser wrote, “because the design is obviously friggin lethal”.

    What’s obvious to you may be your imagination. Solo was designed using finite element analysis and proper engineering, not origami. Consider a chicken’s egg. It’s obviously a poor design, so thin and brittle… Ever try to crush one in your hand? If you wrap your fingers around it carefully it’s a friggin three dimensional arch and incredibly strong for its weight. That’s the kind of engineering that went into Solo, strength versus weight. They got it under 1000 pounds before they started adding “features” like power-assisted this and that… The weight is in the places that need it not all over the place like the military tanks Detroit used to make before the Japanese moved in. Folks decried the smaller cars and lighter weight and death-rates dropped. They dropped again with 55mph speed limits. The size and weight of a vehicle is just one of many factors affecting reliability/safety/utility.

  28. DrLoser wrote, ” Is it really necessary to bring walls into this? I don’t think so.”

    The government-certified test is running a vehicle into a wall and carefully measuring a bunch of effects. In the process, the occupant is brought to zero speed. So, his kinetic energy, ½mv2, is used against him usually to no good result. In a head-on collision against a heavy vehicle travelling the same speed in the opposite direction, the energy available within the body is twice as much, but you can only be killed once. It’s still the same order of magnitude and above some value like the speed limit on our highways, nothing can save a person from a head-on collision. That’s why the tests are made a city-speeds. There’s hope in that case and seat-belts and air-bags and crush-zones almost guarantee survival except for fire or exceptional events like impalement. So, there’s not that much advantage for the typical car versus Solo at city-speeds when it comes to slowing down the human body.

    Further: “In 1987, Victoria raised the speed limit on its rural and outer Melbourne freeway network to 110 km/h from 100 km/h. There followed an increase in casualties (including fatalities) of 24.6 per cent. In late September 1989, a 100 km/h limit was reintroduced, resulting in a reduction in crashes of 19.3 per cent (Sliogeris, 1992).” I intend to drive my Solo no faster than 70km/h when suitable on highways to conserve energy in the battery and to reduce the likelihood and severity of any collision.

    There are other things that kill however and the more massive the vehicles the more energy is available for other undesirable events like being crushed between a heavy vehicle and a concrete abutment. As a vehicle explodes around a driver, the driver can be lacerated by flying fragments of metal, plastic, and glass. In some cases that’s lethal as loss of blood pressure for more than a few minutes is fatal. There’s just more bad things that can happen with a heavy vehicle. Take utility poles for example. In the bad old days when poles were always wooden, collisions were often fatal. When steel poles came to be they were much more lethal because the driver was crushed between the pole bent over its concrete foundation. Breakaway bolts saved lives. It was the great energy of heavy vehicles that was killing people that way. Light vehicles didn’t do that.

    I knew a woman who was injured by heavy vehicles. She was struck by flying glass and had painful nerve and joint damage for the rest of her miserable life. She was in a heavy vehicle struck by another heavy vehicle. Her life was so painful thereafter she might have been better off dead.

  29. joepeatf wrote, “Why does not Jerry use 4 wheels?”

    It’s unnecessary and four wheels makes a much more complicated drivetrain: differential and anti-skid mechanism. With one drive wheel, skid should not be an issue of the drive-train at all. If one steers well, the front wheels should not skid either. Of course any idiot can drive too fast for a curve on wet ice but the car can’t save all idiots in any case.

    joepeatf also wrote, “Jerry’s trycycle have battery on front”.

    Nope it’s low and in the middle of the car. It’s weight is well distributed leading to greater stability.

    joepeatf also wrote, “Bob is fat hence trycycle+Bob=center of mass is move right”.

    Nope the weight of driver, battery and motor are all well-centred in Solo leading to great stability. Just believe your eyes. People don’t have any problem controlling Solo and all report response is snappy. The steering ratio was a little strange but EMV has added “power-assist” so that’s more familiar to drivers now.

    joepeatf told a joke: “Robertpogson is ignorant in centrifugal force..”.

    I’ve earned B.Sc.(Honours) and M.Sc. in physics. I’ve studied all manner of forces and built many devices exploiting them. I was a member of IEEE and I published in peer-reviewed journals. Where does my ignorance lie?

  30. DrLoser waffles:“I don’t see any evidence whatsoever of side beams. True, the chassis provides what is effectively a beam at around 10″ above the ground (I’m guessing the wheels are 15″ diameter)”

    DrLoser wrote, “the size of the air-gap has absolutely no bearing on the rigidity of the structure”.

    I didn’t say that at all. The length of the beam that is the roof is quite short. The deflection of a beam varies according to the third power of the length more or less so a beam of the same sort three times shorter is ~27 times stronger. It sure beats a motorcycle. I’d bet the roof of a Solo could easily support the weight of the car. That will be a weight off my shoulders.
    A beam is a beam, eh?
    “A beam is a structural element that primarily resists loads applied laterally to the beam’s axis. Its mode of deflection is primarily by bending. The loads applied to the beam result in reaction forces at the beam’s support points. The total effect of all the forces acting on the beam is to produce shear forces and bending moments within the beam, that in turn induce internal stresses, strains and deflections of the beam. Beams are characterized by their manner of support, profile (shape of cross-section), length, and their material.”

    Has DrLoser tried to bend something of that shape and material? It is quite stiff and it’s filled with a battery to add more crunch.

  31. DrLoser says:

    Now it’s true that a head on collision with a heavier vehicle does result in a sudden reversal of speed/velocity and that can kill a person, but it’s still the same order of magnitude of energy that is available to kill a person driving a light vehicle striking a wall.

    What a weird comparison. Is it really necessary to bring walls into this? I don’t think so.

    This “reversal” of “speed/velocity, Robert. I presume you know the (appropriate in this case) difference between speed and velocity.

    But even though you mentioned the somewhat more relevant effect of “energy” a sentence later, you still don’t seem quite to have grasped Kurk’s point. I don’t mean to be rude to Kurks, but he’s probably dredging this stuff up from Physics lessons at the age of fourteen or so (as am I). You, on the other hand, claim to have a degree in the subject, and yet you still can’t quite grasp the relevance of mass to a transference of kinetic energy.

    And we haven’t even broached the tricky topic of “crumple zones.” To be fair, the Solo does indeed appear to have a “crumple zone” — it’s called “the Solo.”

  32. DrLoser says:

    And, from your cite:

    The big kicker here is that the cost of these aerospace-grade composites have come down in price so much, I don’t know why there aren’t more vehicles made from them on the road

    Yes, well, hard to imagine, isn’t it? Possibly because the design is obviously friggin lethal.

    Plus this gorgeous piece of what I can only, feebly, describe as a dose of the over-optimisms:

    Potentially, we could be building 100,000 of our cars next year, or double what Tesla has been able to put out,

    That would have been a monstrous lie back in 2016 (the date of this article). Now, it’s just a truly pathetic boast.

    And you actually believe this snake-oil, Robert, don’t you?

  33. DrLoser says:

    The doors have side beams in them.

    Your first cite is irrelevant, because it doesn’t mention the structure of the doors at all. Your second cite is quite frankly terrifying, because I don’t see any evidence whatsoever of side beams. True, the chassis provides what is effectively a beam at around 10″ above the ground (I’m guessing the wheels are 15″ diameter). This is great for the chassis, but not so useful for the 200lb lump of human that sits directly above the chassis, who is about to become a biology experiment in any side-impact crash.

    The roof has walls about three times closer than Leaf so it’s quite rigid.

    I hate to disappoint you, Robert, but the size of the air-gap has absolutely no bearing on the rigidity of the structure. It does maximise the possibility that you will still be at 100% of the oncoming side-impact kinetic energy when your nearly lifeless body hits the other side of the wretched little tricycle, but that isn’t necessarily a desirable feature.

    Here’s a more useful cite, which details the important structural constants for various materials, including CF and steel (not even titanium steel). Of interest (at 90&degree;) are the comparative Youngs moduluses. Steel is three times better than CF. Also of interest is G12 (in-plane shear modulus), which is a distinctly worrying 5 plays 80. You get a lot of shear force in a crash, Robert.

    That’s not even considering the far worse structural numbers in a non-orthogonal crash. Dial back to a 45&degree; impact, and things get disastrously bad.

    Let me share an anecdote with you. Back when I rowed in Oxford, the college at the Head of the River (Oriel) bought one of the first carbon-fibre eights. It was expensive. It was an engineering marvel. It featured the one basic thing you want in a rowing 8, which is torsional rigidity when travelling in a straight line. It was awesome.

    Then the Oriel first eight took it out for a trial run, staring at a weir. They caught a crab in the first five strokes. The weir sucked the boat back and over, and it cracked in half …

    Oh, how we laughed.

  34. joepeatf says:

    Robertpogson
    That’s not true. The driver and the seat are positioned between two rows of battery. That keeps the centre of mass low and two lumps of mass far apart so that Solo is quite stable. Solo has a rear view camera that shows on the instrument panel and a switch on the dashboard at the left hand side with reverse, neutral and forward positions that do indeed allow one to control the direction and thrust of the motor. So Solo is designed to move forward and backwards safely.
    B
    Why does not Jerry use 4 wheels?

    Robertpogson
    Solo is a car with three wheels and does meet safety-standards. It has a rigid roof, door beams and all of that except air-bags. Those are of no use in such a light vehicle. EMV says it is planning to add an external air-bag for pedestrians and air-bags in the doors for the driver. Those aren’t a necessity but they might reduce severity of injuries.
    Jerry’s trycycle is a light vehicle. hence centre of mass is changed a lot by human.

    Bob use Jerry’s trycycle however Bob is fat hence trycycle+Bob=center of mass is move right. Bob reverse trycycle+turn left down hill however trycycle fall over.

    Jerry’s trycycle have battery on front. rear wheel is move by battery hence Jerry’s trycycle is RWD also. Jerry’s trycycle has low centre of mass however trycyle is light mass hence centre of mass is change a lot of by Bob the fat. Trycycle move forward however Bob turn left hence trycycle have centrifugal force right=trycycle fall over…however Robertpogson is ignorant in centrifugal force..

    Reality Jerry’s trycycle is not design for turn also.

  35. joepeatf wrote, “Simple fact is Jerry’s trycycle is not design for reverse.”

    That’s not true. The driver and the seat are positioned between two rows of battery. That keeps the centre of mass low and two lumps of mass far apart so that Solo is quite stable. Solo has a rear view camera that shows on the instrument panel and a switch on the dashboard at the left hand side with reverse, neutral and forward positions that do indeed allow one to control the direction and thrust of the motor. So Solo is designed to move forward and backwards safely.

  36. joepeatf says:

    Robertpogson
    I would argue Solo is much safer than a motorcycle since it doesn’t tend to fall over if you’re not careful
    Robert Pogson please answer. Jerry reverse his trycycle on parking lane down hill however wretched trycycle is fall over? Jerry’s trycycle is Reliant robin however Reliant robin fall over move forward hence Jerry’s trycycle fall over move backward.

    Simple fact is Jerry’s trycycle is not design for reverse.

  37. DrLoser wrote, of Solo, I presume, ” What makes the roof “rigid?” What makes the door beams “rigid?””

    The doors have side beams in them. Below each door is another beam making up the roof of the battery-compartment. See also https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/14207864_1115063008588268_6321521288014548893_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=a2ec37c8f2913f0b19befa7517e16012&oe=5B82515E On other EVs, like Nissan, the seat is way above the battery-compartment. On Solo, the seat is between two battery-compartments. The roof has walls about three times closer than Leaf so it’s quite rigid. Combined with the three times lower weight, I’m not the least bit worried.

  38. kurkosdr says:

    Pog, are you a car dealer from the 90s, trying to explain away why a certain vehicle which coincidentally doesn’t come with airbags allegedly doesn’t need airbags? If you had some basic physics knowledge about momentum you would know why the “lighter vehicle” excuse is pure nonsense. If anything, if you get hit by oncoming traffic and your claimed superior manuevering skills in the Solo fail you (because say an incoming vehicle is overtaking another oncoming vehicle and there is no real room for manuevering), being in a light vehicle is actually worse, as you have admitted.

    Most sane people would buy a Leaf and enjoy a car with a 5-star EuroNCAP rating and airbags and air-conditioning and stereo and the ability to carry to people and their groceries (again allow me to remind you your Solo necessitates another vehicle for your wife which you haven’t factored in your energy efficiency calculations). Jerry has realised the miniscule mass market potential of the thing and has decided not to build a real assembly line for it.

  39. DrLoser, not understanding physics nearly as well as I do, wrote, “the @ligthness of your frame of reference is actually totally irrelevant — or, in fact, anything else at all to do with the basic laws of Physics.”

    Let’s get down to facts. Leaf has a mass/weight of 4000 pounds. At the same speed as Solo, that about three times as much energy surrounding a person trying to crush them. A head on collision, the most likely, is like being in the middle of the explosion of a bomb. Glass bursts and shards embed themselves in your body. The front end closes in around your legs. The steering wheel strikes your chest. The doors may not be operable afterwards. You could be crushed, impaled or trapped. Not good. With less energy around you there’s less of all that kind of damage. Jerry likes to mention total destruction of racing vehicles with drivers walking away. He neglects to mention the helmet and harness and fire-suit but then the speed is more than double (4 times the energy).

    Now it’s true that a head on collision with a heavier vehicle does result in a sudden reversal of speed/velocity and that can kill a person, but it’s still the same order of magnitude of energy that is available to kill a person driving a light vehicle striking a wall. I’ll take my chances in Solo. The smaller size makes one a smaller target. The great manoeuvrability make it easier to avoid a collision. I think that balances the risk somewhat.

    OK, side impacts are a big problem but they are offset by rarity. Side impacts into poles show that light vehicles have no greater risk for an occupant than heavy vehicles. Side impacts are a bigger problem in cities where I rarely drive and they are usually avoidable in rural areas assuming daylight/visibility or lighting at night. Solo has decent protection from side impacts except for the upper body. I really would prefer a five-point harness.

  40. DrLoser wrote, “Robert apparently wants to see several other people to die in this wretched piece of badly-engineered dreck, just in order to satisfy his ludicrous miserly fanstasies”.

    Nonsense. Around here thousands of people ride motorcycles and bicycles. No one is dreading the experience. One takes appropriate precautions, lives long and prospers. Here are the stats. I would argue Solo is much safer than a motorcycle since it doesn’t tend to fall over if you’re not careful. So, I could get struck by lightning but I still enjoy sitting on my doorstep in a thunderstorm. I love the sights and sounds and smells in the atmosphere unlike the exhaust of a gas-guzzler. Solo is a very good experience according to many.

  41. DrLoser says:

    Anyway, Pog hasn’t answered the following question: Is he willing to drive a vehicle that doesn’t classify as a car and doesn’t have airbags, a rigid roof and generally doesn’t have to meet the safety requirements vehicles classifying as cars have to meet, just to save some money on electricity costs over a Leaf that classifies as a car and has all these?

    Of course>/i> he’s willing, Kurks. What a very impertinent question.

    The sad thing is, Robert apparently wants to see several other people to die in this wretched piece of badly-engineered dreck, just in order to satisfy his ludicrous miserly fanstasies

    On the whole, Robert’s attitude on VmWare vs Hellwig was slightly less unappetising … and that didn’t go well either, did it?

    Pogson is the champion of beating the Law of Averages … on the null side.

  42. DrLoser says:

    Those [airbags] are of no use in such a light vehicle.

    Please Pog, as a retired teacher, can you explain to me …

    We’d all like to think that, Kurks, but I’m beginning to think that Robert doesn’t actually understand either Newton’s First Law of Motion — clue, Robert, the @ligthness of your frame of reference is actually totally irrelevant — or, in fact, anything else at all to do with the basic laws of Physics.

    Mind you, he’s managed to pull the wool over several employers’ eyes, from his days on a cloud chamber in Saudi to his days encouraging underprivileged kids in Easterville to clean the fluff out of broken computer fans.

    I see this as an optimistic sort of view, really. Quite encouraging, in fact.

    You’re never too senescent to learn, are you?

    Oh, and by the way, your challenge to Pog? Of course he can’t explain it to you. His thesis is utterly ridiculous. But he won’t admit it.

    What a poor, sad, ignorant old man.

  43. DrLoser says:

    Incidentally, you can hire a sub-compact from Victoria International Airport for CA$65 a day. I suppose there is some, completely mystifying, reason why a total lunatic would want to take a taxi from the airport (and back). Downtown (as in the Doubletree) is 40 km away).

    I’m thinking that those of us who only froth at the mouth when we accidentally use the wrong tooth-paste would rather hire, you know, a car at the airport. With four wheels. And luggage space would be nice. And maybe a seat for the little lady. And perhaps even two seats in the back for the kids.

    And air-conditioning. And stereo. And air-bags. And so on.

    As usual, Robert, you’re doubling down on a pathetic loser here, aren’t you?

  44. DrLoser says:

    See Victoria hotel offers guests an electric ride

    You can deny it but it’s happening. Wake up.

    I don’t think that repeating the exact same stupid puff-piece counts as reinforcing your point, Robert. I realise that you are not the most creative or honest person in the world, but the least you could do is to come up with a slightly different weird perspective on the same stupid proposition.

    Like I say. Go phone the front desk. Tell us what they report,

  45. DrLoser says:

    It has a rigid roof, door beams and all of that

    OK, I’ll bite, Robert. What makes the roof “rigid?” What makes the door beams “rigid?”

    Bear in mind that there appears to be no triangulation involved in the frame, which means that “rigid” ain’t really “rigid” in any sense that we structural engineers would recognise.

    You’r talking crap, aren’t you?

  46. DrLoser says:

    DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Victoria boasts an ideal downtown location steps away from the Inner Harbour, Victoria Conference Centre, boutique shops, whale watching, museums and many arts and cultural activities.

    You have a remarkable propensity for stepping on your own genitals, Robert.

    It’s downtown, it’s “steps away,” it doesn’t really need to sell a plastic tricycle which, as I say, has probably been gifted to it as a marketing gimmick. And no sane human being who is prepared to fork out $250 a night is going to step into one of those things.

    Here’s an interesting question for you to answer. Let’s assume that the Toyota Priuses are charged out at |$30 per day. (I can see somebody paying for that.) And let’s assume that the worthless little tricycle is actually being charged out for free. Do you want to guess which vehicle the very well-off eco-warrior will pick?

    Correct. The Prius. Jerry can give this crap away for free, but I assure you that the Doubletree cannot.

  47. DrLoser says:

    Cost of living in various countries …

    Is irrelevant to the point at issue, Robert. Quit your weaselling. The point at issue is your ludicrous assertion that, after some unspecified period, the PRC will gladly build Solo production lines in either the USA or Canada, or possibly both.

    The cost of living doesn’t even enter into the discussion, you pathetic old fool. It’s never going to happen, is it?

  48. joepeatf says:

    Solo is a car with three wheels and does meet safety-standards. It has a rigid roof, door beams and all of that except air-bags. Those are of no use in such a light vehicle. EMV says it is planning to add an external air-bag for pedestrians and air-bags in the doors for the driver. Those aren’t a necessity but they might reduce severity of injuries.
    I hope Robert Pogson has helmet, Jerry’s tricycle is not safe car.

    Robert Pogson please not reverse Jerry’s tricycle on down hill..It rollover.. USA has a lot of park lot on down hill hence its not safe.

    Fred buy Jerry’s tricycle. He park tricycle on parking lot up hill. Fred get out of tricycle. He buy Coca Cola. Fred go tricycle..He reverse tricycle on down hill however Fred have to turn backward on down hill hence Jerry’s tricycle=rollover.

  49. Grece says:

    Here’s hoping the car will sell itself. That seems to work as people are harassed on test-drives with questions and Solo always draws a crowd.

    Doesn’t sound too optimistic Robert.

  50. kurkosdr says:

    It has a rigid roof, door beams and all of that except air-bags. Those are of no use in such a light vehicle.

    Please Pog, as a retired teacher, can you explain to me how a lighter vehicle prevents you from smashing your thicker-than-normal (but still not thick enough) skull against the dashboard or other interior element in case of a collision? Which is what airbags prevent against in case you didn’t know.

    If anything, a lighter vehicle means that during a collision with another vehicle of a given mass and speed, your lighter vehicle will experience higher acceleration (deceleration).

  51. kurkosdr says:

    as = ass (stupid autocorrect censoring me)

  52. kurkosdr says:

    Solo is a car with three wheels and does meet safety-standards.

    You should become a politician Pog. I didn’t ask if the Solo meets safety standards (my electric razor “meets safety standards”) I asked if it meets the safety standards a vehicle classifying as a car (like the Leaf) does. To shorten the conversation, the Solo does not. The Leaf does and has a 5-star EuroNCAP rating.

    Any rational human would opt for a 5-star EuroNCAP safety rating or just baseline safety required for vehicles that classify as cars, even if that means a slightly higher electricity consumption and being saddled by non-necessities such as cargo space and more than one seat.

    But why bother thinking when a millennial will work his/her as off to pay your medical bills if you end up a paraplegic as a result of your bonkers vehicle choice?

  53. Grece wrote, “YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO RECEIVE YOUR SOLO”.

    Repeating that doesn’t make it true. Same for “all caps”.

  54. Grece wrote, “not one has sold to a paying customer, NOT ONE!”

    That’s a lie. Many have been sold. The 400 was clearly optimistic but the flood from China will compensate for that. The first ~1000 already have deposits and ready willing customers lined up. Here’s hoping the car will sell itself. That seems to work as people are harassed on test-drives with questions and Solo always draws a crowd.

  55. Grece says:

    Here is an oldie but goodie.

    Electrameccanica Plans 400 EVs for 2017

    http://mrpogson.com/2017/01/11/electrameccanica-plans-400-evs-for-2017/

    We’re here in mid-2018 and not one has sold to a paying customer, NOT ONE!

  56. Grece says:

    Bets on Robert posting this at the end of the year.

    Last “Working” Day Of 2018 And Still No Solo

  57. Grece says:

    Hey Robert, when are you going to wake-up to the fact that YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO RECEIVE YOUR SOLO?

  58. DrLoser moaned, “an entertaining little dissertation on the relative wages of Chinese and other auto workers”

    Cost of living in various countries:
    Miami FL is about 3X the cost of living in Chengdu, CN.

    Considering that USA has been industrialized for nearly 200 years and China didn’t really start until the 1960s and that some catching up is required the Chinese are doing alright.

  59. Loser, writing of an hotel renting out Solos, “Get real, old man. This is so not going to happen.”

    “DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Victoria boasts an ideal downtown location steps away from the Inner Harbour, Victoria Conference Centre, boutique shops, whale watching, museums and many arts and cultural activities. Enjoy a warm welcome when you stay at our contemporary Victoria, BC, hotel. You will even be greeted with a signature DoubleTree Chocolate Chip Cookie on arrival.
    …”

    This is a hotel that has been renting out two Toyota Prius hybrids marked with the hotel’s logo. Now they’ve added two Solo EVs to the fleet…

    See Victoria hotel offers guests an electric ride

    You can deny it but it’s happening. Wake up.

  60. kurkosdr wrote, “Is he willing to drive a vehicle that doesn’t classify as a car and doesn’t have airbags, a rigid roof and generally doesn’t have to meet the safety requirements vehicles classifying as cars have to meet, just to save some money on electricity costs over a Leaf that classifies as a car and has all these?”

    Solo is a car with three wheels and does meet safety-standards. It has a rigid roof, door beams and all of that except air-bags. Those are of no use in such a light vehicle. EMV says it is planning to add an external air-bag for pedestrians and air-bags in the doors for the driver. Those aren’t a necessity but they might reduce severity of injuries.

    “three-wheeled vehicles and enclosed motorcycles will be required to have seat belts and impact-resistant fuel tanks. As well, three-wheeled vehicles will have to pass a frontal crash test and meet stringent stability standards.”

    See Regulations Open Door to Three-Wheeled Vehicles, Enclosed Motorcycles

    A comparison of safety standards for the usual passenger-cars and three-wheeled vehicles is at SCHEDULE III(Subsections 2(1), 4(1) and 5(2))Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

    There are very few standards that aren’t the same for both regular passenger-cars and TWVs. I am not the least concerned with the safety of Solo. Safety is mostly up to the driver anyway but EMV has done a good job designing the body, the crush-zones and controls. I expect to be much safer riding in an EV than a bomb filled with gasoline.

  61. DrLoser says:

    Here’s an entertaining little dissertation on the relative wages of Chinese and other auto workers, Robert. I’m sure it will warm the cockles of your wizened miserly old heart.

    In brief: PRC auto workers: $5. US: $24. Canada: $19,

    I believe your claim is that “China builds things better and faster,” so, to be fair, let’s assume they’re 100% better/faster. Productivity-wise, that would post the PRC hourly rate at $2.50.

    Now, you know all about these things, Robert. And you have repeatedly argued in favour of producing things in China (“until we catch up, ” I believe was your most recent cretinous phrase). But let’s just stipulate that you are right on this one.

    $2.50 plays about eight to ten times as much.

    In what possible parallel universe do you see the Solo being built on an honest-to-god production line anywhere in North America?

  62. DrLoser says:

    The problem is that that the Leaf is available for purchase right now, which means Pog would have to put his money where his mouth is

    Nailed it, Kurks. Signed, sealed, and delivered.

    Replace my suggestion of a brand-new Nissan Micra with a second-hand Nissan Leaf, and even Robert’s ludicrous assertions about “no moving parts” turn immediately into a massive fail.

  63. DrLoser says:

    Pog hasn’t answered the following question…

    Not directly, I admit. But (on the theory, as yet unproven, that he is willing to spend more than CA$10,000 on anything at all), the answer is yes, I think. He believes that none of that is necessary.

    Of course, where it is necessary, which is 80% or more of the time, then he can rely on his Far Better Half to drive him around in an SUV.

    And where it isn’t? He’ll just putter around the neighbourhood in his ridiculously over-priced worthless little tricycle instructing the kids to keep off his lawn.

  64. DrLoser says:

    They do intend to set up proper facilities in Canada and USA soon and they need to know what production feels like.

    Why on earth would they want to do that, Robert? You’re the one extolling the virtues of PRC production engineering, complete with sweat-shop labour. You’re the one who buys broken crappy tractorettes from China and pays a 100% overage just to get them through customs and transport.

    Surely anybody who wants a worthless plastic unsafe rickety nasty-looking single-seater no-luggage underpowered noisy unproven shabby little piece of dreck would expect it, and prefer it, to be built in China?

    I mean, Robert, let’s face it — that’s basically all you want. Why waste money on production workers who are going to expect minimum US/CA wage? Let alone pesky laws about setting up factories, not polluting the neighbourhood, etc etc.

    It’s not like you to extol the virtues of production lines in Canada or the USA, Robert. So why are you lying to yourself now?

  65. kurkosdr says:

    Anyway, Pog hasn’t answered the following question: Is he willing to drive a vehicle that doesn’t classify as a car and doesn’t have airbags, a rigid roof and generally doesn’t have to meet the safety requirements vehicles classifying as cars have to meet, just to save some money on electricity costs over a Leaf that classifies as a car and has all these?

    I call BS. The biggest problem with the Leaf is not its weight (a compromise I personally would be willing to live with when the other choice is a vehicle with substantially worse safety standards) or its extra wheel necessitating one extra tire (the horror). The problem is that that the Leaf is available for purchase right now, which means Pog would have to put his money where his mouth is and buy one instead of bragging of buying an EV someday and boasting how he is part of the EV future without going through the expense of actually becoming part of the EV future.

  66. DrLoser says:

    They’re going to be hiring one of the other three, aren’t they, Robert?

  67. DrLoser says:

    People travel from all over to visit Victoria out on Vancouver Island. I’ve been there myself. I ate a clam I dug up right at the beach. We camped in the rainforest and found huge slugs crawling on our tent in the morning.

    I’ll bet if the hotel charged you $20-$30 for the privilege of digging up that clam, you’d have demurred. You’re being very stupid here.

    And my point was that a vanishingly small proportion of people who are willing to spend $250+ a night in a hotel are going to put up with what to you looks like a perfectly viable vehicle but what to them looks like a disgusting motability scooter with the hotel’s logos plastered all over the side. Get real, old man. This is so not going to happen.

    But, perhaps these obscenely well-off eco-tourists somehow, and it is an unlikely somehow, have a Praise God I Bring Joy To The Rainforests! moment?

    In that case, they would be hiring one of the other three (actually appealing to drive) eco-vehicles available. For some unaccountable reason, you haven’t yet analysed that possibility.

    But you could do all of us, including you, a favour, and phone the front desk of the Doubletree By Hilton in Victoria, say at the end of June, and ask them how many tourists have taken up this offer of a ride to nowhere in a plastic bucket of crap.

    I’ll save you the effort: the answer will be “less than ten.”

  68. DrLoser says:

    The last vehicle I bought on my own accord without much input from TLW had a manual transmission for efficiency and I was charged extra for having that option.

    Rather fortunately for you, the Nissan Micra comes with a manual transmission for free.

    Remind us again what deranged point you were trying to make with this observation.

  69. DrLoser wrote, “you don’t need to spend money on an automatic transmission”.

    The last vehicle I bought on my own accord without much input from TLW had a manual transmission for efficiency and I was charged extra for having that option. An EV gives the best of both worlds, efficiency and low cost. Solo, for instance, has a drive belt and two cogged wheels. Leaf has a regular geared transmission ISTR. Silly that.

  70. DrLoser really lost it when he wrote, “these people are not going to want to ferry themselves around Victoria in a nasty little plastic tricycle”.

    It may come as a surprise but people actually live in the province of BC because they love the environment: rain forest, minimal pollution, proximity to the sea, etc. People travel from all over to visit Victoria out on Vancouver Island. I’ve been there myself. I ate a clam I dug up right at the beach. We camped in the rainforest and found huge slugs crawling on our tent in the morning.

    So, the kinds of people who visit Victoria and stay in a hotel there may well be the kind that appreciate the hotel not polluting the environment and providing cute/novel/efficient personal transportation at the same time. The hotel knows its customers better than DrLoser, I suspect.

  71. DrLoser says:

    Here’s a hotel renting out the damned things…

    Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far, Robert. I’m sure that God looks upon the @things@ with an amused glint in his eye, at worst. But you’re not thinking this through, and you’re not really reading your cite, as usual. So let me help you out.

    a) Thinking this through: I may be wrong, but I assume Jerry has marshalled up some marketing cash. And perhaps my guess is extravagant, but I’ll pick an arbitrary amount of, ooh, CA$20,000. That would pay for the wretched little tricycle loaner on its own, let alone the photo-op and the on-line puffery.

    b) I am presumably lucky enough to have visited many, many hotels that offer rooms at more than CA$10 per night (bunk bed under a hobo part of the deal). Hobo-infested hotels are presumably a major part of your lifestyle, Robert. I’ve checked out the best price I can find for this one, midweek, June so not ratcheted up, and it’s … CA$276 (June 24th). Let me explain to you the hopes and desires of anybody who pays CA$276 for a night’s sleep …

    … This is going to be painful for you to hear, but these people are not going to want to ferry themselves around Victoria in a nasty little plastic tricycle. And they will be insulted to be charged CA$20 – CA$30 for the “privilege.”

    But they won’t have a choice, will they? Well, except that they could choose, for the same price, another electric car, or one of two hybrid cars. I’m guessing a Nissan Leaf, a Volkswagen, or maybe a Chrysler. Guess which one of the four is the red-headed ugly step-child?

    That photo is a truly awful piece of marketing collateral, btw. It looks like granny is off to either a dental appointment or an overdue check-up at the optometrists. I mean, at least it could feature Ms Victoria 2015 or something.

    Just how many more sharks are you prepared to jump on this subject, Robert?

  72. DrLoser says:

    Oops! One more just sold. These things are selling like hot cakes.

    The singular of “cakes” is “cake,” Robert. Just in case you were unaware of this fact.

  73. DrLoser says:

    And all of that drivel about “moving parts” was just that — drivel. I’m only recommending the Nissan Micra because it meets (and almost certainly exceeds) your needs, Robert. You were trying to get out of answering Kurk’s perfectly sensible comparison of an expensive worthless little tricycle against an ICE vehicle by claiming that “lots of them are more expensive.” Well, here’s one that isn’t, and which holds its value over five years.

    I take it, by the way, that as a functioning human being with two feet, a right arm, and an engineering brain, you are not averse to a four speed manual gearbox. So you don’t need to spend money on an automatic transmission.

    But, I hear you say, well I hear you bleat, and you bleat it repeatedly based upon no evidence whatsoever, “what about the maintenance costs?” Pretty low, actually. A micra will almost certainly manage ten years with minimal maintenance, and quite possibly five more.

    And considering that the stated (by you) competition is a nasty worthless little tricycle that can’t even manage more than 100 km before needing a minimum of three hours to recharge, I imagine that your demands will be … on the light side. Maybe 10,000 km per year?

    I think the Micra can handle that. In fact, I know it can.

  74. DrLoser says:

    Make up your mind, Robert. Either this “contract” with Zongshen (5,000 vehicles in 2018), to which you yourself have alluded is mass production, or it isn’t. I don’t care either way. I’d just like you to be consistent. And you are not being consistent now. (I have to emphasise this, because you’re skittering around like a mayfly.)

    7,789 people follow EMV on FaceBook. There may well be many thousands ready to buy now.

    You must know something about the effectiveness of a Facebook page that has somehow eluded the entire rest of humanity, and in particular the professional marketers out there.

    I don’t really know the figure, and of course it would vary, depending upon whether the Facebook page advertises $5 toothbrushes or $20,000 worthless little tricycles, but I think the absolute maximum conversion rate between “following” and “buying” is |2%. Which is about 5x the success rate of Direct Marketing in the old “shiny thing through the letterbox” days, so I may be a tad generous here.

    Do the maths, Robert, chuckle. Do the maths, guffaw. That would be a very generous 150 people or so.

    And as I say, what happens to the 4,850 left over at the end of the initial 2018 run?

    Seriously, and you are free to ignore absolutely everything else I said. Even given your enthusiasm, even given your “save the planet” mania, even given all of this: it looks like there’s going to be about 4,000 or more of this horrible disgusting unsafe unsaleable tinpot crappy little things sitting on a dock somewhere near Vancouver in December 2018.

    The simple micro-economic principle of a “closing price” should alert you to the fact that you only have to wait eight months, and you can buy one for considerably less than CA$20,000.

    You only have to wait eight months. And they’ll probably give you a “his ‘n’ hers” horrible disgusting unsafe unsaleable tinpot crappy little thing for only CA$1,000 more.

    And the price most certainly is not going to go up. What do you have to lose by waiting?

  75. kurkosdr wrote, “It’s not even mass production.”

    EMV isn’t even trying to get mass production at their present site. If they wanted mass production there they’d have 3 shifts a day working 8h and one on the weekend working 12h. They’d be cranking out almost 200 per month. However, they use that facility for prototyping/testing rather than production. They do intend to set up proper facilities in Canada and USA soon and they need to know what production feels like. The few units being sold now are just for practice on the assembly line and testing in the field with customers. It’s a learning process. The Chinese however aren’t messing with prototypes. They plan to be in full production within weeks on a real assembly line maxed out.

  76. kurkosdr says:

    So, they have produced a dozen or so vehicles. 25 tops. Big deal. It’s not even mass production.

  77. kurkosdr wrote, “So far, EMV has shipped (that is, to a customer) one (1) vehicle (you are always welcome to provide evidence to the contrary).”

    Liar. What about the guy in Victoria and LA and several in Vancouver?

    Parking police, Vancouver: https://www.facebook.com/EMVsolo/videos/1501975989896966/

    Here’s one sold to another guy in Vancouver, not Leona’s Green Han Solo. https://www.facebook.com/EMVsolo/videos/1417557678338798/

    The Bellamys got one: https://www.facebook.com/EMVsolo/posts/1698860756875154?comment_id=1701112249983338

    Here’s a hotel renting out the damned things…
    http://www.timescolonist.com/business/victoria-hotel-offers-guests-an-electric-ride-1.23296000

    Oops! One more just sold. These things are selling like hot cakes.
    http://soloowners.net/showthread.php?tid=970&pid=5014#pid5014

  78. kurkosdr says:

    To add to DrLoser’s excellent analysis, even if you ignore the uncertain reliability, the uncertain service center coverage and the single seat (necessitating another Solo consuming as much electricity to move you and your wife from place A to place B) and the fact the damn thing hasn’t been mass produced, there is one major deal breaker: The thing doesn’t qualify as a car and it is illegal to sell it while describing it as a car. This means it doesn’t have to meet all the safety requirements for a car, which means it doesn’t have bog-standard safety equipment such as airbags. Or even a crash-rating.

  79. kurkosdr says:

    EMV has shipped several Solo EVs to Vancouver, Victoria, and recently Los Angeles. You should keep up. Their total last time I checked “the wall” was 25 units built. Most of those are retained as demos or test-units but several have been sold to individuals and organizations.

    I clearly said “shipped” you insufferable twat, so demos and test-units don’t count. So far, EMV has shipped (that is, to a customer) one (1) vehicle (you are always welcome to provide evidence to the contrary).

  80. Ivan wrote, “That’s a load of rubbish, all-season tires provide more than enough traction for everything short of high-altitude mountain passes that require chains.”

    The winter tires that we use are “Blizzaks”. They have a more aggressive tread and also a softer compound. They do grip better in our winter temperatures regardless of ice/snow. It’s a matter of coefficient of friction even on clean asphalt. TLW drives the SUV like a racing car… It’s frightening on the corners. See how the Blizzaks work: https://youtu.be/8OifbH5siF0

  81. DrLoser wrote, “what happens to this not-particularly-well-documented “contract“ when there’s a left-over inventory of, say, 4,500 of the wretched little tricycles come December?”

    7,789 people follow EMV on FaceBook. There may well be many thousands ready to buy now. When big production appears in North America the number of sightings and test-drives will skyrocket and very few don’t like the experience. Solo is happening. Tofino looks good too but it’s a bit pricey compared to Solo. Solo is affordable and very useful. Even if by some bad luck Solo is unsuccessful in the market I will have mine and we will live happily ever after…

  82. DrLoser wrote, “it will cost you CA$5 of gas for 100km”.

    Nope. ~7L/100km on the highway tranlates to nearly twice that amount. Further, I doubt the ICEd vehicle will last as long as Solo between major repairs. There’s just too high a parts-count in the engine/lubrication/cooling systems. Oh, and then there’s the 5-speed manual transmission. I think driving electrically is much better in the city. To get an automatic transmission they charge an extra $5K in the “SV” version. With Solo, you get it all for $20K CDN. I like that. I can save $5K in a few years easily by the cost of propulsion, oil-changes and maintenance.

  83. DrLoser says:

    That’s a load of rubbish, all-season tires provide more than enough traction for everything short of high-altitude mountain passes that require chains.

    Now be fair, Ivan. Manitoba, like all Prairie provinces, is famed for its gruelling mountain gradients. Prairies, world-wide, are notoriious for this tricky little issue during the Winter months.

    Robert is quite right to be unconscionably rude about his wife’s driving abilities, and to make the undoubtedly accurate case that she would be far safer with … oh wait, my sarcasm tank has just run dry.

  84. DrLoser says:

    And you haven’t even considered amortization (the current value of money compared to the future value of money), depreciation, and so on. So here, as a valuable service (as you know, I live to serve), is a suggestion for that other CA$10,000, while you wait five years.

    Invest it in MSFT shares. Five years ago they were worth US$34. Today they’re worth US$95. That’s close to tripling the value! You rather missed out on that one, didn’t you? So, on that basis, you’d be turning your spare CA$10,000 into CA$30,000, which means you could sell the Micra, buy a brand-new Solo, and still pocket CA$10,000. And think of the dividends!

    Ha ha ha! I’m joking, of course. I don’t really believe that MSFT will be worth US$280 in five years’ time. But the principle is the same. There are far better ways to use that CA$10,000 over the next five years.

    You could, for example, buy your Far Better Half a Micra of her own. That should calm your horror at the expense of her SUV. Well, obviously, you’re not going to be doing that, so …

    You could, perhaps more realistically, look at the relative depreciation of a CA$10,000 Micra as against a CA$20,000 Solo. I’m absolutely certain that the Micra will hold its value far better. Let’s guess that in two years you can sell the Micra for |CA$7,500, or the Solo for |CA$12,000…

    Here’s the important bit. In two years’ time you’ll know whether the Solo is actually viable, in all sorts of ways. Is there still anybody around to repair it? Can you still source replacement batteries, etc? And, of course, if it sells 50,000 in 2020 (see Zongshen contract), there’s going to be a steep discount on the “early adopter” price, so you might be able to buy a brand new one for, say, CA$15,000.

    Or, of course, advances in battery technology might mean that Nissan will be selling the Leaf at the same price as they now sell the Micra.

    It’s all good, chuckle chuckle guffaw guffaw.

    You really haven’t thought this plan through, financially, have you, Robert?

  85. DrLoser says:

    Solo costs a lot less than most ICEd cars so that statement at least needs some qualification.

    Fine, let’s qualify. It’s actually impossible to find an ICE car that is as wretchedly ill-equipped to face any sort of usage as the Solo is, but we can at least pick the Nissan Micra as a comp.

    I’ve driven a couple of these. They’re actually surprisingly good cars. You can get one for CA$10,000; it will cost you CA$5 of gas for 100km, at which point the Solo would have to pause for 3-6 hours for a battery charge-up, but the Micra will keep on going like an Energizer Bunny; it has four wheels and a trunk, a bit like an quadriplegic elephant but nothing like the wretched little tricycle; and best of all, you can easily fit four people into it. You can’t even fit Your Far Better Half into the Solo and go anywhere, which strikes me as a bit anti-social of you.

    At a rough guess, that CA$10,000 you save will give you another 200,000 km worth of fuel. Which you won’t need, because you’re only going to be pottering around in it anyway. And that assumes that the electricity for the Solo is totally free, which is … unlikely. At the very least, you’d be leeching off the electricity provider, which of course suits you, but doesn’t really qualify as “free.”

    And I wonder what the insurance is for a wretched little tricycle, as opposed to the insurance for a Micra. I suspect you’ll notice the difference on this one.

  86. DrLoser says:

    Solo is being mass-produced in China at the moment. First shipments will be in a couple of months.

    Yes, apparently Zongshen are to build and deliver 5,000 of these things in what remains of 2018. Rather a stiff order, if you ask me.

    Tell me, Robert, what happens to this not-particularly-well-documented “contract“ when there’s a left-over inventory of, say, 4,500 of the wretched little tricycles come December?

    You don’t need to answer, really. And we can guarantee that you won’t come back and admit futility in December when it does happen.

  87. Ivan says:

    That’s a load of rubbish, all-season tires provide more than enough traction for everything short of high-altitude mountain passes that require chains.

  88. Ivan wrote, ” The penny-pinching skinflint doesn’t buy all-season tires?!”

    If you’ve seen TLW drive you’ll know she needs extra traction in winter.

  89. Ivan says:

    Seriously? The penny-pinching skinflint doesn’t buy all-season tires?!

  90. kurkosdr wrote, “The Solo is not a car and hasn’t been mass produced”.

    Solo is a car. A person opens a door, gets in, buckles up, turns the key with the drive in neutral and starts her up. Solo can be handled easily on urban or rural paved roads and has a very roomy interior with lots of storage space. In what way is it not a car?

    Wikipedia: “A car (or automobile) is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transportation. Most definitions of car say they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four tires, and mainly transport people rather than goods.”

    The Microcar is defined as “economy vehicles with either three or four wheels, powered by petrol engines of no more than 700cc or battery electric propulsion, and manufactured since 1945”

    Are you going to let one wheel block your mind? Put an extra wheel in the trunk if you feel the need. BTW, my SUV has nine wheels, four on the hubs, one in the trunk and four more in the garage waiting for winter to return. Is it a car? A Soloist would say most cars have one wheel more than necessary.

    Solo is being mass-produced in China at the moment. First shipments will be in a couple of months. They have to build up an inventory before loading the ships.

  91. kurkosdr wrote, “EVs cost more than ICE cars, so of you don’t drive much no it’s not a bargain.”

    Solo costs a lot less than most ICEd cars so that statement at least needs some qualification. The major difference between an hybrid and a BEV is a tradeoff between cost of battery and engine. If you have ever tried to buy a new engine (no used or rebuilt) you will know that doesn’t reflect the real cost of an engine. The labour to install an engine on an assembly line is way less than the cost of replacing an engine in a service bay, for instance. Then there are the endless oil-changes, timing belt service, torquing of bolts etc. that ICEs have not to mention the radiators, cooling systems and fuel-systems that constantly require service at great cost. I figure my Solo will pay for itself in savings in five years whereas an ICEd vehicle cost more than its capital cost in fuel every 10-15 years. It’s just short-sighted to prefer an ICEd vehicle if one does not need their range. I certainly don’t except for the occasional long trip which could be done by bus/rent-a-car much cheaper than owning an ICEd vehicle.

  92. kurkosdr says:

    The Solo is not a car and hasn’t been mass produced doofus.

  93. Kurkosdr wrote, “Electra Meccanica has shipped a total of (1) EV so far, so they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.”

    False. EMV has shipped several Solo EVs to Vancouver, Victoria, and recently Los Angeles. You should keep up. Their total last time I checked “the wall” was 25 units built. Most of those are retained as demos or test-units but several have been sold to individuals and organizations. The first Solo sold has over 10000 km driven and the owner loves it. Chinese production will come onstream to USA in a couple of months and to Canada by the end of the year. I know it’s long overdue but it’s happening.

  94. joepeatf says:

    Electra Meccanica has shipped a total of (1) EV so far, so they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And their wretched little tricycle doesn’t even have things like airbags anyways.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iabcas6Lmq8
    Jerry’s wretched tricycle rollover also.

  95. An Out Of Phase Transistor says:

    Nor is it meant to be a bargain, for if it were, there would be no point.

    (If one were particulary naive about the economy, one would think they are about financing a govt. programme, but what type of a prog-, but then, we’re not naive, right?)

  96. kurkosdr says:

    Electra Meccanica has shipped a total of (1) EV so far, so they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And their wretched little tricycle doesn’t even have things like airbags anyways.

    Back in the real world, car EVs cost more than ICE cars, so of you don’t drive much no it’s not a bargain.

Leave a Reply