Radioactive Communist Zombies

The Chevy Volt Doesn't Make Sense (or Cents)

I had planned to sit down and do the math today on the Chevrolet Volt's economics now that Government Motors has announced the sticker price of $41,000.  And let me add, that I think that's going to be low after destination charges, dealer markups, and if you want any options like, oh, leather seats (and leather seat warmers for those cold days that will cut the range substantially so they probably aren't even available).  But I digress.

I was going to do the math but (Hat Tip Instapundit) someone else already did it for me.

The bottom line (emphasis original):

Under these assumptions, best case (all electric Volt miles), you save $915/year driving the Volt. To gain back your $10,000 price premium, you will have to drive the Volt for 9.3 years, 1.3 year longer than the battery warranty.

And replacing that battery pack is going to be expensive.

 

So you're going to really want to show off your green cred or be bad at math to want a Volt.  Don't know how many folks there are out there like that (of course, the Prius doesn't pencil out, either, and Toyota is selling scads of them).

 

UPDATE: Planet Gore reports:

After driving GM’s new, plug-in electric Chevy Volt, Late Night funnyman Jay Leno quipped that “if you didn’t know, you might think it’s a Cobalt” — a reference to GM’s pedestrian, $15-grand, entry-level small car.

Ouch. Who would buy a $41,000 Cobalt? Or even a $33,500 Cobalt (federal tax credit included).

Does this mean no leather seat option?

Range Anxiety

As the push comes to put more electric cars on the road (Obama wants one million by 2015) one problem is going to rear its ugly head: range anxiety.

That is, fear that the car will not go as far as needed and charging stations are few and far between.  Joel Schectman, an AP writer, tells us what the problem is:

Drivers want electric cars but worry they won't have enough juice to make long trips. After all, what good is going green if you get stranded with a dead battery?

It's a fear that automakers must overcome as they push to sell more battery-powered cars. So government and business are taking steps to reassure drivers by building up the nation's network of electric charging stations.

Range anxiety is a legitimate fear.  And partly because "refueling" takes so dang long:

Most public stations will take eight hours to juice up a car all the way, about the same as chargers in individual homes. These plugs could work for people who have chargers near their offices, but wouldn't work for quick refueling. Even a partial charge will take awhile — two-and-a-half hours to get 30 miles. A limited number of the chargers will be fast-chargers. If you can find one, it will still take 30 minutes for a full powerup.

Thirty minutes isn't bad (but a lot longer than the few minutes it takes to put gasoline in a car) but an 8-hour stop for fuel just isn't practical.

And that's the problem with electric cars.  They can still only remain commuter cars, driven short distances.  But when the family wants to drive to grandma's house or Disneyland, they are going to need an internal combustion engine to get there.  Which is why the Chevy Volt makes a little more sense but still people are probably going to need two cars.  And a lot of folks (especially after paying the premium an electric car requires) aren't going to be able to afford it.

So Obama will reach his goal only if there's enough rich fools to buy one million very impractical cars.

Is Obama Trying to Make Gasoline Expensive?

Remember $4/gallon gasoline?  It looks like the Obama Administration would like to return us to those days.  According to Mario Loyola writing in the August 2nd edition of National Review (NRODT), Obama is taking steps to cause a fuel shortage:

The moratorium on offshore drilling; the browbeating of BP into disgorging assets regardless of actual liability; the EPA’s unjustifiable quashing of licenses for most of the refineries in Texas, supposedly over air-pollution concerns;the Interior Department’s failure to process license renewals for a slew of shallow-water wells, which are much less tricky than those in deep water—all these actions bespeak a desire to create a hostile regulatory environment for oil extraction.

Why would Obama do this?

Many of Obama’s supporters—those at the Brookings Institution, for example—seem to think that a severe oil shortage is precisely what we need to save the environment and kick-start the transition to green energy.

In other words, to shock the public into demanding we spend billions on "green energy" so we don't have oil shocks like the one Obama purposely created again.

He is trying to manipulate the economy, cause you pain and cost you money, to push his political agenda.  And manipulate you into supporting it.

Which is typical of Obama's "I know best for you" attitude.  If the American people don't support something he think is best, he'll make sure they will want to.  It's a planned gasoline famine . . . for your own good.

Ripping Up Paved Roads

Used to be paved roads was a sign of progress.  A town or county with gravel roads was considered backward and poor.  Maybe they still are.  But according to an article (sub probably required) on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, there's going to be more of them.

Why?  Because jurisdictions are going broke and can't afford to repair and maintain paved roads.  So they are ripping them up and replacing pavement with gravel:

In Michigan, at least 38 of the 83 counties have converted some asphalt roads to gravel in recent years. Last year, South Dakota turned at least 100 miles of asphalt road surfaces to gravel. Counties in Alabama and Pennsylvania have begun downgrading asphalt roads to cheaper chip-and-seal road, also known as "poor man's pavement." Some counties in Ohio are simply letting roads erode to gravel.

The moves have angered some residents because of the choking dust and windshield-cracking stones that gravel roads can kick up, not to mention the jarring "washboard" effect of driving on rutted gravel.

But higher taxes for road maintenance are equally unpopular. In June, Stutsman County [North Dakota] residents rejected a measure that would have generated more money for roads by increasing property and sales taxes.

So what are counties spending their money on, if not roads?  I'll bet a lot of things people would rather they didn't but they are required to by state or federal regulations.  And while residents don't want to pay higher taxes (and who can blame them?) they probably wish the counties would maintain their paved roads.

How CAFE Will Change the Your Car

(Hat tip Instapundit)

Tonight I'm proofreading the mock up of the paperback version (coming soon) of my novel.

So just a quick note on how the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules will make your future car suck.  From Popular Mechanics:

1. More Tech

Expect wider use of variable valve timing, smaller turbocharged engines, hybrids and maybe even exotic combustion cycles.

2. More Gears

Six gears will be the norm, but CVTs and eight-speed gearboxes will also proliferate.

3. Less Weight

Expanded use of high-strength steel, aluminum and composites will cut hundreds of pounds.

4. Less Drag

Slippery bodies decrease air resistance.

5. More $$$

Expect these changes to add about $1000 to the sticker price.

So, let's see.  Numbers 1 and 2 will add complexity to already complex systems, meaning more to maintain, more to break, go wrong, or simply foul up.  Number 3 means the car will be less protective in a crash.  Number 4 means all cars will start looking like jelly beans (or whatever the most aerodynamic shape turns out to be) and number 5 is probably low in its estimate of the increase in sticker price.  In any case, the increase in price will mean fewer people will be able to afford new cars, making an already weak automotive sector even weaker.

Meanwhile, while all engineering resources are spent on better gas mileage, there will be scant improvements in (if not out-right degradations of) safety, performance, comfort, convenience, and did I mention safety?

Most Toyota Safety Issues were Driver Error

I've been waiting for this.

A National Highway Traffic Administration study shows that in most cases of "unintended acceleration" the fault lies with . . . the driver.  As the AP reports:

The Department of Transportation has analyzed dozens of black boxes in Toyota vehicles involved in accidents blamed on unintended acceleration, finding the throttles were open and the brakes were not engaged, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

That suggests that drivers of the speeding cars were stepping on the accelerator rather than hitting the brakes. The vehicles investigated came from a sample in which the drivers said they were braking but failed to stop the car before crashing, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources familiar with the findings.

(That Wall Street Journal article is here, but you probably need a subscription to access it.)

Which means, Toyota spent millions to fix a problem that was mostly caused by bad drivers.  Not to mention the damage to Toyota's reputation.  Yes, there was a problem with accelerator pedals getting stuck under floor mats and some stuck gas pedals.  But the majority of incidents were driver error.

Why does this remind me of Audi?  Oh yeah, because the same thing was found with Audi's "unintentional acceleration" problems.  Except then it was all driver error.

Outta the Car, Long Hair!

A "think tank" called "Sightline" is reporting the gasoline consumption in the Northwest increased when the price of gas dropped.  Meanwhile, a dog bit a man.

I mean, seriously, you had to do a study of this?  The Seattle Times reports:

Residents of Washington, Oregon and Idaho bought an average 7.5 gallons a week, up from 7.4 gallons the year before, according to an analysis released Wednesday by Sightline, a pro-environment think tank.

This reverses a trend toward decreasing gas consumption.  Sightline isn't too happy about it:

Sightline suggests carbon or pollution taxes to curb demand, and criticized bridge projects that increase road lanes in Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver B.C.

In other words, they want you out of your car and into public transportation.  They don't even want you to be able to get to work in a timely manner because there are enough road lanes to relieve congestion (despite the fact congestion needlessly burns a lot of fuel and dollars).

But these envirowackos don't care.  They simply want you out of your car.  Because in your car you have freedom and that's what they really can't stand.

Can Electric Cars Be Fun?

The Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt aren't exactly cars to get your heart pounding.  And don't even get me started on the Prius.  So it seems saving the planet (from what, I don't know) is going to be a sad, boring affair for those of us who like to drive fast, corner hard, and brake enthusiastically.

But, maybe not.  According to a piece on MSN today, Audi is building an electric super car (yes, that sounds like an oxymoron to me, too):

The e-tron looks like a cross between an Audi R8 and an electric razor. The one-off concept EV is fueled by a lithium-ion battery pack mounted in front of the rear axle and is propelled by four electric motors, one powering each wheel to deliver all-wheel drive. Audi says total output is 313 horsepower and 3,319 lb-ft of torque. No, that number isn't a typo. Electric motors produce gobs of torque, which means they have an enormous amount of get up and go from a standstill. The e-tron will supposedly gallop to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, only about 0.8 seconds slower than the company's R8 4.2 with its gas-powered V8 engine.

And Mercedes is building an electric supercar.  And of course, there's the Tesla.

But here's the problems I see.  1) Range.  They are still talking only about 150 mile range before the car needs recharging.  That'll get you to work and back and it might even be enough for a track day (my last track day I burned over 27 gallons of premium).  And will that range be as high if you are constantly putting your right foot against the firewall?

But in any case, 150 mile range will not take you and your trophy wife from, say, LA to San Francisco.  Or even Spokane to Seattle.

And 2) recharging time.  How long does it take to "fill the tank" once you've drained the batteries?  I doubt it's the minutes it takes to pump gas into a car.

Finally, there's speed.  The e-tron may "only" be 0.8 seconds slower than a V-8 version of the R8 to 60, but in the supercar world, that's eons.  For example, a base Corvette runs to 60 in 4.0 seconds.  A Corvette ZR1 hits 60 in 3.4 seconds.  That's "only" 0.6 seconds.  What does it cost for those 0.6 seconds?  There's a $55,100 price differential between the base and the ZR1.  In fact you could buy two base models for the price of a ZR1.  People willing to plunk down $9,200 per tenth of a second gained are not going to be happy with a car "only" 0.8 seconds slower.  (And the e-tron is 1.1 seconds slower than the V10 version of the R8, and that's an eternity.)

So I doubt electric supercars are going to appeal to many, except those trying to show off their "green" cred (and have oodles of case to liquidate).  I still prefer a good, old-fashioned V-8.

The Chevy Volt

Consumer Reports, those arbiters of all things wise and good, have come out with a short video about the Chevy Volt.

So Consumer Reports seems impressed.  (I'll be more interested in what Car and Driver has to say.)  Low-rolling-resistance tires do not make for good cornering.  And it may have plenty of torque, but if you use it, you'll cut down on the all-electric range.  You'll also cut down on the range if you use the AC, the heater, or any number of accessories.

And a price in the low $30k for a compact car with few amenities is a lot to fork over to sooth your eco-conscience.  Still people will probably line up to buy one.  Not me, I like internal combustion too much.  And my hard-earned money, too.

Revenue Raising Tricks

Governments love money.  And there's no better source for money (at least for state and local jurisdictions) than traffic tickets.  For example:  Thursday I drove to another town about 70 miles away on the main north-south corridor of south-central Washington State.  This is a two-lane highway with a speed limit of 60 (that desperately needs to be made into a four-lane highway with a speed limit of 70).

At one point, there was recent chip sealing done.  And the speed limit was dropped to 35 due to "loose gravel" (there wasn't any; it was pretty well beat down).  Luckily, I got behind a truck that was going the speed limit and I couldn't pass because at the end of the chip sealing (but before the speed limit went back up) were two state patrol officers with laser guns waving people over to write tickets.  And, of course, traffic fines double in work zones (even if the work zone has no work going on in it).  So the cops must have been racking in the dough for the state and local coffers (I don't know who gets the money when a State Patrol officer writes the ticket).

Later in the day, I drove the same route going north and the cops were gone.  But so was the 35 mph speed limit.  So they must have been getting as much loot as they could before the speed limit was raised.  Oh, and road conditions were no different when the limit was 60 versus 35, just the speed limit raised.  So enforcing the 35 mph speed limit had nothing to do with safety.

Meanwhile, Spokane is still hauling in the dough with red light cameras.  A lawyer tried to argue the citations issued by the cameras aren't legal because they aren't signed by a police officer.  The city said:

[T]he tickets are signed when an officers pushes a computer button that tells an Arizona company to affix a digital photo of the officer's signature.

So the ticket is "signed" by pushing a computer button that allows an Arizona company to write you a ticket.  Sounds pretty fishy to me.  But hey, it raises revenue.

Just remember, traffic enforcement is about raising money, not safety.  Jurisdictions prove that all the time.