[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by julupani

Well, which kind of technology is the future, only the future truly knows. As for which technology is more promising is a matter of conjecture.

methods, that of cars and trucks, on electricity. Especially when we have a largely feasible method of using hydrogen fuel cells.

You are missing the point.

As things stand today It is neither Feasible ( Possible to do easily or conveniently) nor Viable ( [COLOR=#333333]practicable [/COLOR]). The capex required to put in place the hydrogen infrastructure is mind boggling to put it mildly.

You need to read up on Hydrogen storage. That will give you the answer to any questions you may have with regard to what I am saying.

Also let me refer you back to the small write up about the FCX Clarity. It has not been lacking in demand - 80,000 units were in demand(expression of interest) when it was launched . That is VERY much there. It has not sold because the hydrogen end of the deal has not delivered. These are facts, hence not debatable. To acknowledge them or not as such is your privilege.

[julupani]

Of course I understand that the whole hydrogen delivery chain has yet to be worked out. I am not saying that with the FCX Clarity we have developed a car which is ready to replace petrol cars en-masse. We are still probably a decade from it. But to me, as to many car manufacturers, it holds promise, more than EVs.

[alpha1]

For future: How about biologically engineering a beast (or a bio-device, if you believe in sanctity of life and god) that can eat our waste, and output usable work (like transport)?

Our utilization of physics and chemistry has been tremendous (in term is technology), but not much has been done in the biological realm.

Anyway this may lead the posts astray from the Jeremy Clarkson and his curt tongue.

[Sheel]

Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Take, for example, Top Gear's line on electric cars. Casting aside any pretence of impartiality or rigour, it has set out to show that electric cars are useless. If the facts don't fit, it bends them until they do.

It's currently being sued by electric car maker Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster's true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), and that it unexpectedly ran out of charge. Tesla says "the breakdowns were staged and the statements are untrue". But the BBC keeps syndicating the episode to other networks. So much for "acknowledging mistakes when they are made".

Now it's been caught red-handed faking another trial, in this case of the Nissan LEAF.

Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy Clarkson and James May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car unexpectedly ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future".

But it wasn't unexpected: Nissan has a monitoring device in the car which transmits information on the state of the battery. This shows that, while the company delivered the car to Top Gear fully charged, the programme-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off, until only 40% of the charge was left. Moreover, they must have known this, as the electronic display tells the driver how many miles' worth of electricity they have, and the sat-nav tells them if they don't have enough charge to reach their destination. In this case it told them – before they set out on their 60-mile journey – that they had 30 miles' worth of electricity. But, as Ben Webster of the Times reported earlier this week, "at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip."

It gets worse. As Webster points out, in order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, "it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat."

When Jeremy Clarkson was challenged about this, he admitted that he knew the car had only a small charge before he set out. But, he said: "That's how TV works". Not on the BBC it isn't, or not unless your programme is called Top Gear.

Top Gear's response, by its executive producer Andy Wilman, is a masterpiece of distraction and obfuscation. He insists that the programme wasn't testing the range claims of the vehicles, and nor did it state that the vehicles wouldn't achieve their claimed range. But the point is that it creates the strong impression that the car ran out of juice unexpectedly, leaving the presenters stranded in Lincoln, a city with no public charging points.

Thought to share this

[tarun83]

Clarkson is someone who has got preconceived notions about some cars and no matter how good they are he will never appreciate them e.g Porsche cars.

If Nissan is taking him/his statements seriously and feel offended by them, then they are making fools of themselves.

Forget the rest and give it your best should be the mantra.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk



Thought to share this

Classic case of onida envy.

Thing is it is because of these shenanigans that TG has the viewership that, hell, most soaps dream of!!
Let alone auto programming.
Most other auto programming is clear, concise, to the point, clinical.
and hence their appeal is linted to a limited set, people like us, the auto aficionados.
a fraction.
My wife enjoys TG, but she cannot stand fifth gear, and would prefer to go and give the dogs a bath when i put on D-turbo.

As has been said, nissan had a choice.
They were giving their car to a show which has a DECIDED bias against the EV.
What miracle did they expect with a 75 mile range?
I'm sure TG would have shut up if they gave them a vehicle with a 200 mile range.

Nissan went willingly to a gunfight, and is now crying for getting shot?

Its not auto-journalism, its entertainment.
So in a manner of speaking TATA was smarter than most of these guys, it seems,that they flat out refused to give their vehicle, knowing it would be trashed by these guys.

I am a fan of TG and love it for itsvisuals, and the hilarity, but for facts, you have other media.

[suhaas307]

Looks like I'm a little late to the party, again.

Anyway, I think TG and Clarkson are spot on here!

Exaggeration or not, one must understand that pure electric cars that require to be charged with a wire, socket, etc is just not feasible at all. It has far too many draw-backs, IMO.

When you drive an electric car, you're under the impression that you're doing the World a favour by not polluting it. On an immediate level, well, you aren't polluting the World. But in the scheme of things, has anyone understood where the electricity from the socket comes from in the first place?

It isn't as eco-friendly as one would imagine.

Also, the average 200 km range that one may achieve in an electric car is not really the major drawback here. It's the 6-10 hours you'd require to tank it up with enough juice to run for the next 200 odd km again! It's just not convenient enough to be a daily drive.

The real future would be fuel-cell, and we see that in Honda's latest FCX Clarity, which is probably, the most technologically advanced car Honda has ever built. What it does is 'produce' electricity on the move using hydrogen fuel-cells that can be replenished in a matter of minutes, just like a petrol-diesel car. You don't have to wait for hours to charge it. Fill it up and drive away.

The biggest advantage? Hydrogen is in abundance in our atmosphere, so we would not run out of it for centuries, I presume.

It does have it draw-backs though. At the moment, the technology is far too expensive to be mass-produced and manufactured on a wide-scale. Add to that, the lack of fuel-cell bunks around the globe. But with material getting cheaper and huge advancements in technology, one can expect the FCX to hit the market in a couple of years or a decade, even.

Here is a review of the FCX Clarity, by none other than Clarkson's politically-correct fellow TG presenter, James May:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AUurBnLbJw

On a lighter note:

Nissan (and other manufacturers) must know one rule in the industry.

If you want a positive review for your electric city-car, stay clear from Top Gear and Clarkson! I mean, did Nissan honestly expect him to give it a good review? Haven't they watched the Prius being bashed on the show? Who's bright idea was it to give Clarkson this car?

[S_U_N]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but has anyone seen this documentary?
Who Killed the Electric Car?

The basic message I got was the oil co. and other influential powers never wanted alternative fuel technologies to be adopted. So they killed all previous attempts along these lines and will do so in the future as well. Else who will buy oil from them?

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by S_U_N

Maybe slightly off-topic, but has anyone seen this documentary?
Who Killed the Electric Car?

The basic message I got was the oil co. and other influential powers never wanted alternative fuel technologies to be adopted. So they killed all previous attempts along these lines and will do so in the future as well. Else who will buy oil from them?

Reminds me of Chris Rock,
"You mean to tell me that we can send a man to the moon, but Chrysler cant make a car whose bumper dont fall off after 500 miles?"
clubbed with:
"They aint never curing aids!!!
There aint no money in the cure!!hell, theyre still pi$$#d about all the money they lost in polio!!"

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

If you want a positive review for your electric city-car, stay clear from Top Gear and Clarkson! I mean, did Nissan honestly expect him to give it a good review? Haven't they watched the Prius being bashed on the show? Who's bright idea was it to give Clarkson this car?

No publicity is bad publicity If they wanted people talking about the Leaf, they got it!

Originally Posted by S_U_N

The basic message I got was the oil co. and other influential powers never wanted alternative fuel technologies to be adopted. So they killed all previous attempts along these lines and will do so in the future as well. Else who will buy oil from them?

Sounds like the script of Cars 2.
Of course, its also possible that there are some concerted efforts by the major oil producing countries to ensure that most economies stay dependent on oil.

[S_U_N]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Sounds like the script of Cars 2.

Exactly. Cars 2 was a movie with a message.

I received a presentation the other day about the fate of all electric cars produced till date. I will upload that presentation in a day or two.