Toyota doesn't see plug-in hybrids on the market anytime soon

yea... kinda looks that way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Jan 28 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]381994[/snapback]</div>

Well, in this market segment you have a couple of choices:
1. Buy an exotic gasoline car and expect expensive weekly maintenance.
2. Buy a faster, cheaper Tesla, and expect very expensive maintenance every 4-5 years.

 

Ford introduced a plug-in hybrid with a zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell at the Washington Auto Show this week, and General Motors introduced the gasoline-electric plug-in Chevy Volt at the Detroit Auto Show this month. Toyota is expecting to sell 250,000 Prius hybrids this year and has announced plans to introduce a plug-in electric version of the Prius.

statesman.com

 

guess we need to start hoping that gm will still be around in 2 years?? personally, i have given up hope on them and look at this announcement as fuel to help it get some no interest financing from uncle sam

 

Why do batteries have to last 15 years or "the life of the vehicle"?

I think that batteries should be easily swappable. Cars should last 20-30 years. In that time, maybe you swap out the batteriels a few times. This makes more sense than having a throwaway car.
An electric car requires no real maintenance. They will be rolling vehicle platforms. You should be able to plug and play new batteries and possibly gensets.
Today's cars get thrown out after 10-15 years when the motor dies, since the cost of a new motor is greater than the value of the car would be with the new motor in it. This is just stupid and based on a low value of metal. This too will change. A workable vehicle with no battery will still have value, since it should be MUCH easier to swap a battery than an engine. You just take the battery out of a totalled car and plug it in to your car. The battery in a car will represent about half the value of the vehicle but will depreciate much faster than than the value of the platform and need a refresh every XXX number of hours or cycles or whatever.
When they are swapped out, a replacement should cost half as much as a new one, since the dead battery will still have trade in value due to recycling. Think propane exchange but with battery materials.

Longevity should not be the concern, cost should be (and size). Once a huge battery market develops, the cost will come down due to production efficiencies and recycling capabilities.
The real challenge is eliminating the need to travel more than 50 miles in a day (at leat for 99%) of people.
Rail with car capacity is one solution. Drive to the local loading station and take the train to where you're going. Rentable biodeisel vehicle for trips is another. Own a small EV, but rent a biodeisel for trips to the cabin. Eliminating trips to the cabin is another. Though not one I like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jan 31 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]383248[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your statement on batteries. There is no reason that batteries need to last the life of a vehicle. Do we expect that a gasoline car will never need gas? No, but for some reason we require a battery car to never need new batteries. As you said, batteries need to be easily changed when they no longer give the required range. These batteries would be recycled, and new cheaper, smaller, and better batteries installed. A vehicle platform could last your entire lifetime, with newer technology added along the way. Each time an update is made, the performance and range would improve. There is no need to scrap a chassis when you could just install a new drivetrain.

The local airport has a cargo company that flies DC-3 cargo planes. These are planes built in the 1940's that are still used daily 60 years after they were build. They have updated electronics and engines, but the main structure are still original.

I disagree with your solution to reducing daily travel. The solution is not new methods to move people long distances daily. The solution is to not require the person to travel that far in the first place. That means living close to were you work in mixed use real estate. I see the rise of the suburb over the last 50 years as a huge mistake that the US will have to overcome. In the future I predict that a whole lot of small residential cities and towns will be abandoned when traveling to and from your distant job is no longer economically viable. This is were other counties that have planned communities for centuries will have an advantage.

 

I agree with that too, as both my wife and I live within 5 miles of our work.
That's why I said "The real challenge is eliminating the need to travel more than 50 miles in a day"

That being said, their will still be times people need to driver farther, hence the need for a way to accomplish that. I don't envision a daily commute with their car on rail. Just the person on a light rail line.
But family vacations should not be done away with altogethor.

IE: As a Minnesotan, my family came from the rural north to the burbs, where I was born and raised. But we've always had a cabin and family back up there and I don't want to just stop going back.
In 5 years when I get an EV, how do I get my family 2 hours up north?

Either we rebuild the rail lines that originally established the towns from the Twin Cities to Duluth (the old Soo line was converted to a giant bike/snowmobile trail) but the land access is still there. Or I'll have to also own or rent a conventional family hauler (biodeisel?).

 

sorry, cant agree. too many moving parts and other considerations to keep a car longer than 10-5 years (15 is stretching it a bit). the amenities frequently dont last long enough and the last two cars i dumped were in perfect working order, i simply got tired of em and wanted something different. granted technology and the bell whistle thing had changed dramatically. (went from no a/c or CD to one with both)

but we are looking at eventual wear and tear of the seats, doors, etc. for many a car can and will last way more than 10 years. but for others, it wont.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jan 31 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]383455[/snapback]</div>

I live 7 miles from work but can't walk or ride a bike because most of the roads are quite windy and have no shoulder. I'm not going to ride a bike at 20 mph when traffic is coming around blind corners at 55 mph. Most new community are planned completely around automobiles

I agree that people will still need to travel long distances. However, mass transit is set up to move people from one population center to another. In order to go to your cabin you will be on your own and will need some kind of car. You might rent a vehicle that runs on a biofuel. However, as energy becomes more and more expensive, it will cost more to travel to that cabin. Eventually, the average person will not be able to afford to travel away from population centers on a regular basis. I don't see many people owning vacation property in the future.

I do not see a future were a large percentage of the population will haul a boat to the lake to go fishing, or a travel trailer to a park to go camping. I also don't see a future is which American live in subdivision outside of cities or in "bedroom communities" and commute to work. Just think of the mass transit system that would be required for all the people that live outside of LA and work in the city to get to work daily. LA has huge numbers of people that are driving multiple hours from out in the desert to go to work. How do you build a rail system for those people to get to work?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Jan 31 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]383633[/snapback]</div>

So airplanes don't have lots of moving parts? Did you completely miss my example of the 60 year old DC-3's that fly routine cargo flights.

If the chassis is made to be serviced then repairing things won't be a problem. Most cars today are not made to be serviced. Almost all of the fasteners in a car body are one time use push nuts or self tapping screws.

The only real reason from a technological aspect to replace a car is if the unibody cannot be repaired. Engines and drivetrains can be replaced and maintained easily. Suspension parts are even easier to replace. Brakes, shocks, springs, bushings, etc are maintenance items that can be easily and inexpensively replaced. It is almost always cheaper to repair a car than to replace it. So rebuilding an engine might cost $3000, a new car costs $25000.

The real reason that we a society replace cars is because want a new one. Like you said, you "got tired of em" and dumped vehicles that were in perfect working order.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jan 31 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]383662[/snapback]</div>

I certainly agree about planning around automobiles. No question. If this issue is important to you, lobby to get a bicycle lane added to the roads around you. I work with my city constantly to improve bicycle access. There are very few places in my town now that cannot be accessed via a protected bicycle path or lane. It isn't easy and it doesn't happen over night. But it CAN happen if enough people care.

Your tax money is being spent to create these roads. You should have some say in how those roads serve you.

 

Regarding vacation property...(specifically in MN).
I don't think that vacation homes will go away completely.
Some of the more inaccesable ones will.
What there won't be anymore of is the loaded SUVs racing up I35 at 85 miles an hour with a huge boat or loaded snowmobile trailer behind it. Sometimes going north on a Friday afternoon, about 1/3 of the vehicles I see are huge SUV's with trailers, all driving over 80 MPH. It's downright scary as I hide in the right lane behind semi's (I usually use only 2 gallons to get to the cabin @ 52 Miles to the gallon).

My family and a lot of other "vacation homeowners" have our shacks just off the main interstate to Duluth, where parents and grandparents were raised.
The Soo line (which was replaced by I35 alongside it) was a vital link between the great lakes and the Mississippi and most of the towns up there are dotted along the rail line. It lost out to cheap 18 wheelers and is now a snowmobile/bike trail. I'm sure the rail line will go back in when 18 wheelers are no longer a cheaper way to ship goods. So there should still be easy access to the land up and down that corridor.

On the other hand, the wealthy in MN have million dollar cabins all over the Brainerd area which is NOT on the main I35 corridor, but I'm sure that these affluent people will find a way to have the area serviced by some transit. They'll probably lobby to get that put in before more important rail reconstruction projects. Can't have their million dollar retirement homes losing value!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jan 31 2007, 08:13 PM) [snapback]383668[/snapback]</div>

no i did not miss it. i just dont see how a hundred thousand dollar a year maintenance budget for an airplane correlates with an automobile. are you suggesting i pay someone a hundred dollars a month for routine maintenance on my car??