3 ms·

The issue I have with the i3 is that it was hinted they could upgrade the batteries but they won't do so, at least in the US. I am very happy with my second ge

The issue I have with the i3 is that it was hinted they could upgrade the batteries but they won't do so, at least in the US. I am very happy with my second generation Volt, averaging 66 miles per charge since I got it in March (Georgia weather) and it should squeak out a few more as summer progresses. I am really curious what my range will be in Winter seeing as a friend with an i3 loses twenty miles per charge in our coldest and the Tesla 80 at work goes under 200 range max by a good number. still not sold all battery is the way to go, range is always there, but recharge times and sheer weight of so much battery is contrary to where manufacturers want to take cars (lighter weight is better regardless of propulsion method)

greeneggs 10y ago
> (lighter weight is better regardless of propulsion method) This is true for efficiency reasons, but lighter cars also save lives. Here's a recent discussion: The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Vehicle Weight Dispersion and Accident Fatalities Antonio Bento, Kenneth Gillingham, Kevin Roth http://papers.nber.org/tmp/22190-w23340.pdf http://papers.nber.org/tmp/22190-w23340.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w23340 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23340 > we find that CAFE has been providing safety cobenefits because it encourages down-weighting. Using the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life, at $9.4 million, the welfare benefits of reduced fatalities, found in our simulations to range between 393 and 439 lives nationally, are more than $3.5 billion annually. ... our findings suggest that CAFE would pass a cost-benefit test based on benefits from reduced fatalities alone. This is particularly notable because the current EPA analysis does not include benefits or costs from fatalities, but relies heavily on myopic consumers realizing large future fuel savings to pass a cost-benefit test, which recent economic evidence brings into question (Busse, Knittel, and Zettelmeyer, 2013; Allcott and Wozny, 2014; Sallee, West, and Fan, 2016). Our results suggest CAFE standards may have positive net benefits even without any undervaluation of fuel economy.

greeneggs 10y ago

> (lighter weight is better regardless of propulsion method) This is true for efficiency reasons, but lighter cars also save lives. Here's a recent discussion: The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Vehicle Weight Dispersion and Accident Fatalities Antonio Bento, Kenneth Gillingham, Kevin Roth http://papers.nber.org/tmp/22190-w23340.pdf http://papers.nber.org/tmp/22190-w23340.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w23340 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23340 > we find that CAFE has been providing safety cobenefits because it encourages down-weighting. Using the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life, at $9.4 million, the welfare benefits of reduced fatalities, found in our simulations to range between 393 and 439 lives nationally, are more than $3.5 billion annually. ... our findings suggest that CAFE would pass a cost-benefit test based on benefits from reduced fatalities alone. This is particularly notable because the current EPA analysis does not include benefits or costs from fatalities, but relies heavily on myopic consumers realizing large future fuel savings to pass a cost-benefit test, which recent economic evidence brings into question (Busse, Knittel, and Zettelmeyer, 2013; Allcott and Wozny, 2014; Sallee, West, and Fan, 2016). Our results suggest CAFE standards may have positive net benefits even without any undervaluation of fuel economy.