6 ms·

They did mention that rev two would be around $16,000, assuming they're still in business. That's getting closer to a realistic price relative to competing prod

They did mention that rev two would be around $16,000, assuming they're still in business. That's getting closer to a realistic price relative to competing products. Keep in mind that this is competing with commuter cars, not motorcycles. You can also deduct the cost of fuel over the vehicle's lifetime. For someone commuting one hour each way to work five days a week, the cost of gas for a big car can exceed $200/month, $2400/year, or $12,000 over the course of five years. That makes the up-front price seem quite a bit more competitive with gas-powered alternatives.

TylerE 14y ago
You need to factor in the medical bills, though. With a loaded weight of under 1000lbs, in any sort of collision, this thing will lose. Doesn't really matter how strong the frame is, it's just simple physics. Similar situation with the "Smart" car. The passenger cell can take a 60mph impact into a barrier just fine. The passengers - not so much, the g-forces inflicted are much higher than a traditional vehicle. Even 12-18 inches of crumple zone would make a BIG difference.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  Unless the person you crash into is also driving one of these, in which case you both win, relatively speaking. Safety does remain a very important consideration here, and I'm also wondering how safe those heavy gyroscopes under your seat are in a collision. They had better be extremely well-shielded from the passenger compartment.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    That's the arms race - on the road the more massive vehicle in a collision wins. So if you care about your dear little children you have to buy the M1 Abrahams tank. A mere $4.3M for the peace of mind of knowing your little ones are protected in a collision with an Escalade. (ps the 120mm cannon is also useful against Volvos)
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Even hitting another one of these or a similar super-light vehicle, you both still lose. For survivability there is absolutely no replacement for deformable structure aka crumple zones.
morsch 14y ago
Well, you're still paying for fuel/energy unless you recharge at work. ;) Of course it's a much more efficient vehicle than a car, due to it's weight, the higher efficiency of electrical motors[1] and regenerative braking. One figure in the article is 220 miles on an 8kWh battery. I think I pay something like €0.25 per kWh, most of you probably spend less. So about 100 miles/€, and about €2 to recharge the whole battery. [1] Not that they're readily comparable, since "regular" motors convert a primary fuel into motion, while electrical motors convert electrical energy. Which itself is often generated from a primary fuel, introducing significant inefficiency.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  Power plants operate at a much higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, on cheaper and more diversified fuel sources, including renewable. [Electric motors and batteries also have relatively little energy waste, making the system as a whole more efficient to operate, especially when you consider being able to leverage the superior distribution infrastructure of the electric grid versus the relatively sparse network of fuel stations. Consider that most fuel stations receive their supply by tanker-truck, which introduces yet more inefficiency.]
  - TylerE 14y ago
    On the other hand, they also require charging infrastructure, and there is some loss in transmission, so you don't get to keep all of that efficiency.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Not quite so clear cut for a small car. A small common rail diesel engine in a car gets close to 40%, a coal power plant runs at about 45%. Add in transmission losses and charging/battery/electric motor and the diesel g CO2/km is probably better.
    - WiseWeasel 14y ago
      Coal is significantly cheaper than diesel, and coal power plants have filtration systems to reduce their emissions; diesel engines not so much.

TylerE 14y ago

You need to factor in the medical bills, though. With a loaded weight of under 1000lbs, in any sort of collision, this thing will lose. Doesn't really matter how strong the frame is, it's just simple physics. Similar situation with the "Smart" car. The passenger cell can take a 60mph impact into a barrier just fine. The passengers - not so much, the g-forces inflicted are much higher than a traditional vehicle. Even 12-18 inches of crumple zone would make a BIG difference.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
Unless the person you crash into is also driving one of these, in which case you both win, relatively speaking. Safety does remain a very important consideration here, and I'm also wondering how safe those heavy gyroscopes under your seat are in a collision. They had better be extremely well-shielded from the passenger compartment.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  That's the arms race - on the road the more massive vehicle in a collision wins. So if you care about your dear little children you have to buy the M1 Abrahams tank. A mere $4.3M for the peace of mind of knowing your little ones are protected in a collision with an Escalade. (ps the 120mm cannon is also useful against Volvos)
- TylerE 14y ago
  Even hitting another one of these or a similar super-light vehicle, you both still lose. For survivability there is absolutely no replacement for deformable structure aka crumple zones.

morsch 14y ago

Well, you're still paying for fuel/energy unless you recharge at work. ;) Of course it's a much more efficient vehicle than a car, due to it's weight, the higher efficiency of electrical motors[1] and regenerative braking. One figure in the article is 220 miles on an 8kWh battery. I think I pay something like €0.25 per kWh, most of you probably spend less. So about 100 miles/€, and about €2 to recharge the whole battery. [1] Not that they're readily comparable, since "regular" motors convert a primary fuel into motion, while electrical motors convert electrical energy. Which itself is often generated from a primary fuel, introducing significant inefficiency.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
Power plants operate at a much higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, on cheaper and more diversified fuel sources, including renewable. [Electric motors and batteries also have relatively little energy waste, making the system as a whole more efficient to operate, especially when you consider being able to leverage the superior distribution infrastructure of the electric grid versus the relatively sparse network of fuel stations. Consider that most fuel stations receive their supply by tanker-truck, which introduces yet more inefficiency.]
- TylerE 14y ago
  On the other hand, they also require charging infrastructure, and there is some loss in transmission, so you don't get to keep all of that efficiency.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Not quite so clear cut for a small car. A small common rail diesel engine in a car gets close to 40%, a coal power plant runs at about 45%. Add in transmission losses and charging/battery/electric motor and the diesel g CO2/km is probably better.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    Coal is significantly cheaper than diesel, and coal power plants have filtration systems to reduce their emissions; diesel engines not so much.