Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.]


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.


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.


The US is presently doing a lot to switch over to natural gas, which has a lot less carbon-per-kWh than coal. If that's what they have in your area, the figures look better. Also good for the figures: if you happened to be doing your charging off-peak such that you're not actually adding to the emissions that would otherwise be emitted by idling power plants. (Or if you live in an area with good hydro/nuclear and the like.)

Of course, that's not really transparent to the electricity user in most cases.


Coal is significantly cheaper than diesel, and coal power plants have filtration systems to reduce their emissions; diesel engines not so much.


You should really check out modern diesels. A VW TDI engine has cleaner exhaust than a typical modern gasser. You could hold up a white handkerchief to the tailpipe and it'd stay clean.


Coal stations have flue gas sulfur filters, but still emit a lot of CO2 (and a lot of radioactivity), road diesel is ultra low sulfur in civilized countries.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: