Electric motors produce maximum torque at zero rpm, so I wouldn't get too worked up over the torque thing.:wink:
This isn't about 'green' energy; the oil situation isn't as bad as it's made out to be, and don't get me started on the manmade climate change con. It's about alternatives. If you buy one to save the dolphins you're a bigger fool than you let on. It's just another option for enjoying biking.
But EVs are being sold as an environmentaly friendly alternative to the internal combustion engine and as eyore pointed out it merely shifts the problem given where our electricty comes from. The whole climate change (undeniable), global warming (the jury is out), anthropogenic global warming (most definitely a con), peak oil (probably), carbon trading (wealth redistribution) etc thing is being manipulated for political and financial gain but one thing is for certain, baring price swings due to supply and demand, the days of cheap energy are over and easy oil is a thing of the past, which isn't the same as saying it is running out any day soon. Sorry but it is a pet subject of mine.
It's quite a pet subject of mine. Anthropomorphic global warming is not a con. It is very likely true. What is definitely a con is the doubt that has been sown about climate change/global warming/anthropomorphic global warming. How this con has been effected is detailed here: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming: Amazon.co.uk: Erik M. Conway, Naomi Oreskes: Books If you haven't read this book (and no, I don't want to here that it's just pinko rubbish until you have read it), then you can't be categoric about this. Read then argue.
If it is a pet subject then I am surprised that you don't know the difference between anthropomorphic and anthropogenic. Why link climate change/global warming/anthropomorphic (sic) global warming ? They are all very different but it suits the warmists to muddy the waters. The climate is most definitely changing, it always has and it always will. CO2 levels have been many times what they are today yet we didn't get a runaway greenhouse effect. In the 70's it was, we are headed for a global ice age, we must do something about it, now it is, we are headed for runaway global warming, we must do someting about it. It is like religion, you either have belief or you don't. We exist, therefore we have an effect on the atmosphere, but the question should be how much of an effect that is and what if anything we should do about it. By all means look at desertification, destruction of habitat and a host of other genuinely pressing issues but dont link them to politics, which is what AGW is about. Climate models are just that, models, they spit out what they are programmed to do. Climate change is being used to justify all sorts of illiberal change and redistribution of wealth, maybe you think that is a good thing, but I don't. Incidentally I have a degree in Environmental Science, what do you have ? I sugest you read some of the books by Erich van Daniken, I believe some people hold them in high regard.
Maybe someone will move this into the Lounge for us - but hey, it's still related to the original topic. In fact, it is at the very heart of the original topic, as you wouldn't bother with an electric bike at all if you didn't think it offered an environmental advantage. And if you don't think that there is any global warming to worry about to which you might make a tiny difference with your choice of motor, then there is really no environmental advantage to be had. Now to answer your other questions: :smile:
Actually the CEO I spoke to only mentioned the environment once, and with the language he used he wouldn't sell anything... Disagree with that. I couldn't give a flying f*** for the environment, my only concern is taking money away from the oil barons.
gliddofglood I don’t suppose that we will resolve the issues surrounding anthropogenic global warming on a Ducati forum, we might just have to agree to differ. However. My contention is that the current orthodoxy is based on a fallacy that is convenient to those perpetrating the myth that global warming is man made and that we must act soon to drastically change our behaviour to avoid catastrophe, it is a classic case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Careers and fortunes are being built on the back of the ‘climate change’ industry. Politicians and activists fly around the world to conferences in exotic locations to declare that we have 100 days to ‘save the planet’, yet the same people who are championing the cause are getting rich investing in ‘green’ technology. CO2 is portrayed as a pollutant when it is vital to life on earth. Water vapour, a more potent green house gas than CO2, is ignored, because it would be difficult for the powers that be to take control of it and tax it. Carbon offset and carbon trading are seen as ways to make money by often dubious, not to mention fraudulent, means with little or no long term benefit. The hockey stick graph was discredited by the simple fact that the predictions it made have not come to pass, temperatures have not ramped up in the last decade, it also omitted inconveniences like the medieval warm period. A single tree in Siberia was chosen as a proxy because it supported the prevailing orthodoxy, the rest of the forest was ignored. We have been told for several decades that things like the Himalayan glaciers will melt, the Gulf Stream was about to stop, polar bears are on the edge of extinction, skiing in the alps would be a thing of the past, non of which have happened. The atmosphere is incredibly complex, with many interacting feedback mechanisms, the modelling of which makes the lunar landings and motorway bridges (!) trivial by comparison. Just because the model runs on a supercomputer doesn’t make it any more accurate, it still just spits out whatever it is programmed to do, some of the climategate e-mails suggest that there was manipulation of data, and that is a generous interpretation. You make an interesting point regarding the flat earth and earth centric universe, I would also use that as an example, the church at the time was the prevailing orthodoxy and dissent was not allowed even though some scientists at the time knew it was wrong. In the same way today climate scientists must accept the orthodoxy if they wish to have papers published or gain funding, there is some dissent out there but it is ruthlessly discredited, climategate e-mails again. History will tell which is right. The greatest weight is indeed in favour of the status quo and the people who have the power are intent upon keeping it, and they are using the bogeyman of climate change to help them do so, politicians love that which they can control and tax. The idea behind carbon trading assumes that we are all allocated a right to use a limited amount of carbon and if we want to use more then we have to buy or trade with someone who has an unused allocation; I wonder, who will run the exchanges, who will decide what our allocation will be and will it extend to our masters in Westminster and Brussels ? Companies are being required to complete energy usage surveys and commit to reductions or face fines. It would be easy to suggest that the whole bandwagon is being used to slow down our economy and force us to adjust to a new world order in which energy is scarce, the means of production controlled by a few mega corporations; global elites and the financial markets dictate to nation states for their own benefit. So yes, the climate is changing but I believe it is due to mainly natural cycles that are still not fully understood, and although I will concede that man probably has played some very small part the whole CO2 thing is being manipulated for political, economic and in some cases personal gain. I really do suggest The Road to Serfdom by Hayek because that is where we are going and the whole climate change bandwagon is helping to take us there. Now I really must get back to work.
And I avoided reading his thread coz I have no time for electric bikes and this climate change bollox.
A couple of years ago I looked into electri bikes. I live 4 miles from work so range isn't a problem and charging could be even solar for that range. However, all I could find back then was a Chinese electric scooter for £600 (funny enough my father-in-law boaught one to go to the pub) or superbikes in the £10k's region. I need a 250/400cc type of electric bike (not a scooter) capable of 50 miles and 70mph, for about £5k. I would have thought that someone would have taken a standard bike and replaced the engine with a motor and bateries for that.
In the US all electric vehicles are subject to a government subsidy of up to 25%, helping to boost sales, so something like the Brammo Empulse - with 100mph and up to 100-mile range - would come in at around £7500. Still dear, I know, but a lot more palateable than anything we get, cos back in Blighty we get bugger all subsidy. The government say they will give a subsidy for some electric vehicles, but when you look into it they offer a subsidy on just six particular cars.
One elephant in the room IMHO is the battery packs. How long do they last before becoming too clapped out to use? How much does a replacement battery pack cost? And how does that cost compare to the residual value of the whole electric bike/car at that age? I suspect the answer may turn out to be that traction batteries lose nearly 1% of capacity with each charge/discharge cycle, cumulatively*, and will cost more than the residual value of the bike to replace. If that's so (please contradict me, someone!), each electric bike will become an economic write-off in a few years, with its effective value depreciated to nothing. So the only people who would buy one are presumably people who have money to burn, or who can't do maths. The waffle about how 'cheap' electric vehicles are to run, based on the cost of units of mains electricity to recharge them, always ignores this point. Include battery replacement in the calculations and the whole project becomes probably non-viable. * or "accumulatively" ?
Oh yes, Mr Van Daniken, Chariots of the Gods wasnt it ? Another load of old bollocks. I'm sorry guys, but the World has ALWAYS had shifts in Global weather patterns......the Ice Age reached as far south as Ipswich, and before that we were a desert, a coral sea, and any permutation we can care to think of....we had changes in our animal population, species became extinct and new ones developed, diseases eradicated populations and England was infested with Dinosaurs. All this current craze is for is to increase taxation......hence 65% of the price of fuel being income for the Government.....and do you REALLY think they give a toss about whats good or bad for you ? If they did there'd be no pissing about, they'd BAN smoking instantly.
I have a degree in Common Sense and an MA in Global Warming..............The MA stands for My Ar*e. Over half the 'respected' scientists and 'experts' have now changed their views or have had their theories disproved...... The trouble is with scientists is that they don't really know and they simply experiment until they find an answer that can't be disproved. So so far, it is all a load of b*llocks and a revenue raising 'fake' industry. Besides, I thought one of the best things about bikes was the noise. AL
I just wonder where people get their quotes from, The Daily Mail? If you read the book I recommended it would clearly point out the discrepancy between the PR war, which is being won by those pretending climate change doesn't exist or has nothing to do with us (owing to massive finance from the same companies that claimed that cigarette smoking wasn't remotely dangerous), and what scientists really are saying. Of course, if you want to limit your knowledge to media soundbites and never even look at a documentary on the subject... Yes, the ice caps are melting. Yes, the polar bear will probably soon be extinct. Seen any glaciers lately? Go and have a look while there's still something to see (I've seen plenty and they are all pathetic compared to photos taken only a few years ago). And people seem to think that "shit happens" and aren't really bothered if the whole of Holland disappears under the sea. Like that won't create turmoil. Who cares if the Maldives cease to exist - plenty of other beaches, eh? Coral reef bleaching? Never seen one. Don't give a toss. Of course there have been extreme climates before, but they don't normally manifest themselves over the course of a couple of decades. Added to which, there weren't 7 billion humans around at the time. I don't mind the hypocrisy - scooting around needlessly on bikes adding a small part to the problem, we're all guilty of that. I just take exception to signing up to the myth of a new world order. Who are all these people making all this cash out of the new energy economy? Look at the share prices of solar companies over the past 5 years. Most are going bankrupt. Battery makers, wind farms - they are all crap places to invest your money. Carbon trading may well be a scam - pretty small beer compared to what the finance sector is currently dishing up. Naturally, I wouldn't expect a very rational debate on a forum for devotees of the internal combustion engine. Oh, we are so put upon by all the evil mean greenies.
They're called 'The Government', and they're really not that hard to spot. Tell me this then, fella. Why didn't the world end during the industrial revolution? When every house had a chimney pot and belched bloody great clouds of CO2 into the air. When factories pumped out so much pollution the cities were falling into permanent darkness. Eh? When the correct way to get rid of pollution was to pump it into the sea - water, of course, being by far the biggest producer of CO2 and airborn particulates. Why didn't the earth explode then? And why has it suddenly gone quiet about holes in the ozone layer? I thought it was the holes that were gonna kill us a few years ago... The fact is there are as many experts poo-pooing the notion of manmade climate change as there are experts rubber-stamping it. And not one of them can give a straight answer because they're scientists, not statisticians - the statisticians are employed by the governments, the ones who stand to make money out of all this. And all scientists agree that it's far easier to get research grants if you put the words '...and it's effect on climate change' on their grant applications. The fact the climate is changing is no surprise - we'd be riding to work on a stegosaurus if it didn't - but there's yet to be any unchallenged proof that it is being changed by man. Can you provide it?
Come down here, NZ has the highest skin cancer rate in the world, in summer you can get sunburnt in 10 minutes. (If you're a ginga! :smile: ) UV index is on the nightly weather report over summer.
