Modern Vespa

Continuing the increasingly off-topic discussion at "Thinking of modifying MP3 LT 400 to a hybrid":

>Also the funding is needed

You won't get it.

I believe that there is a deadly serious aspect of the demise of Vectrix that is being overlooked by everyone (except by Vectrix's ex-employees, of course). Vectrix was >that< >close< to succeeding, with thousands of electric-only vehicles already sold as the basis for their hybrid revolution. I think that it will now be impossible for any startup to find venture capital money for this. The Zero is a minor success as an all-electric, but only a "success" as it always was intended to be a niche product, like the wildly successul - as a niche product - Tesla Roadster has been. But a short-range electric dirt bike is not going to change the world, and Zero has unfortunately, and in retrospect wisely, not made any statements about creating a hybrid that would make their bike something for the general market.

Which comes back to: deep pockets.

U.S.A.? I don't think so, there's nobody who cares. Hell, it's still completely up in the air if the Chevy Volt is going to succeed, with more money than the total value of most Fortune 500 companies poured into that one project.

Europe? Maybe. The aforementioned Peugeot. But Peugeot doesn't make a move without incentives from the French or E.U. governments, and preferably both. That concept vehcile is no doubt part of their P.R. compaign to get more tax breaks.

Here's a little-known fact: Piaggio already had a partnership with Vectrix - Vectrix was scheduled to come out with an all-electric version of the MP3 in 2010...somebody wound up owning all those intellectual property agreements. Anyone who owns the rights to Vectrix's research has a big head start. So...maybe. Perhaps the 125 hybrid is actually a distraction to keep the competition from knowing what Piaggio is really up to.

Japan? That's my bet. Suzuki, Honda, and Yamaha are all working on this stuff right now, and Japan already dominates the hybrid car market. Heck, until the Ford Fusion came out, every "true" full hybrid (series drivetrain, not parallel like the Ford Explorer or the MP3 hybrid) car in the world came from Japan.

My advice on designing the hybrid motorcycle of the future? Apply for a job at one of the main non-U.S. motorcycle companies...and learn Japanese.

Yo Jeff!

Probably not neccessary; they teach English in all levels of public schools and you'd likely get by just fine. As a point of interest I once read a book on business communicatons with Japanese firms which revealed even the Japanese only understand around 60-75% of what's said to them IN JAPANESE. Izzat a Cliff Clayburnism by chance?

LL75

Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but I don't think the problem with the Vectrix was necessarily the range or anything, and I don't think that's the problem with today's electric only vehicles.

In my humble opinion, when I go to shop and I see a wonderful piece of electric machinery, I think, "Whippeee...no gas costs!!". Then I ask range and as usual I'm a little let down. BUT, that's not what kills the sale...the 3rd question is, "Where do I charge it?". I know some are special outlets and some are normal, etc. etc...but I cringe thinking of having to "shop around" in hopes of some kind place that has electric hookups or that doesn't mind if I use their external outlets. All WHILE dealing with range. If there was an electric car parking hookup at nearly every mall/gas/etc...I think the electric market would begin to flower...(P.S. hold your comments about California . One hippie state with hookups does not a 50 nation persuade)

I'll give you the east coast (my girlfriend's) perspective: any "real vehicle" (costing more than a few thousand dollars or so) must be able to be instantly refueled or recharged virtually anywhere or it defeats the freedom-endowing point of owning a personal vehicle in the first place.

You raise an incredibly good point, and one that is no longer entirely hypothetical, as we have an actual case study: let's ask the source. The Vectrix started out British, and London made big noise about setting up charging stations all over the place and even having free chargers in public garages. So can one of our British cousins opin: why did Vectrix die? Was the government effort to provide charging options too little, or was it just apathy on the part of the purchasing public, or that Vectrix didn't do a good job of getting its message out, or something else? I should point out it cannot be price - while not exactly cheap, the cost, performance, and capacities of a Vectrix were all comparable to that of a Fuoco.

The scientific FACTS here are not nearly as important as PERCEPTION - a venture capitalist is not going to dump millions of his/her own dollars into a hybrid motorcycle, no matter how rock-solid the argument in its favor, if they believe public perception is what killed the Vectrix. Especially with the specter of Peugeot and Honda as potential competitors!

P.S. I know this is hard to believe, but I *STILL* get people who ask me, upon learning that I drive a hybrid, "where do you plug it in?" I have to ask, does that indicate that there is such a deeply ingrained misconception about hybrid vehicles that a hybrid motorcycle is dead before it is even marketed?

Read another reason today to learn a language other than English. Might live longer. Read below:

And ya wonder why we don't have nuclear power?

I've only seen it at a few municipalities. Never seen a car get plugged into one. All my neighbors and I have the infrastructure already built into our homes because of local code. Only welders are plugged into them or not used at all. Stupid government!

I'm not trying to deflect American responsibility and culpability, God knows we have enough. One of my "maddest moments" was just a few years back, as the owner of a gas-guzzling Jeep Liberty looking for a replacement and reading the important announcement by the CEO of Daimler-Chrysler who said (paraphrasing), "Hybrids are not the future of the automotive industry, and that's why Chrysler is committed to introducing more models with deisel engines." In a nutshell, that is actually what he said, and I remember being furious - and went out and bought a Highlander Hybrid. (Not to downplay the advances in deisel technology, I do appreciate that they are getting better, but moving from gasoline to deisel is shifting the problem sideways and not fixing it. Global warming is still debated, but the fact that petroleum will at some point run out is not.)

But this thread is about scooters, and Americans are not going to significantly help the world by buying hybrid scooters. But consider this: Europe, as an aggregate, is the world's largest CO2 emitter. Would widespread use of electric and hybrid scooters in Europe make a difference?

At least the existing, massive base of European scooters have strict emmission controls over non-CO2 gasses (well, I have to admit I don't know about Russia). China is now the world's single largest CO2 emitting country. Would the widespread use of electric and hybrid scooters in China make a difference? How about India, Indonesia, and Taiwan? I believe the average American, especially those who don't travel overseas, doesn't really appreciate just how many of these ubiquitous vehicles there are in the world - and what a potentially huge difference a change in technology could make on the planet.

*I* want a hybrid motorcycle because, if properly executed like my Highlander, it could be capable of things an ordinary gas-powered cannot do - all-wheel drive, traction control, greater power and much greater torque (oh, and lower emissions and better mileage). I honestly believe the *world* needs one to save the planet.

Meanwhile off-topic rhetorical question, why can one buy a hybrid minivan in Japan and not in the United States?

Let's not forget people(not all) in the USA travel far longer distances than in european countries, so I'd say electric vehicles if ever will only be helpfull in cities where people don't go very far. Let's also realize any emissions saved by using an electric vehicle will be coming out of our elec. source unless it's nuclear powered. Fact- there is no shortage of oil for at least 100 years. More oil is still being discovered even today. The perception that oil is in short supply is a political lie, just like the lie of nuclear reactors being too dangerous to rely on. Tell that to France. In case you didn't know it, we emit C02 when we breathe. There are so many lies purported as facts nowadays it's really sad. Most the world public has fears of stuff that doesn't even really exist, thanks to gullible politicians.

Wayne B

I support your comments Randy. Did you know the largest emitter of methane gas (#2 behind CO2)which does have a large effect on greenhouse effects is COWS. So do we get rid of all of them?

I try and do my part by eating as many cows as I can each year. Damn things just keep reproducing

Wayne B

I blame it on the Texans,


they don't do enough BBQ's

Until battery technology comes up with reasonably priced batteries that can last longer than now, there won't be any significant increase in electric vehicles.

the other problem that needs addressing on a national level is infrastructure for plugging them in. Then addressing the more remote areas as well. That could be a very long time as we still don't have cell tower coverage in some areas. You;ll also have to look at the drain of electricity on the grid as we will have to produce more power that means more plants and hopefully not more coal plants. there is lots to go into this crap.

Or the more reasonable solution that is well within our reach - more hybrids, moving towards electric vehicles with hybrid recharging. The Volt is one example; the now-abandoned (or is it?...) Vectrix hybrid scooter was another. The latter was going to run on a not-yet-perfected methanol fuel cell, the former will run off a small ICU powered by ordinary gasoline. My guess is that one of the major players will come out with a scoot on the Volt model: powered entirely by electricity and a plug-in battery, but with a small gasoline generator to extend the range or skip charging when desired.

BTW, the statement that electric vehicles simply switch the source of pollution is a misleading simplification. All internal combustion engines are limited by the Carnot heat engine cycle to the ratio of internal temperature to external; about 25% efficient (this is the true theoretical efficiency, when you hear about an engine being "95% effficient" that means it's reaching 95% of its 25% theoretical limit). To be anywhere near 100% efficient, either the temperature inside the engine would have to be infinitely high or the surrounding air would have to be at absolute zero (which, since all Oxygen would have long since frozen, wouldn't be very practical). Gas turbines also are limited by the Carnot cycle, but they run at tremendously higher temperatures and power plants can reach correspondingly higher efficiencies of 50% or more. The big deal about fuel cells is, not relying on the Carnot cycle, they have no theoretical limitation on efficiency, although in honesty engineers haven't yet done much better than 50% yet and those require high-temperature operation. The naysayers against electric vehicles are barking up the wrong tree: even with distribution losses, power plants are far more efficient than any car with any internal combustion engine will ever be. Now, if you want to say that electric vehicles will overload an already overburdened generation and distribution system, well that unfortunately is a harder objection to dispute; but that is already true and will rapidly become more pertinent in the coming years, with or without electric scooters!

And the stupid populace that elects them.

The same people in the USA who want everybody to quit using oil for transportation also don't want to build any more power plants. Apparently they want us all to go back to a 40's lifestyle with no AC, having to use public transportation(except them), and get rid of all the other electrical appliances we(USA) use nowadays. If the politicians in the USA allowed the US to get to all it's own oil reserves, the USA would probably be energy independant right now from Arab countries. Europe has a different set of options to deal with than us. If our political leaders were smarter and had any common sense, oil use wouldn't even be an issue here. Our so-called problems are created by our own political leaders decisions we all have to live with, right or wrong. Results of which are so stupid and sad for the common man/woman.

here is the other issue our politicians let go. selling our oil/gas/diesel to other countries. we currently export more refined products than we use mostly to china, this is because we have to offset our imports from them.

Actually some environmentalists are pushng to reduce meat consumption and thus methane polution. Mey just be PETA members in disguise.

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

And as far as exhaled carbon? I am gonna start a movement to get all Americans to exhale less by holding each breath for 3 seconds.

Anyway, hybrids may hold some potential in the future but for reasons already stated here I don't see them becoming mainstream unless we are forced into it.

while I won't exhale till 3 sec I will do this only inhale once every other time, this way I am only exhaling every other time as well. hope that helps in my part of less carbon for ya.

I have just started not exhaling, only inhale. Just the opposite of Clinton, who never inhaled

Wayne B

>hybrids may hold some potential in the future but for reasons already stated here I don't see them becoming mainstream unless we are forced into it.

I *LOVE* my Toyoto Highlander Hybrid. I "like" it because it gets great mileage, and I "admire" it because it produces almost no pollutants other than CO2 (and the fact that my state lets me skip every other vehicle inspection, and in theory some states let me use the HOV lane although I think that's asking for a pull over)...but I *LOVE* it because it has more power, more torque, and far nibler intellegent four-wheel drive than the standard model. I am frustrated that the public - and in almost all cases the carmakers - see hybrid technology solely for its treehugging potential and not for what it can really do: better mileage AND better performance. Even Toyota does not make a big deal about this at all, as if they are afraid of alienating their green base if they suggest the hybrid could mean something other than compromises for the sake of the environment.

That's why the MP3 hybrid came as such a shocking disappointment to me, I figured it was going to be an actual performance boost (especially for its rather outrageous prive tag), not a 500-lb, 150cc moped that can "almost" keep up with the 250 for the first few miles. *sigh*

For those of yo9u who foolishly believe you can actually affect global warming by limiting your exhalation, you have got it dead wrong, as noted warming expert Stephen Colbert explains: colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/232654/july-02-2009/the-word---ban-de-soleil

I think huge factors in battery operated cars will be the cost of replacement, cost of battery manufacturing, and then...disposal. The government (in the U.S. anyway) will NOT accept less revenue than it is receiving. So if you get a vehicle at 100 mpg and are buying less gas and thus paying less in gasoline taxes, you can bet Uncle Sam will increase gas taxes to compensate for "lost revenue".

rj, what mileage of your Highlander are you so happy with and how much extra weight can you carry in it ? I want to compare your results with my SUV.

EXACTLY ! For some it's already happening on their electric bills. The Govt. says you should cut back on your electricity use. You listen and do. What happens?......your electricity cost goes up because the utility needs more $ then to pay for it's operating costs.

But unless you keep your vehicle for 200,000 miles, that extra mileage you get isn't going to cover the extra money you paid for the vehicle. They are not cost effective. That is what is stopping them from selling more.
Then at 100,000 or around there you will need to buy a new battery that will set you back $2,500 to $3,000. And now you are upside down again in your savings.

Wayne B

Exactly, look at water rates during a drought. Forced(semi neccessary) water restrictions = water rate increases due to lack of revenue. Well duh!
They can blow it out their ass. The answers to the dilemas are mostly obvious!

False. Actually to properly qualify it, it is a false argument.

The problem with our reliance on oil is not that we will be able to continue relying on it until all the wells are empty (like how you can ride your scooter until the tank reaches empty and then you are screwed), which should be over 100 years into the future. The problem is when we reach the peak of production after which production declines in a bell curve fashion. This happens with individual fields as well as global production. This is known as Hubbert's Peak after M. King Hubbert.

Production of fields follows the discovery of fields. It is an easy thing to look at the data and see that the peak of discovery happened in 1960's and although new fields continue to be discovered they have not changed the downward trend of discovery.

A few years ago France had some serious issues when they had to reduce the power output of many of their nuclear reactors due to drought conditions. Nuclear power relies heavily on available water resources.

Those are the facts. IMHO we should develop new nuclear plants in conjunction with renewable energy sources, and we should avoid all subsidies of energy sources or even them out so that the field is actually competitive rather than stacked in favor of fossil fuel industry. But those are my opinions only.

A few years ago France had some serious issues when they had to reduce the power output of many of their nuclear reactors due to drought conditions. Nuclear power relies heavily on available water resources.

Those are the facts. IMHO we should develop new nuclear plants in conjunction with renewable energy sources, and we should avoid all subsidies of energy sources or even them out so that the field is actually competitive rather than stacked in favor of fossil fuel industry. But those are my opinions only.[/quote]




Are you also aware that solar panel high volume plants also need high volumes of H2O to run too ? The solar part is used to create steam, which is used to generate electricity, just like a nuclear plant. Which type needs more water I don't know.

As for your other "oil facts", I'm not going to spend time here refuting them. That's not the purpose of this forum.

>what mileage of your Highlander are you so happy with and how much extra weight can you carry in it ?

My Highlander originally got 30mpg in the summer and 28 in the winter, now gets 28 summer 27 winter. Supposedly a hybrid gets better mileage city but I've never seen a difference more significant than the winter/summer difference. Theoretically an ICU should become more efficient in the winter (that Carnot cycle again) but it's my understanding that all hybrids do better in warm weather. I am not sure if the slight decline is natural or the result of my changing tires, as the Highlander supposedly does not come with anything special (my GF's mileage dropped 5mpg when she put cheap Uniroyals on her Prius).

I have 208 HP gas, plus 167 HP electric, plus another 68 HP driving the rear wheels in 4WD. The regular gas Highlander puts out 270 HP and is stated to get 20 city, 27 highway. You can do the math - nearly 450 HP available while getting about 8mpg better. I have the same towing and weight capacities as the gas model (edit: 3,500 pounds), although I will leave a gas model in the dust carrying or pulling a heavy load up any incline for about the first 12 uphill miles*; then the gas version gets the edge.

*Actually that depends on the status of my battery when the climb begins. The newer Highlander Hybrids have a mode switch that allows the driver to select this in advance so you can have a fully charged battery when the climb starts, but for mine it depends entirely on what sort of traffic I encountered right before the climb started.

>But unless you keep your vehicle for 200,000 miles, that extra mileage you get isn't going to cover the extra money you paid for the vehicle. They are not cost effective.

Well, that's definitely not true for me and the G/F, as we got in on the sweet full tax credit the first time around (the current credit declines as the manufacturer sells more vehicles, and you won't even know what the credit is until after the tax year closes). But I do see your point. However, I doubt you're calculating everything - for example, I have never had a tuneup (Atkinson cycles engines with programmable valve timing is entirely within software); I have never changed my brake pads (electric motor provides most of my stopping); I have no, none, zero, nada clutch/transmission/ torque converter to break/replace/wear out etc etc. Without the tax credit, you're still right but just barely. Interestingly, you are dead wrong about the 200,000 mile figure; the batteries are rated for 120,000 miles, I save about 1,000 gallons of gas per 100,000 miles over the gas version, and I will pay for new batteries about the same as the gas I save - the economic sweet spot is to hit 120,000 miles and sell it!

But in any event, you have if anything underscored my argument: unless you are a tree hugger and going for DRAMATIC mileage improvements - before changing tires my GF REGULARLY got 60mpg in the Prius - the reason for buying a Hybrid should be to get better mileage AND better performance, otherwise it is a boondoggle. We don't need fewer hybrids, we need MORE of them - cars and motorcycles that offer a compelling combination of both better mileage and better performance to make it worth the extra cost.

>I think huge factors in battery operated cars will be the cost of replacement, cost of battery manufacturing, and then...disposal.

Hopefully, as hybrids take off the issue with recycling the batteries will be better addressed, which will bring down the price of batteries as well. But I don't think the full lifecycle of these batteries are being really proactively examined by the government or the manufacturers. Vandave was talking specifically about electric vehicles but it's just as true of hybrids as well, and in particular plug-in and "mobile recharging" hybrids like the Volt which are going to have just as many batteries as a fully electric vehicle.

>So if you get a vehicle at 100 mpg and are buying less gas and thus paying less in gasoline taxes, you can bet Uncle Sam will increase gas taxes to compensate for "lost revenue".

Well, I'm not sure that's actually a cogent argument against HEVs. Suppose it is true: then you REALLY will want to have a high-efficiency vehicle when the government, in response to the reduction in gasoline use by all the tree huggers, tacks on all those taxes and suddenly it costs $400 to fill up your Excursion. Even if you're right, that actually sounds like a roundabout argument in favor of getting a hybrid NOW and beating the others out the gate.

>Are you also aware that solar panel high volume plants also need high volumes of H2O to run too ? The solar part is used to create steam, which is used to generate electricity, just like a nuclear plant.

Sorry, that's a misleading statement (I am a nuclear engineer). The steam generated by a solar panel - more correctly a solar concentrator, as distinguished from a solar voltaic panel which of course does not use any water - can be condensed and reused. The water in a nuclear plant carries away waste energy and is lost (the water actually used to generate the heat that makes the steam, if any - newer plants use other materials, such as brine and liquid Lithium - never leaves the internal circulation loop). The external water must be replenished because of a basic fact: ultimately the secondary water is being used to cool the reactor. In a solar application, water is used solely to create a working fluid (for it to be an equivalent situation, the water in a solar farm would have to be "cooling" the sun, which it is not). It is true that many solar farms release water and use plenty of it, but that's not a central technical requirement. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nuclear energy, just pointing out that your statement requires qualification.

---------

Finally, I'd like to offer what I feel is a reasonable middle ground here. Michael Crighton once wrote that he wasn't convinced that the cry and hue over global warming was necesarilly scientifically valid; or if it was, that global warming was necessarilly caused by people; or if it was, that it was necesarilly a bad thing. "But," he continued, "just because I have doubts about global warming doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to keep dumping pollution into the atmosphere." Maybe we will run out of petroleum in 30 years, and maybe in a hundred. But:

- meanwhile while our cars and motorcycles continue to run on gasoline even though they can definitely run other power sources, our aircraft industry will be doomed as the price of fuel continues to climb. We can wait until we run out of gas for our cars and bikes and switch them to something else, but there is nothing else to switch our airplanes to...and think about the impact THAT will have on our economy and way of life.

- apropos to the late Mr. Crighton's argument, even if we could continue to run on oil for another hundred years does not necesarilly mean it's a good idea.

We have a '01 Toyota Rav4 which get's 29-31 mpg depending how hard it's working on a trip. If I want to pull more than it's 1,500 # capability(done it) I have a `89 3/4T Dodge PU that get's 6-12 mpg depending how you're using it. Since I don't use the PU for much it only has 54K miles on it so far from new. It's main cost to me is having to buy new tires every 8 years after they rot out from exposure.

If I want better mileage we have 6- 2 wheelers(+1 MP3) that get from 45-70(most at least 50) mpg. If I want speed I ride my `91 VX800 Suzuki that goes up to 125 mph. Most our getting around is on these smaller vehicles.

In my lifetime oil products will be just fine. If our country was smart enough to tap into all it's oil reserves, our gas prices would be lower than they are now. Maybe some day alternative fuels will replace oil in volume, but I'll believe it when I see it. What I said about solar power plants needing water, since where I live the subject is real, I don't know all the particulars.

If someone here wants to read about both sides of "global warming" they can go to Wikipedia. Just because millions of people have been taught that global warming caused by humans is real doesn't automatically mean it's true. As they say in Russia, tell a lie long enough............and it will be believed as true.