So the Fisker Karma failed its first test run for Consumer Reports. Disappointing to be sure but what's really pissing me off is the firestorm of negative media being launched against it and other alternative fueled vehicles. Tesla in particular (who I hope to be working for in the not-to-distant future) has been blasted ever since day one. "Range anxiety," "not enough bang for your buck," "science experiment" and especially in the case of the Chevrolet Volt, "failure" have been the media buzz words that have plagued the alternative fueled vehicle industry. Let's stop and think about these buzz words for a minute though, is it really fair to call a brand new generation of electric vehicles a "failure?" Especially since this is the first run of all of these types of vehicles, save for the Volt. New battery technology is being employed for the first time in vehicles of this type, new A/C drive systems, new types of computer aided technology to keep everything managed and running. And when you've got this much new tech something is bound to go wrong. Its inevitable, you can't escape it. Take space travel for instance, we celebrate the Saturn V rocket as being the rocket that took men to the moon but how many rockets BLEW UP on the launch pad? It takes time to make something new, time, money and trial and error with a lot more error than success in the beginning. So without further adu I'm going to break down the most common buzz words about alternative fueled vehicles and explain why they're accurate or inaccurate.
"Science Experiment": This one is a no brainer, it's true. Like I said these are vehicles that are doing something that for the most part hasn't been done before. Regardless of where you are in the development process you are still experimenting with the science of how to make it work. The newer something is the more experimenting must be done. Its just part of the process so why is this term being used AGAINST alternative fueled vehicles?
"Range Anxiety": This is most often applied to 100% electric vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf. Not coincidentally GM has been the biggest user of this term since they have been actively trying to kill the electric car for decades. Just look at the history of the EV-1 and the Volt for proof of that. Truth is GM's own research has uncovered the data that proves range anxiety is a myth. A survey conducted in 2000 found that the average American took one trip a year that was longer than 75 miles and most Americans drove less than 20 miles a day. Using this data the Nissan Leaf's 80 mile range is perfect for just about any of us who live in major metropolitan areas. Charge your electric car every night and you most likely won't even need any of the fast charging stations being planned across the nation.
"Failure": This term is most often pushed onto the Chevrolet Volt by angry reporters. They most often cite poor sales and battery fires as the reason for why GM should just "pull the plug." What they are ignoring though is the massive number of positive reviews by Volt owners who have saved thousands of dollars on gas by plugging the Volt in every night. The most often used argument is the battery fires which were reported happening during certain types of accidents. How many Volts out of the 10,000 or so that are on the road suffered battery fires that this has become such a big concern? How many do you think? 10%? 5%? 3%? Nope. 3.
So if alternative fueled vehicles are so great why is the media trumpeting so hard against them? One word: Familiarity.
We're so used to gasoline powered cars that anything new is "weird." Anything weird is uncomfortable and in many cases our lives and/or livelihoods are tied to gasoline powered cars. Of course we're going to be nervous when something new comes along and use any excuse we can think of to degrade it. But in the end this reaction is nothing more than fear, fear of what is going to happen to ourselves should this technology actually succeed. This fear blinds us to the answer that is just as easy to see as it is to ignore. We learn, we adapt and we move on to the new thing.
"Science Experiment": This one is a no brainer, it's true. Like I said these are vehicles that are doing something that for the most part hasn't been done before. Regardless of where you are in the development process you are still experimenting with the science of how to make it work. The newer something is the more experimenting must be done. Its just part of the process so why is this term being used AGAINST alternative fueled vehicles?
"Range Anxiety": This is most often applied to 100% electric vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf. Not coincidentally GM has been the biggest user of this term since they have been actively trying to kill the electric car for decades. Just look at the history of the EV-1 and the Volt for proof of that. Truth is GM's own research has uncovered the data that proves range anxiety is a myth. A survey conducted in 2000 found that the average American took one trip a year that was longer than 75 miles and most Americans drove less than 20 miles a day. Using this data the Nissan Leaf's 80 mile range is perfect for just about any of us who live in major metropolitan areas. Charge your electric car every night and you most likely won't even need any of the fast charging stations being planned across the nation.
"Failure": This term is most often pushed onto the Chevrolet Volt by angry reporters. They most often cite poor sales and battery fires as the reason for why GM should just "pull the plug." What they are ignoring though is the massive number of positive reviews by Volt owners who have saved thousands of dollars on gas by plugging the Volt in every night. The most often used argument is the battery fires which were reported happening during certain types of accidents. How many Volts out of the 10,000 or so that are on the road suffered battery fires that this has become such a big concern? How many do you think? 10%? 5%? 3%? Nope. 3.
So if alternative fueled vehicles are so great why is the media trumpeting so hard against them? One word: Familiarity.
We're so used to gasoline powered cars that anything new is "weird." Anything weird is uncomfortable and in many cases our lives and/or livelihoods are tied to gasoline powered cars. Of course we're going to be nervous when something new comes along and use any excuse we can think of to degrade it. But in the end this reaction is nothing more than fear, fear of what is going to happen to ourselves should this technology actually succeed. This fear blinds us to the answer that is just as easy to see as it is to ignore. We learn, we adapt and we move on to the new thing.