Subject: RE: BS: Electric Car, Mudcat Owners
From:
JohnInKansas
Date: 13 May 07 - 03:57 PM
I see the usual ad-speak at the site linked, but nothing that clearly says just what it is. I suspect that digging deeper into the site might provide some information; but the ads are enough to show it unsuitable for my use.
I did note that the new Montana law permits operation "at up to 35 mph." That would be an unsafe speed on many local streets in my town, where many posted speed limits are 40 mph and above and are only "loosely observed."
Even accepting the adspeak brag that this vehicle can do "90%" of most peoples communting, it's priced comparably to many vehicles that will do 100% of what I need. The separate vehicle for "the other 10%" would be an environmental impact from manufacturing processes at least equal to what operation of the smart car would save, even if I never drove the ten-percenter. The "excess environmental burden" from operating my hundred-percenter 100 percent of the time is less than the manufacturing burden of getting a second vehicle. (although another new vehicle is always nice to have)
In my area, one actually can license1 a $6,000 (new) golf cart to do most of the kind of commuting for which this vehicle appears suitable - although I'd concede that the fabric rain shields on the golf cart are a bit less convenient.
1 The licensing isn't really easy, but a few have done it.
If it suits your needs, then your effort to be green is commendable. The "commute" in my area is not amenable to using a vehicle of this kind for most people.
One hopes that smaller, cleaner, and more efficient vehicles can become more useful, and that will only happen if those who can actually try them out. We'll be very interested in your reports as your personal observations accumulate, and of course in the reports of any others, especially actual users, who may reply here.
John
|
sj
