Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (11101)	7/10/2009 9:16:34 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

My family drives every year to visit family in Texas. I know all about it. Plus we go camping all the time. So I agree that a range extended vehicle is a must for most families. However, I would not agree that most families need TWO range extended vehicles. Plenty of studies have been done by GM and Toyota and other electric car makers to find out how much range people need to drive. It's called pareto analysis. You want to engineer for the 80% of folks. It's no accident that GM chose the 40 mile range. At that range, that covers 75% of the Americans daily driving range needs. Check out the data here: progressiveautoxprize.org Go to page 2 and look at column B. That's a pareto analysis. Add together the percentages from the top down until you get to the desired percentage of people. 75% of Americans drive 50 miles or less a day. 85% drive 99 miles or less per day. There are a bunch of studies like this and they all come to similar conclusions. We could replace half our vehicles easily with commuter vehicles that are range limited. But that's only temporary. Soon enough battery range will match and then surpass ICE ranges.