Tiny MyCar named electric vehicle of the year No, we're not sure about the MyCar's looks either, but that hasn't stopped the electric two-seater winning GreenFleet magazine's electric vehicle of the year award. The Italian-designed MyCar is made in Hong Kong and offered in the UK by Nice - aka No Internal Combustion Engine. We say offered, though the £8995 motor doesn't …
Looks promising! The interior did make my face want to fall off though. And I'd prefer a hatchback version so as to carry more than one bag of shopping and a mate.
Will the RAC/AA have to carry a mini generator to help people that run dry on motorways now? Or just replacement (if they are standardised) batteries?
It's good to see low-tech solutions to transportation being taken to market. Too many solutions attempt to throw massive, complex, highly polluting technology at the issue (Prius, I'm looking at you) while a simpler solution would fit 90% of most people's needs. Make it small and light and hey presto, it doesn't need thousands of kWh of li-ion batteries to get a useful range.
That said, I'll stick with my bike (or train on wet days) for the daily 14 mile commute. Beats the traffic, keeps me fit and costs a fraction of using the car. But a simple electric vehicle is definitely on my future purchase list.
I hate to be anti-big car, but I wonder what one of these would look like after being hit by one of the many people-carriers/4x4s on our roads today, weighing upwards of 2 tons?
Maybe it's so light, it'd just bounce off and go on it's way, although I suspect it'd be more like the title of this post.
So it's basically '90's tech, a la Sinclair C5, but with two seats and a roof.
What's the range likely to be with two adults aboard, luggage (sandwich box?), headlights on and wipers going?
The end of the driveway...
Boffin, because I need somebody intelligent to explain the bloody point of it. TTFN.
"A 40 mile round trip on a single charge."
+6-8 charge time
+ top speed of.... 40mph (wow)
this is pretty rubbish.. Basically it's a city car yes?
if you live less than 20 miles from work and want a green solution - GET THE BUS.
If you want a green solution that's faster than this, buy a bicycle!
The ONLY people I can see this being useful for would be city delivery drivers, but being a car and not a van, it's not suitable for that purpose either.
looks to me like it has EPIC FAIL written all over it!
9000 quid for a plastic go cart with a lead acid battery that runs for 40 miles and takes 9 hours to recharge, and it wins a green prize ?
Apparently a blood alcohol level of over 0.5% is rquired to serve on the panel.
Mine's the one that says '98 Octane' on the back.
Yes, I agree with Andrew that use of existing technology is commendable, but 9 grand is just a joke. What we really need is a Chinese or Indian mass producer to start making these things. My reaction was similar when some failed double glazing salesman wanted £10, 000 for a solar hot water installation. £4000 for a vehicle like this just might be nearer the mark.
... from all the naysayers. Sure, many people are better off getting the bus or cycling, and many who still want to drive need something with much longer range and more space. BUT, keep in mind that the average daily commute (return trip) distance in the US is 33 miles, and it's less in the UK. SO, there's a fair swag of people that this actually does suit. Using Lead Acid batteries is low tech by modern EV standards, but it's cheaper. This is a car with a definite niche for a decade or two, before it's well and truly superseded in the same price range.
(BTW - there are many people who hate buses and trains with a vengeance, are too old or unfit to cycle and who's needs are not suited to, say, a scooter).
As others have said, a lead-acid based rollerskate that does 40mph *or* 40 miles on a charge is just rubbish. I don't personally find the design too visually offensive, but any EV (and I DO support EVs) would need a range of 100+ miles, *AT* 60mph (with a top speed of more like 90+mph) to be sucessful.
And @netean (13:48); the BUS IS NOT GREEN. Even in London, where buses are fuller than elsewhere and the traffic is godawful, fuel consumption (and hence CO2 emissions) per passenger mile are the same for buses as for cars. For other cities/regions with convoluted bus routes and (relatively) free-flowing roads cars are actually more effecient.
What is so green about something that uses lead and acid and requires charging via fossil or worse still nuclear power. And to top it off you need to pay £9k for it..... Polo TDI only costs £3k more and it's a proper car!
It's like the idiots that go on about Nuclear power being better for the enviroment than fossil fuels. Lets look at it quickly carbon dioxide something that plants use, spent nuclear fuel rods 10,000 years to degrade to a safe level.
Where's the symbol with the world in a straight jacket as the worlds gone mad!
I cannot understand the idiots designing these vehicles.
Any lead acid battery left without a trickle charger will lose charge over time so any user will have to keep this thing plugged in constantly when not in use. It is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of perception. While Joe Average User is accustomed to topping up his tank, he is also accustomed that once topped up the fuel stays there. That is not the case in a battery car. It "disappears" over time and it will be very difficult to teach Joe this.
While even big roof+bonnet solars will probably take several days to charge it to a useful level, even a small 60x20 cm panel can still keep it charged up at no cost once it has been unplugged. It is silly not to have at least that (though, personally, I would like to have the full bonnet and roof ones).
So it's ugly, probably very unsafe in a collision, has little range, not much top speed, and it's expensive? No heater or a/c either I take it? How is this more than a glorified golf cart then, or more than marginally better than the electric vehicles using lead-acid technology that were available in the early 1900s? Why would anyone want this except perhaps to drive around an estate or closed facility like a campus or military base?
Thoroughly unimpressed.
Sounds a bit like pimp my ride....except where they shrinkray the crap out of a normal car...
...sort of "honey i shrunk the MPV"
no problem with electric cars...but its expensive and its specs are abismal.
Oh and it looks like a deformed Smart thats been driven under a veeeeery low bridge and sandwiched between two big trucks which also happened to be carrying some really horrible paint.
Can anybody tell me why we can't have an oil burning steam turbine with modern fuel control and a closed loop water system? These big black things at the front of all our cars chucking out multi-kW of waste heat strike me as a little inefficient. Of course it might be a stupid question, so I'm hiding :)
"What is so green about something that uses lead and acid and requires charging via fossil or worse still nuclear power. And to top it off you need to pay £9k for it..... Polo TDI only costs £3k more and it's a proper car!
It's like the idiots that go on about Nuclear power being better for the enviroment than fossil fuels. Lets look at it quickly carbon dioxide something that plants use, spent nuclear fuel rods 10,000 years to degrade to a safe level."
It's not like we, as humans, invented nuclear radiation. Radiation emitted by processed materials (e.g., waste) is the same exact kind of radiation as that emitted by natural transuranics. So, nuclear fuel rods take 10,000 years to degrade to a "safe" level. It's not as if the spent fuel rods are being stored in elementary schools.
I'd be somewhat more concerned about things like lead and mercury that are dumped into the soil by chemical plants and factories the world over, that NEVER become harmless. Mercury doesn't degrade. All radioactive isotopes of plutonium and uranium do.
Nuclear waste isn't a big deal, and most of it could be recycled if we'd take our collective thumb out of our collective ass and reproccess more of it. Right now only a very small amount of the world's nuclear fuel comes from reprocessed "spent" fuel, something like 1-2% if I recall correctly (which I might not). However, most of that high-level waste can be recycled into new MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, instead of being buried. Also, if we didn't use nuclear power, where would we get the Americium-241 for smoke detectors? That all comes from spent fuel rods, as Plutonium-241 naturally degrades.
Nuclear power and radiation really aren't that scary. Humanity does a lot of dangerous things. Moving and using tiny amounts of radioactive materials to generate large amounts of energy isn't high on the list. If more people would read on the subject, learn how nuclear power works, what the fuel and "waste" is actually composed of, and how these materials are handled, they might find their fears are misplaced.
Please, for the sake of humanity, set aside your primitive fear of new technology, forget your luddite ways, and let the world power itself in a way that is much more sensible than burning liquified fucking dinosaurs.
It's "A" car, not supposedly the world's answer to an energy crisis, pollution, long range travel or high performance.
Everyone acts as though it has to meet every one of their ideals as if there is any other car that could do that and equally well meet the ideals of the next person on the road as well.
It's a fun little limited purpose toy car. Nothing wrong with that unless you try to thrust your own misconceptions of what an electric car "must" be onto it. Who wants all vehicles to be the same anyway?
Should it have been EV of the year? Probably not as there's nothing particularly revolutionary about it in an era when so much work is being done on EVs but it's also good to see alternatives that don't cost 50% more than an ICE vehicle.
Finally! Some one is able to come up with an intelligent post on nuclear power. I go to university, so I get to mingle with all the dumb ass hippies that think all the worlds problems can be solved by being vegan and wearing hemp clothes. They bitch about oil, and if you mention nuclear, they break out the rope and light the torches. I'm so sick of it.
...but then I did once ask a car salesman who was trying to get me to fork out extra for "colour coordinated bumpers" why I might want such a thing.
"They look nice."
"But I can't see them from the inside."
"Other people can!"
"Well, let other people pay for them, then."
Why I just don't know but we really do seem to be going round in circles on this topic. Nothing new at all is coming through, just slightly different opinions on established - and obsolete - concepts that make sure the electric vehicle doesn't begin to compare to a ICE alternative based on convenience, range, performance or usage choice. As for £9k for that, they really must be having a laugh.
Pathetic isn't it?
I think that you will find that this thing DOES cost 50% more than a similar spec ICE car - the TATA or whatever it is called comes in at five thousand and something, for better range, speed and comfort than this thing. Most manufacturers have a base model that is cheaper than this, actually.
'complete with roll-bar' - are they kidding? The only chance of this rolling over is if it is molested by a much of kids.
The market for this really has to be tiny - the _average_ commute in the UK may be less than 30 miles, but that hides the fact that most of the short-distance commutes are not done by car. This car would hardly get me to work on a bad day, not least because it would be suicidal to take it on the shortest route, and highly anti-social to wander round minor roads at less than 40 mph during the rush hour.
Finally, hard to see the IT angle on this one - clearly nothing more complex than an abacus was used in the design of this, and Paris wouldn't be seen dogging in this.
According to my P11D speadsheet, there is a 5 door Hyundai Amica Atlantic 1.1 at £4829.99
Thats a _proper_ car (albeit a small one) that can carry 4 people and some luggage, can do 91mph, does 52mpg, insurance group 3, 5 year warranty, an amazing 342litre boot for its size, it has all the usual basic features you would expect from a car (electric windows, power steering, ABS, stereo system etc)
It has a 35 litre tank, giving a range of 404miles.
What costs more and causes more polution? 35 litres of fuel or charging a car for 90 hours to achieve the same on electricity (which will at least party be supplied from fossil fuel burning) ?
Oh and the Amica has a £5000 price benefit to get you started!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
