Tuesday, May 26, 2009 |
19:37 - By my count that's about 0.00000002 revolutions per minute
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece?token=nu
|
(top) |
One hardly expects an effusive review of a hybrid from Jeremy Clarkson, but this sure goes above and beyond:
However, as a result of all this, prices start at £15,490 — that’s £3,000 or so less than the cost of the Prius. But at least with the Toyota there is no indication that you’re driving a car with two motors. In the Insight you are constantly reminded, not only by the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket), but by the noise and the ride and the seats. And also by the hybrid system Honda has fitted.
. . .
I would not accuse Honda of telling porkies. That would be foolish. But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.
. . .
Since about 1917 the car industry has not had a technological revolution — unlike, say, the world of communications or film. There has never been a 3G moment at Peugeot nor a need to embrace DVD at Nissan. There has been no VHS/Betamax battle between Fiat and Renault.
Car makers, then, have had nearly a century to develop and hone the principles of suck, squeeze, bang, blow. And they have become very good at it.
But now comes the need to throw away the heart of the beast, the internal combustion engine, and start again.
Between this and the equivalent TTAC review, it seems safe to say that Honda has sacrificed its reputation on the altar of eco-consciousness every bit as much as Toyota has in its modern-era shunning of performance and motorsports and the like—only perhaps more so, because they didn't even follow their usual "Do what Toyota does only a little more expensive and a little better" MO.
And now Times Square has apparently been made off-limits to cars. Presumably through the reasoning that if you make driving in the city unbearable enough, nobody will do it, the sky will become bluer, and traffic problems will sort themselves out in due time. Not accounting, apparently, for the idea that people burning gas and braving potholes and fender-benders on their way through midtown Manhattan aren't doing it for the fun of it to begin with—they're doing it because they have to. Now they can't get business done, whether they want to or not. Way to go, guys.
If I didn't know better, I'd say we're well on our way to outlawing the greatest and most democratizing invention since negotiable currency. I guess we must figure that as long as we have the Internet, who needs cars?
|
|