G-Whiz Accident

[Caulkhead]

900T-R said:

otolith said:

The manufacturers estimate the CO2 output via the power station at 63g/km* using the national energy mix. You can get four NCAP starred cars with outputs of 85g/km. Worth it for 22g/km difference? I wonder what the cars would get if they were allowed to be as flimsy as the electric deathtrap?

Not completely comparable. Unsusprisingly well-to-wheel CO2 emissions consist of well-to-tank emissions and tank-to-wheel emissions. The tank-to-wheel emissions of an EV are 0 - all the emitting is being done in electricity generation and distribution (losses). However, the well-to-tank emissions for an ICE are not 0 as the oil has to be dregged up, transported, refined and then transported again to the fuel station.

So the equation would be like -

EV well-to-tank 63 g/km, tank-to-wheels 0 g/km, total 63 g/km
ICE well-to-tank 20 g/km, tank-to-wheels 85 g/km, total 105 g/km

Though of course with the 'current' poor state of recharging availability, you could include the necessary detours needed to find recharging points and/or negate the range limitations and conlcude the actual total for an EV could be anywhere between 63g/km up and 250g/km depending on the circumstances compared to the ICE which can fill-up pretty much anywhere and run for 500 miles before repeating.

[900T-R]

Granted, but if we're comparing actual fuel usage/CO2 emissions with the NEDC labaratory conditions figures, we're fked anyway.

[PoleDriver]

Well two things will come out of this;-
1) If you really must get a G-Whiz, there's going to be a lot of second-hand ones going cheap!
2) It's a pretty efficient way of seeing off the environmentalists!

[otolith]

900T-R said:

otolith said:

The manufacturers estimate the CO2 output via the power station at 63g/km* using the national energy mix. You can get four NCAP starred cars with outputs of 85g/km. Worth it for 22g/km difference? I wonder what the cars would get if they were allowed to be as flimsy as the electric deathtrap?

Not completely comparable. Unsusprisingly well-to-wheel CO2 emissions consist of well-to-tank emissions and tank-to-wheel emissions. The tank-to-wheel emissions of an EV are 0 - all the emitting is being done in electricity generation and distribution (losses). However, the well-to-tank emissions for an ICE are not 0 as the oil has to be dregged up, transported, refined and then transported again to the fuel station.

So the equation would be like -

EV well-to-tank 63 g/km, tank-to-wheels 0 g/km, total 63 g/km
ICE well-to-tank 20 g/km, tank-to-wheels 85 g/km, total 105 g/km

Are the figures given for UK carbon intensity of domestic electricity well-to-plug figures, or are they generation-to-plug?

[thinfourth2]

KaraK said:

People who ride bikes and quads and drive things like Edd China's sofa are taking on an immediately apparant set of risks and for the most part their vulnerability should be immediately apparant to other road users as well (although we still have to have the Think Bike campaigns etc to educate the thick). Now there is nothing wrong with that at all, risk can be fun - it's certainly one of the factors that makes me enjoy things like snowboarding.
They are also inherant to the context/purpose for which the vehicle is designed and built - this is not the case with the G-Whiz - I seriously doubt any adrenaline junkies are buying them. The G-Whiz is designed and built as a car for "routine use" not as a quad or a motorbike or as a novelty motorised vehicle, and that's the manufacturer's choice of words not mine. They present it as a car and to most lay-people (and probably the vast majority of their sales demographic) it to all intents and purposes is a car and they would expect it to meet basic car safety standards. Which it doesn't!

The poor safety of the G-Whiz isn't even inherent to it's application, there are plenty of small and economical city cars both electric and non-electric that do the same job without having to wiggle through the regs.

So if the danger of the g-wizz isn't apparent why do we know about it.? Its apparent to anyone who has seen one its a deathtrap.

As to marketing of bikes I don't remember Honda marketing the fire blade with the tag line "Give your organs to someone you'v never met"

If legislation is brought in to remove the g-wizz from the roads I can guarantee that they will come after kitcars next closely followed by anything without an airbag.

So I throughly defend the right of G-wizz owners to be splatted

Edited by thinfourth2 on Thursday 1st September 15:30

[900T-R]

Good question. I don't know for sure, but now that you've posed the question I suspect the NEDC figures will be based on generation to plug...

[roachcoach]

thinfourth2 said:

So if the danger of the g-wizz isn't apparent why do we know about it.? Its apparent to anyone who has seen one its a deathtrap.

Errm, you're seriously asking that on pistonheads? Its the general public who won't be aware or take extra care. Even the manufacturer claims it is safe.

Edit: And the bikes are sold as bikes - this is sold a CAR.


ETA: Would love to see a crash test head on with a smart car. Or with a caterham.

Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 1st September 15:40

[900T-R]

roachcoach said:

ETA: Would love to see a crash test head on with a smart car. Or with a caterham.

A Caterham will probably go right through it (at least the Skoda distributed its impact force on a significant frontal aspect), a TVR will probably set it on fire while going right through it.

[roachcoach]

900T-R said:

roachcoach said:

ETA: Would love to see a crash test head on with a smart car. Or with a caterham.

A Caterham will probably go right through it (at least the Skoda distributed its impact force on a significant frontal aspect), a TVR will probably set it on fire while going right through it.

I'd pay money to see it, I really would.

I'd offer extra to see a linebacker charge one too.

[thinfourth2]

roachcoach said:

thinfourth2 said:

So if the danger of the g-wizz isn't apparent why do we know about it.? Its apparent to anyone who has seen one its a deathtrap.

Errm, you're seriously asking that on pistonheads? Its the general public who won't be aware or take extra care. Even the manufacturer claims it is safe.

Edit: And the bikes are sold as bikes - this is sold a CAR.


ETA: Would love to see a crash test head on with a smart car. Or with a caterham.

Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 1st September 15:40

So you want to save hippies from being splatted while increasing the likelyhood of kitcars etc being banned on similar grounds

I defend the right of hippies to get splatted

[roachcoach]

A middle ground would be easy - make quads require a crash helmet if capable of over X mph.

[KaraK]

thinfourth2 said:

KaraK said:

People who ride bikes and quads and drive things like Edd China's sofa are taking on an immediately apparant set of risks and for the most part their vulnerability should be immediately apparant to other road users as well (although we still have to have the Think Bike campaigns etc to educate the thick). Now there is nothing wrong with that at all, risk can be fun - it's certainly one of the factors that makes me enjoy things like snowboarding.
They are also inherant to the context/purpose for which the vehicle is designed and built - this is not the case with the G-Whiz - I seriously doubt any adrenaline junkies are buying them. The G-Whiz is designed and built as a car for "routine use" not as a quad or a motorbike or as a novelty motorised vehicle, and that's the manufacturer's choice of words not mine. They present it as a car and to most lay-people (and probably the vast majority of their sales demographic) it to all intents and purposes is a car and they would expect it to meet basic car safety standards. Which it doesn't!

The poor safety of the G-Wiz isn't even inherent to it's application, there are plenty of small and economical city cars both electric and non-electric that do the same job without having to wiggle through the regs.

So if the danger of the g-wizz isn't apparent why do we know about it.? Its apparent to anyone who has seen one its a deathtrap.

As to marketing of bikes I don't remember Honda marketing the fire blade with the tag line "Give your organs to someone you'v never met"

If legislation is brought in to remove the g-wizz from the roads I can guarantee that they will come after kitcars next closely followed by anything without an airbag.

So I throughly defend the right of G-wizz owners to be splatted

Edited by thinfourth2 on Thursday 1st September 15:30

With all due respect those of us on a car forum are perhaps not the most representitive sample as to whether people know about the dangerous aspects of the G-Wiz.

The current marketing material I've seen for the Fireblade talks about the speed and performance, of course they don't mention the potential organ donor aspect but neither do they big up the safety either. Reva however do - but don't take my word for it look at their websites yourself.

http://www.revaindia.com/faqs.html

http://www.petrolfreeworld.com/

It's worth mentioning that the site for the UK distributer ( http://www.goingreen.co.uk) is far more open about the safety issues and does mention that the safety measures were improved as a result. The revised spec has even undergone a form of crash testing - I don't know what this looks like as the link on goingreen's site is broken but from the description it would still appear to be nothing substantial as it's only a frontal impact and still only at 25mph It would actually be interesting to know if the vehicle driven by the woman in the article had the revised safety package, the photos I've seen don't have a visible reg plate so can't tell the age of the G-wiz in question.

If the improvements are sufficent then I'd happily amend my "ban the G-Wiz" statement to "ban the Mk1 G-Wiz" but my gut tells me that this probably isn't the case

As for the talk of escalating bans I fail to see why banning one specific model of car with a proven poor safety record - especially compared with other products in it's market segment should lead to any legislative creep.
At the end of the day kit cars like Caterhams and "pure" sports cars like TVRs already meet a significantly higher standard of crash testing then the G-wiz does so it's a hell of a leap to suggest that they will get banned next if measures against misuse of the quadricycle loophole are taken.

IIRC there was talk back in '07 of making the requirements for quadricyles more stringent purely as a response to the fact the G-Wiz is classified as one but used as a car and I don't recall there being even the slightest mention of the measures going any further than that even by the most rabid of anti-car press.

[Fort Jefferson]

thinfourth2 said:

As to marketing of bikes, I don't remember Honda marketing the fire blade with the tag line "Give your organs to someone you've never met"

Quote of the year.

[galro]

How about classic cars then? Should they be allowed on the roads?

[supersingle]

Long live the G-Wiz!

I feel sorry for this lady but she's the victim of her own inattention. Frankly, I'd rather her sort drove around in electric quadricycles than Range Rovers. They're much less danger to the rest of us.

I can't understand the BAN IT sentiment on here. I never knew there were so many hand-wringers on PH. 'tis a crying shame.

[thinfourth2]

galro said:

How about classic cars then? Should they be allowed on the roads?

Oh they should be banned for sure no airbags and no crash testing

Anything that isn't a VW golf in resale grey should be banned

[roachcoach]

Don't need to ban it, just need to boot the makers square in the balls for crap like this:

Cloud cookoo land said:

*Neither the Euro NCAP test nor the 31 mph Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test are required or recommended under the European regulation for quadricycles. Both tests are designed for M1 vehicles, primarily cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph and not low speed urban vehicles.

• Like all vehicle manufacturers RECC is however constantly reviewing safety features and innovation relative to usage and the G-Wiz I is crash tested at 25 mph, reflecting its low speed usage.

Yes, I can see how a vehicle capable of 50mph, should NEVER contemplate a test of a 31mph crash. Likewise, don't really reflective of it being hit, is it? iirc the police on the scene couldnt even tell how fast the octavia was going, so comprehensively the g-wiz was destroyed.

They're also still claiming no serious injuries. Perhaps death doesn't count?


Seriously, OTT safety always has been and will be a selling point - these clowns are going out of their way to explain why it doesn't have safety features and why that's just fine.


Again, it's the perception of what you're sat in, to a layperson. Bet if you forced them to wear crash helmets they'd think again.



Aw hell, the transport assessors didn't even put the expensive dummies in it, they knew before it hit the wall it would be wrecked.

Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 1st September 18:45

[Perra]

roachcoach said:

Don't need to ban it, just need to boot the makers square in the balls for crap like this:

Cloud cookoo land said:

*Neither the Euro NCAP test nor the 31 mph Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test are required or recommended under the European regulation for quadricycles. Both tests are designed for M1 vehicles, primarily cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph and not low speed urban vehicles.

• Like all vehicle manufacturers RECC is however constantly reviewing safety features and innovation relative to usage and the G-Wiz I is crash tested at 25 mph, reflecting its low speed usage.

Yes, I can see how a vehicle capable of 50mph, should NEVER contemplate a test of a 31mph crash.

They're also still claiming no serious injuries. Perhaps death doesn't count?


Seriously, OTT safety always has been and will be a selling point - these clowns are going out of their way to explain why it doesn't have safety features and why that's just fine.


Again, it's the perception of what you're sat in, to a layperson. Bet if you forced them to wear crash helmets they'd think again.

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They should just be asked to watch this before purchase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE

It's all about having knees for crumple zones lads!

[galro]

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They do?

[turbobloke]

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They should just be asked to watch this before purchase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE

It's all about having knees for crumple zones lads!

Frightening stuff.

Very revealing once you get past the typical Top Gear naff editing at the start, cutting to a different vantage point so rapidly you can't see what's happening, presumably for those with attention spans to match. After about 30s in the views are devastating for a simulation of two cars crashing at 30mph.