"e-Jeepney" - The electric powered jeepney

[uls]

^^

yehey! another cheerleader -->

what kind of forum would this be if everyone always agreed with each other? -->

someone always has take the other side of the bet

i'm the other side

From what I can see, nasa infancy pa lang ang program na yan.

not all babies make it to adulthood

[niky]

not all babies make it to adulthood

That's why you have nurseries.

-

The problem with government-sponsored programs... if government patience wears out or the money goes... what becomes of them?

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/...electric-cars/

Nonetheless the sixteen cars so far registered through the scheme since January 2010 represent a sixteen fold increase in electric car sales over 2009, when only one electric car was sold.

In total, the Spanish government planned to grant 80m euros worth of subsidies for those who buy by the end of next year – with the government funding 20 per cent of the purchase, up to 6,000 euros, on each car.

http://autonews.gasgoo.com/auto-news...ok-for-ev.html

The main reason for the continuous decline in BYD's share price is that its electric cars cannot achieve commercialization in a short term, said Cao He, an auto analyst with Mingzu Securities Co.

China released a plan to subsidize private purchases of electric cars in June this year. BYD's F3DM plug-in hybrid sedan and e6 electric car were both listed on the catalog as energy-efficient models to qualify for the government subsidies. Consumers can get the government subsidy of 50,000 yuan ($7,320) for buying an F3DM car and of 60,000 yuan for buying an e6 electric car.

Moreover, the local government of Shenzhen, a southern boom town of China, initialized a green-car subsidy pilot project in July to boost purchasing of new energy vehicles. The Shenzhen government added another 30,000 yuan and 60,000 yuan to the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and pure electric vehicle respectively.

Although motivated by the favorable governments' subsidies, BYD sales have been failing to achieve its expected goals. Reportedly, BYD started selling its F3DM cars to private consumers in March 29, but sales were disappointing with only 14 units sold in April, 2 units in May and 12 units in June, which is far short of its sales target of 1000 units for 2010.

Off-topic, yes... but I've been following electric/hybrid/alternative energy car news for the past few years, already. the only countries that have a healthy electric program are the US and Japan. Specifically because both have manufacturers building the things for global consumption... so they both have vested interests in making things easier for them.

And yet... there's increasing clamor against the Volt... given that so much subsidy money went into it and it's still too expensive for most buyers at $41,000 (what you'd expect to pay for a sports car, actually).

Again, the only way forward for electricity is backwards in terms of safety and weight requirements, to allow current motors and batteries to push the vehicles further on less charge and with less attendant battery weight. And consequently, less cost.

Because making modern electric vehicles, despite the advances in technology, is still too costly.

-

As this relates to the e-jeepney... a business viability plan should be in place to guard against the fickle winds of government support. Because politicians don't stay in power forever, but consumers do. ;)

[ghosthunter]

Well, right now, it looks like incomplete item pa ang e-jeep. I wouldn't say that it has changed our world, pero shame na lang on the detractor/s who complain against it without actually putting any effort into alternatives. Credit should be given at the very least to the people who are at least working for something they truly believe in.

Maybe you are giving too much credit to the people behind e-jeep simply because they are pushing a so-called "green" product?

Maybe some of the so-called detractors are pointing out the overlooked deficiencies and hidden pitfalls of the product and the product's nature?

Maybe some of the so-called detractors are also highlighting the missing information, data and operating cost analysis NOT provided by the product's promoters, sellers & PR agents?

Maybe the so-called detractors are actually working for the public's benefit to provide a more balanced viewpoint regarding this overhyped product and it's capabilities and hidden shortcomings?

From what I can see, nasa infancy pa lang ang program na yan. This is fighting political stubbornness with technological advancement. Sa ngayon, baby steps pa lang, pero pag improve ng technology, mananalo din yan over time.

For sure the technology is obvious NOT ready to go commercial, hence why push it at all? In the end, only the public will be paying for the failure of a product in where it's key technologies are not ready to go commercial because of certain technical limits, expensive costs or both.

Certain improvements are needed with the current e-jeeps:

-Must be able to run at 60-80 kph with full load
-Must be able to carry charge up to 150-200 km
-Batteries should last longer before replacement
-Better layout of seats for faster in/out

I can see these happening within 3-5 years. Actually, kahit na 10 years pa abutin nito, better na itong may effort kesa sa government na puro pangako. 10 years ko na din inaabangan ang proposed MRT sa Commonwealth, wala pang nangyayari.

When these advancements happen (Without too much added cost over current e-jeeps), magsisimula nang mamatay ang mga old Jeep sa manila.

Why wait ten years when many or all of those improvements can be done right now?

Of course it would greatly add to the cost of the product like a more powerful electric motor or dual motor configuration and higher capacity storage batteries, all of which the product's promoters do not want to do because it would limit their sales of a unique product in the local market. it would also make it harder to buy off-the-shelf golf-cart parts to assemble into ejeeps.

An add generated revenue system that will allow for free/subsidized rides will kill off the other jeeps. Just get 1/5 of the passengers, and the drivers lose 1/5 of their income. Gutom abot nila diyan. Mapipilitan din silang sumuko na sa luma nilang jeep. More and more e-jeeps can be added then. To be fair, dapat may trade in program din ang mga old jeepney drivers, perhaps with government incentive.

Nalalabuan nga ako actually sa ibang mga tao dito e. Are they expecting na magically mawawala ang mga old jeeps at mapapalitan ng hundreds of thousands of e-jeeps agad?

Obviously you fail to see that the ejeep is an incomplete product. Where do you recharge the batteries to keep the product "green"?

How would the drivers react when they find out that their daily maximum driving range gets roughly proportionally shorter and shorter the closer they get to the battery's maximum cycle life? Anyone with a cellphone with an old worn-out battery would know this first hand.

[romski123]

^^

yehey! another cheerleader -->

....while the cheerkillers remain the same....

[gunpla]

Maybe you are giving too much credit to the people behind e-jeep simply because they are pushing a so-called "green" product?

Maybe some of the so-called detractors are pointing out the overlooked deficiencies and hidden pitfalls of the product and the product's nature?

Maybe some of the so-called detractors are also highlighting the missing information, data and operating cost analysis NOT provided by the product's promoters, sellers & PR agents?

Maybe the so-called detractors are actually working for the public's benefit to provide a more balanced viewpoint regarding this overhyped product and it's capabilities and hidden shortcomings?

Uhhh... ok?...

For sure the technology is obvious NOT ready to go commercial, hence why push it at all? In the end, only the public will be paying for the failure of a product in where it's key technologies are not ready to go commercial because of certain technical limits, expensive costs or both.

You're jumping to conclusions. Of course, money is needed for RND, and everyone from commuters to drivers to traffic enforcers to LTO pencil pushers need to get used to newer vehicle systems.

Why wait ten years when many or all of those improvements can be done right now?

Of course it would greatly add to the cost of the product like a more powerful electric motor or dual motor configuration and higher capacity storage batteries, all of which the product's promoters do not want to do because it would limit their sales of a unique product in the local market. it would also make it harder to buy off-the-shelf golf-cart parts to assemble into ejeeps.

You answered your own question. For the rest of your statement, I don't understand why you imagine that the e-jeeps are made just by a corporation who want to profit? The push for these vehicles has been heavily supported by many NGOs. Siguro naman you'll spare Greenpeace and others of
"conspiring for profit". I'm sure more people will be happy if more manufacturers for e-jeepneys came into play. A single manufacturer can only handle so much output at a time.

Obviously you fail to see that the ejeep is an incomplete product. Where do you recharge the batteries to keep the product "green"?

How would the drivers react when they find out that their daily maximum driving range gets roughly proportionally shorter and shorter the closer they get to the battery's maximum cycle life? Anyone with a cellphone with an old worn-out battery would know this first hand.

Obviously, you failed to read my post.

Certain improvements are needed with the current e-jeeps:

-Must be able to run at 60-80 kph with full load
-Must be able to carry charge up to 150-200 km
-Batteries should last longer before replacement
-Better layout of seats for faster in/out

And, no I'm not saying the e-jeepneys right now are even close to being ready. What I'm saying is that it's a program that should use continually upgrading technology to shift the paradigms of the politicians, drivers, and commuters who involve themselves in public transportation.

As I've said, when the e-jeeps become functionally and economically equivalent to current jeeps, they will be a better option. Given time, the costs of manufacturing will go down, while technologies are also improved. It's like buying a cellphone back in 1990 compared to buying a cellphone in 2000.

Also, consider this. We have several laws that prohibit smoke belching. Now, do any of these laws actually do anything? Can the owners/operators of jeeps, buses, poorly maintained cars be bothered to clean up their engines or put some sort of filter? I never said anything about carbon emissions; I know perfectly well that it just gets shifted to power plants. But I am sure that keeping a dozen, or even a hundred power plants filtered and up to environmental standards is WAY EASIER and more POSSIBLE than asking all the jeepneys to stop belching smoke. I can't say much for global warming, but I do know I'll be able to walk around Manila like in Singapore if all the smoke belching jeeps disappeared.

And if you really think you're helping the public by informing them, I sincerely suggest that you write an article and have it published by a newspaper or an automotive magazine. It is true that more people should be made aware of these shortcomings, but I believe that instead of dismissing something for its flaws, one should instead push to have those flaws corrected.

Again, the program is still in its infancy, and I do believe you should also give it more time. Nobody knows yet where exactly this is going, but it's at least better than not doing anything at all.

[niky]

....while the cheerkillers remain the same....

:hysterical: Nice comeback.

[gunpla]

^^

yehey! another cheerleader -->

what kind of forum would this be if everyone always agreed with each other? -->

someone always has take the other side of the bet

i'm the other side



not all babies make it to adulthood

I am no cheerleader. Frankly, I'd rather have all the e-jeepneys produced from China and imported here at a lower cost. However, I do believe that our jeepney systems should be revamped. Consider these:

Metro Manila is a LARGE area.
Majority of public commuters live on the threshold of poverty.

In more efficient cities like HK or Singapore, people can take trains or buses and walk shorter distances. In manila however, we cannot simply replace jeep routes with buses. You know very well how awkward and congested our streets will be if buses also went through the smaller roads.

Forget about having a comprehensive train system. The metro is too large, and the trains will be too expensive for many to use. Our present trains are already in all sorts of problems because they undercharge. Compare these to the trains in HK or Singapore. Can you imagine paying 60 Pesos upwards for a train ride? The good and efficient train systems in Singapore cost around this range. I don't think our people will take too kindly to that.

We live in a third world country, and a third world solution is needed. If we cannot convince the stubborn masa and the politicians who are too afraid of the masa, then we must force change upon them by technological and economical competition.

I couldn't care less about whoever makes the e-jeeps though, as long as they are made right.

Frankly, I appreciate sir ghosthunter's replies more because he gave counter-arguments.

[romski123]

amen to that

[ghosthunter]

You're jumping to conclusions. Of course, money is needed for RND, and everyone from commuters to drivers to traffic enforcers to LTO pencil pushers need to get used to newer vehicle systems.

What R&D are you referring to? ... To oversimplify it, all they did was get an existing electric golf cart and placed a new chassis on top of it and named it "e-jeepney".

This is why the first units had dismal performance going uphills. It would be obvious to anyone with an engineering background that an electric motor that can propel four to six people uphill will NOT be sufficient to get ten to twelve up the same hill.

The e-jeep is just a matter of mix and matching off-the-shelf components to specific technical requirements and limits.

I'm sure more people will be happy if more manufacturers for e-jeepneys came into play. A single manufacturer can only handle so much output at a time.

Oh yeah, like two dozen units over the past few years is too much to handle by a single company.

Do you have the total number of e-jeeps sold since it's inception?

Obviously, you failed to read my post.

Certain improvements are needed with the current e-jeeps:

-Must be able to run at 60-80 kph with full load
-Must be able to carry charge up to 150-200 km
-Batteries should last longer before replacement
-Better layout of seats for faster in/out

Obviously you missed parts of my post that considered those. I also considered the potential skyrocketing of costs if better battery storage systems were used like lithium-ion batteries. I would have deemed that the current deep-cycle lead-acid batteries would be the best option (based on cost & availability) even it is flawed by weight and limited cycle life.

The alternative would be to introduce an electric-hybrid system that would supplement the on-board batteries when needed. The small engine can be fueled by LPG or other low cost clean burning fuel. The engine will not be connected to the transmission. It will used to run an electric generator. The engine/generator can be made into a removable module for quick servicing and/or replacement or simply to save weight when not required.

And, no I'm not saying the e-jeepneys right now are even close to being ready. What I'm saying is that it's a program that should use continually upgrading technology to shift the paradigms of the politicians, drivers, and commuters who involve themselves in public transportation.

If that is your point (a continually upgrading ejeep), what will be the selling point for the jeepney operators to buy them? Who wants to buy a product that is in a state of flux? Would you buy a car whose mechanical design is changing month on month?

If the ejeeps are not a ready product, then it should not be put to use yet until it can be deemed "ready".

Also, consider this. We have several laws that prohibit smoke belching. Now, do any of these laws actually do anything? Can the owners/operators of jeeps, buses, poorly maintained cars be bothered to clean up their engines or put some sort of filter? I never said anything about carbon emissions; I know perfectly well that it just gets shifted to power plants. But I am sure that keeping a dozen, or even a hundred power plants filtered and up to environmental standards is WAY EASIER and more POSSIBLE than asking all the jeepneys to stop belching smoke. I can't say much for global warming, but I do know I'll be able to walk around Manila like in Singapore if all the smoke belching jeeps disappeared.

If you want the air to be cleaner like in Singapore, it would help to have a cleaner diesel fuel to use. Anyone with a high tech diesel engined SUV or truck would know first hand how dirty nearly all of our diesel fuel being sold to us here.

Like in the saying, "garbage in, garbage out". If you burn dirty fuel in your engine, expect dirty smoke to come out the tail-pipe.

Basically the "clean air act" is a scam to tax motorists (using diesel powered vehicles) by making them pay whenever they inevitably blow smoke out of their tail-pipes.

And if you really think you're helping the public by informing them, I sincerely suggest that you write an article and have it published by a newspaper or an automotive magazine. It is true that more people should be made aware of these shortcomings, but I believe that instead of dismissing something for its flaws, one should instead push to have those flaws corrected.

It is not my product to correct. If they are truly concerned about their product and not profit, the company behind the e-jeep would have done it even before it was launched into the public's eyes.

Again, the program is still in its infancy, and I do believe you should also give it more time. Nobody knows yet where exactly this is going, but it's at least better than not doing anything at all.

True. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

But it would also be much better when there is less public misinformation about it as well.

[uls]

I am no cheerleader. Frankly, I'd rather have all the e-jeepneys produced from China and imported here at a lower cost. However, I do believe that our jeepney systems should be revamped. Consider these:

Metro Manila is a LARGE area.
Majority of public commuters live on the threshold of poverty.

In more efficient cities like HK or Singapore, people can take trains or buses and walk shorter distances. In manila however, we cannot simply replace jeep routes with buses. You know very well how awkward and congested our streets will be if buses also went through the smaller roads.

Forget about having a comprehensive train system. The metro is too large, and the trains will be too expensive for many to use. Our present trains are already in all sorts of problems because they undercharge. Compare these to the trains in HK or Singapore. Can you imagine paying 60 Pesos upwards for a train ride? The good and efficient train systems in Singapore cost around this range. I don't think our people will take too kindly to that.

We live in a third world country, and a third world solution is needed. If we cannot convince the stubborn masa and the politicians who are too afraid of the masa, then we must force change upon them by technological and economical competition.

I couldn't care less about whoever makes the e-jeeps though, as long as they are made right.

Frankly, I appreciate sir ghosthunter's replies more because he gave counter-arguments.

i'm not here to make counterarguments

i'm here to take a position

my position is on the other side of the cheerleaders' position

they are betting ejeepneys will replace diesel PUJs in Philippine cities and clean up the air in the process

i'm betting it won't

for now, nobody has been proven right yet

it's a long term bet

we'll see how this turns out in a few years

when diesel PUJs are finally replaced by ejeepneys, i will admit i was wrong