A couple of questions

I'll be the first to chime in, I guess.

1) Depends on where you live. Here in California you need a motorcycle license to drive one, and insurance.

2) I'm sure your dealer can make arrangements to get the bike delivered. I live about 45 minutes outside of San Francisco, and the dealer there made arrangements the same day, and I actually drove home with the guy delivering the bike. Given the somewhat limited range of the Vectrix any dealer carrying the bike will also have places they work with that will deliver the bikes. There may be a small fee for delivery, but the delivery fee shouldn't run that much.

3) I'm of the opinion that it's worth buying now. And fairly quickly if you can. Vectrix has lowered the price of last year's model, and I think they're selling fairly well now. It's quite possible that they'll raise the price in the near future.

Longer term there are other companies that claim they're close to having models ready to sell. We're still early adopters of this technology, and as all early adopters do, we're paying a bit of a price premium. As other companies start actually producing bikes and as the technology becomes more pervasive there should be a price drop. That's probably measured more in years than in months, which is why I'd say buy now, and buy soon to take advantage of the lower price on last year's model.

Personally, I also like the idea that the Vectrix was designed from the ground up as an EV. As I understand it the bike EVT is supposed to be working on is an existing frame that they're putting an electric motor on. Looks nice on their web site, I just think there are going to be some advantages to the Vectrix since it was designed from the ground up with this technology in mind.

Just my 2-cents.

-Ron

I also agree on no.3. That's one of the reasons I'm buying it now.

1. The price of the fossil fuel will only go up. The price difference of the fuel against electricity will cover my monthly payment for the bike.
2. I was always a biker. My last bike was Yamaha R6, but I had to sell it when I bought a flat. I have payed off the loan for the flat now and I can go back to biking.
3. I always loved tech stuff :-) and I like trying new things.
4. I always loved electricity and I hate being dependent on the foreign oil and pay a lot of money from my wage to someone outside my country.

Back to no.1. When the oil will get so expensive, that the masses of people will transfer to electricity transportation, the price of the electric wehicles will only go up. Supply and demand ;-)

This is an ideal chance to get a Vectrix. Get one while you can. I'm sure the dealer can arrange the transportation for you. My dealer from Verona (350km away) will arrange transportation to my address and it will cost me 170EUR. I'm sure you can get a reasonable price for a transport.

My initial reaction was to be cautious and NOT purchase, but the positive posts from owners, along with Vectrix's exemplary customer care in providing a home visit and loaner should the bike need warranty work heavy swayed me. The clincher was the way petrol prices went through the roof - there was little point being a hold, out and months after the original purchase, I'm still delighted I overcame my natural caution.

If i may ask how much do you pay per month for your bike? The reason i ask is i dont have enough for the vectrix yet, which goes to number three saying if i should buy it or not because if i should i could always get a loan or something.

I think you're referring to me. I no longer have the loan for the flat I bought. That's why I can allow myself a bike again :-)

But, I will be getting a loan for the Vectrix from the Eco-Fund my country has set-up. But only because interest rate is 3.9% fixed for 10 years. That means, that if the current inflation of 6+% continues, the inflation will eat up 1/3 of the loan in 10 years. If the inflation goes below 3.9% (the loan benefits go against me), I have enough money to make a complete payment of the loan in an instant.

Also, my monthly payment will be 65 EUR (= 100US$), which is almost an amount I pay for the gasoline per month. I calculated, that in one month I should spend aprox. 60kWh for the Vectrix = 5 EUR.

So... the loan will pay itself :D and I get to get bike.... and a nice looking one too. Win - win situation all around.

Just to throw a penny into the pot...

I am also thinking the price will go up for the 2009 equivalent model. As prices for fuel rise, demand for EVs will rise and Vectrix has already said that the Lithium battery is going to cost more. I expect the same woud be true for a fuel cell version.

If you can afford it, now would be a good time to buy. Waiting is not necessarily a bad thing if you have to. The new models may have some good updates worth paying for.

Washington state requires a motorcycle endorsement. I'm a strong proponent of getting motorcycle safety training. It can save your life. In the USA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation organizes safety training courses. http://msf-usa.org/

Insurance for my Vectrix runs me a bit over $200/yr. That's with a discount for having my home and car insured with the same company.

The Vectrix is a well-designed machine. Mr. Mik and a few others on the forum have had some problems, but the design and engineering that went into the Vectrix is of good quality.

The use of Li-ion batteries in future models will increase the useful range, but the NiMH battery technology is well-proven for EVs and their expected lifetime is longer than most Li-ion battery chemistries currently on the market. I don't believe that Vectrix has said which particular Li-ion chemistry they'll be using.

An additional point that I'll make is that Vectrix is under pressure to bring their production costs down. To do that, they may have to sacrifice some product quality of future production units. I'm not saying that will happen for sure, but it's a concern that I have.

Agreed. LiFePo chemistry is the most probable battery. But:

LiFePo has only 20% more energy density over NiMH, but it's going to cost more.

AndY, Cobalt would be soooo nice ;)

Andy,

I think the figure on cobalt li-ion is a tad optimistic, most are around 120-140 Wh/kg. Also the NiMH is a bit high, they use to say it's around 80 Wh/kg. The Vectrix battery pack is nominal 3.75 kWh, and weighs 80-90 kg. (Many different figures have been quoted, I even saw 92 kg recently.) That must include packaging and wiring, possibly also fans and air ducts. What will be limiting is also the volume, I doubt it will be possible to squeeze in 80 kg of li-ion. Perhaps 7 kWh nominal is within reach, and with li-ion's better discharge curve.

The nominal figure for the Vectrix pack also seems underrated because they say it's 30 Ah at 125 V, but in reality voltage is between 130 and 140 V.

In the end, it's all about the achieved mileage. My 2007 Vectrix gets 45+ miles on a charge at low local speed (<35mph) and about 30-32 miles on a charge when mainly driven at highway speed (>55mph).

If the new Lithium pack let's me get 55 miles/charge at highway speed, I'll buy it (upgrade). If it only improves the range to 40 miles or so it's not worth it.

MattFish

I agree with MattFish. For me to buy the lithium battery Vectrix at $10,000+, I think 60 miles of reliable range is a key threshold. I want 60 miles of range with a good portion of it at high speed on the highway.

If I go on the highway at 63 mph for part of my trip now, then my range is around 30 miles.
If I am just moving around locally with my speed mostly between 30 mph to 50 mph, then I am getting 40 miles.

I have not had a chance to do a full discharge at 25 mph to see my max range. I am not sure I have that much patience. :-)

I am also thinking the price will go up for the 2009 equivalent model. As prices for fuel rise, demand for EVs will rise and Vectrix has already said that the Lithium battery is going to cost more.

There is a lot of uncertainty, if some of the new battery startups (Altair nano for example) can start production the price may go down. Cobalt is super expensive and more rare than oil. Since just about everything people dig up from the ground has become more expensive lately it's hard to imagine lithium cobalt (or any lithium battery that contains some % cobalt) ever becoming cheaper. Sodium Sulfur batteries might become popular, as far as I know they don't use any rare materials. I think some Nordic EV manufacturer is building their cars with that option. The future is harder than ever to predict. Energy prices keep going up, but society hasn't done much to prepare for that. It's scary to watch because what is clear is the longer society waits to build new infrastructure, the more expensive raw materials and transportation costs will be.

I know this is a little off topic, please excuse this tangent from someone who studied economics in college:

It's hard to figure out what infrastructure to build, because you have to anticipate future technology. If we buy big solar arrays, in a couple years, the new technologies could be half as expensive. If we build high speed trains, they might run empty since fuel from algae, cellulose and liquefied coal is able to power the existing trucks cars and airplanes. Therefore what the government shouldn't do is subsidize one form of alternative energy and not another. Just look what a disaster subsidizing corn ethanol has been. Instead they should phase in a gas tax of $5 a gallon. This is a matter of national security, and is sure to reduce national consumption. It doesn't need to be a new tax, they can decrease the income tax to offset the new tax. The competitive markets will do their thing and the best technologies will win. Government also has to end subsidies to current specific alternative energies and as policy not favor one technology over another. That government intervention keeps private investors from funding non-subsidized (possibly more economical) energies, or keeps them from investing while they wait for news on what the government WILL subsidize. McCain's idea (probably not his), to offer a large cash reward to the inventor of a great EV battery isn't too bad as long as the recipe for it doesn't get patented. I just said government shouldn't sponsor one technology over another, but if they do, this is the least bad of methods. It's broad enough that some market competition will occur. It should be noted that the American economy in it's early days could only grow after they violated some of England's patents.

source http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gaspriceseb1.jpg

The competitive markets will do their thing and the best technologies will win. Government also has to end subsidies to current specific alternative energies and as policy not favor one technology over another. That government intervention keeps private investors from funding non-subsidized (possibly more economical) energies, or keeps them from investing while they wait for news on what the government WILL subsidize.

It's not only about economy. The argument if fatally flawed.

There could be a number of very economical energy sources that will lead to collapse of human civilization and long term damage if used unrestricted. Oil is just one of them.

The emissions and other effects on the environment need to be taken into account although they do not immediately cost the producer or consumer. They cost everyone.

Mr. Mik

I agree with you 100% Mr. Mik. It's not only about economy, thanks for pointing that out. There is a social aspect to it too that I didn't mention. Government should absolutely protect natural resources from exploitation, leave something for the grandchildren and ensure the balance of the ecosystem doesn't get thrown off. The oil crisis, global warming, and pollution are examples of market failures to name a few. Short term profits were more tantalizing then the long term ones. Something should be done about that. Markets are notorious for picking short term gains over long term.

That said, government should also set pollution limits, natural resource utilization limits and set them into law, so the markets will have a stable framework in which to function that doesn't lead to our Collapse (good book by Jared Diamond). I should have included that in my last post. The point I was trying to make was instead of having a group of central planners in the government decide which technologies get funded, we could have the markets solve it.

If a company makes a product that is inferior to another company it will fail in a competition unless it's being subsidized by the government. In this situation the better (in the mind of the consumer) technology could be forced out of the market. In otherwords If a central planner picks a technology that's inferior, it may succeed in becoming mainstream because of subsidies, but could be much more wasteful on resources. To relate this to the real world, subsidies are the reason eating a big mac is cheaper than the salad. Subsidies distort the price and thus shut out competition limiting our choices as consumers. The state our government is in, with one scandal after another, I'd rather take my chances with the markets creating the best energy solutions while government makes hastens the conditions for its creation. I argue against having the solutions put in the hands of the ruling elite and their friends.

There is no doubt, government control of natural resources is not a way to prevent their exploitation. Chavez in Venezuela sells their oil to his citizens for dirt cheap to gain popularity. The Saudi government drains away the country's material wealth in return for paper dollars and euros. The moral of the story is if you want to stop exploitation, it has to be from the bottom up, not the top down.

Competition forces productivity, efficiency and innovation. Stress is the price society has to pay for this. Competition can play an important role in conserving natural resources. Central planners aren't forced to continuously be better then the competition. Having lived in Russia, I can vouch for how wasteful and un-innovative centrally planned economy was. I didn't for one minute think people in the West are more moral or smarter than the Soviets, it was just that capitalist systems were more efficient at utilizing resources and demanding innovation, they were not forced to keep their costs per unit lower then the competition.

I acknowledge it's not so cut and dry. In theory a government controlled industry (or any monopoly) can be more efficient, because you don't have the inherent waste of overlapping overhead. There are some notable exceptions where the costs are greater then efficiency gains from competition (like insurance and many service sector jobs), or when a monopoly keeps its prices low to act as a barrier to entry out of fear competition will enter the market (Japanese steel (maybe)).

Yet for some reason, every time inflation and unemployment rise, the people demand government nationalize the private industries. This usually (not always) creates new imbalances.

Comon guys, I typed all that and no response for three months?? :(

*takes out old trusty fire poker*

How about this question? Does the free market corrode moral character - thus a sustainable lifestyle isn't being achieved?

This is a topic for another forum .

None of this is sustainable