Ducati Monster Forum

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/the-short-strange-trip-of-nathan-abbott-a-cautionary-tale/ (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/the-short-strange-trip-of-nathan-abbott-a-cautionary-tale/)


i really like the idea of what he was doing.
if the range on fully electric cars and bikes was better i would have one.
hope he gets better quickly.

and while i'm not going to call for the girl's head on a platter, i will call for her license. at least for a little while. i'm sure she's all manner of distraught over the accident, but a moments inattention has horrible results sometimes.

Sucks. Hope he recovers fully, and soon.

until more facts come out, from what i read it sounds like the person passee the 18 wheeler and then hit someone from behind.

basically they didn't have the room to move in and they did anyway because they wanted to and didn't care. or they just moved over and never bothered to even look over their shoulder like they should have.

simple as that, its careless its reckless and you should lose your license for years for that. 

sorry but the word "accident" is way overused today, most "accidents" are easily avoided if people actually PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

i love how the article says "maybe it was that it was TOO QUIET" (see thread on LOUD PIPES)

It didn't say what speed he was traveling at the time and it doesn't excuse the person at fault by any stretch of the imagination (unless you're in insurance or a lawyer), but most interstates I know of have a minimum speed limit as well as a maximum.  Traveling outside both ends of the spectrum increases the risk of an accident.  You can tought the Energia as a "not a scooter, because it'll do 60mph!"  but as the article says that isn't practical when you actually want to go somewhere other than the corner store, because it sucks battery power.  I'm sorry, but he stuck his neck way out when he put that "scooter" on the freeway.  45mph on a freeway is asking to get run over in this day and age.

The "too quiet" argument doesn't hold, since I hear road noise more than anything else on the freeway when in a cage.  When was the last time you heard the engine noise from a standard car or light truck; never?

I thought it said he was going 60 mph?

Hope he recovers quickly. :-\

only thing i'm curious on, which is not really mentioned in the article, is whether or not it was dark at the time nathan was hit from behind. The enertia has such a small profile, especially from directly behind. I know there was a person on it, but this screams accident to me. i know all about the "there are no accidents" argument, but this certainly isn't something that someone intended to happen.

godspeed to him

I think the article said it was at about 7pm which would be decently dark. I bet the girl just didn't see him because the brammo is so small. There is no mention of what kind of gear he was wearing besides an expensive helmet. I've nearly gotten clobbered plenty of times riding at night which is why I try to avoid it.

Yep...I have an uncle who got a ticket for driving his VW bus to slowly on the freeway. I think it was irresposable to take a 60mph limit vehicle on a 70mph highway(most go 90mph on I5). But, sounds like the accident is still the cagers fault. I hope he gets well soon.

in europe the vehicle type sets their limit. but their are also minimum limits on roads. 60mph or 100kph is more than legal on a unlimited autobahn. this guy had every right to be on that road.

I don't think that the argument is whether or not he had the right to be there. It's whether or not it was smart for him to be there. Kinda like how pedestrians have the right of way but it's not smart to step off the curb in front of a car that you know is gonna cream you.

that argument basically means that every single one of us don't have the right to share the road with 4 wheel fully enclosed vehicles.

the guy said he didn't want to ride on the interstate and was trying to avoid it. that was a section that he felt he had to take.

sucks that his fears were realized.

i hated the article used the term "accident' that makes it like it was nobody's fault like the person couldn't have avoided hitting someone in any way whatsoever.

sorry vehicle collisions unless there is some sort of mechanical failure is not an accident.  most times its due to driver error plain and simple.  meaning people are at fault its not an "accident" it happened because people are stupid.

So if I ignore my bald tires and get a blowout and wreck, it's not my fault?

Correct, it is the fault of the tire manufacturer and the maker of the vehicle (if they are OEM tires).  [cheeky]

Reading the story gave me scary flashbacks to the last time I rode my first bike -- 120 miles on a Buell Blast on I-70 in rural Maryland. At night, in a torrential downpour. I probably checked my mirrors every 2.3 seconds or so.

I really admire his sense of adventure, his sense of whimsy, and that he started something without any certainty of success. It's gut wrenching to think that a driver's moment of inattention put an end to this adventure. I wish him a speedy recovery, and more adventures to come.

Agreed. It always sucks when a gamble doesn't pan out and it's worse when it's got such grave consequences.

its not an "accident" then is it if you ignore it? its your fault then.

we'll use the term "mechanical failure" broadly as in either the classical sense that was in good working condition but for no reason other than manufacturers defect broke.

the bald tire is not an accident as you mentioned, so it is your fault.

now if your tire blew out bc its bald and you kill someone that is not an accident its your fault.  however if your tire blows out and its still good and mounted correctly and you kill someone then that "might" be an accident if you did nothing else wrong.

They teach you in the MSF that you should be riding 5-8mph FASTER than whatever the current traffic is doing REGARDLESS of whatever the speed limit is to be safe. If the speed limit on the highway is 55 but yet 80% of the drivers are traveling at 65 and you plan to not only ride in the "slow lane" you better have a bike that not only can do 75 but can do 75 EASILY to allow for some emergency acceleration.

While I agree it was no "accident" as all collisions are the result of a series of events.  I can't assess blame as the article simply didn't give enough information.  

My take on it is the rig she was passing partially obscured him because it was tailgating him.  Small bike, obscured by big rig, dark time of day.  Make sense.  Article said she was doing 68 mph.  That is not fast at all on today's roads.

Don't get me wrong.  It was her responsibility to check for a vehicle before she got back in that lane.  Just that since the article didn't given enough information I can't assess blame. 

I don't recall being taught to go faster than traffic unless it was to get away from a certain situation.

Nope, it doesn't give his speed. It does say his best range was at 45mph, so I think there's a pretty good chance he was closer to that than the 68mph at which he was rear-ended.


Not in my class, they didn't. The emphasis when it came to speed was to obey posted limits. I seriously doubt MSF's administration would condone actively telling riders to exceed the speed limit  even if that might improve safety.

I don't think it's fair to blame this guy for getting rear-ended. When I'm driving my car, it's my responsibility not to rear-end anyone, including idiots.

However, my 150cc Vespa LX150 is supposed to go faster than his electric bike and there is no way in hell I'd ever consider going on an interstate for even a tiny rural stretch. I'm not particularly comfortable taking it for service on roads with posted speed limits of 50mph because we all know people will be driving 65 and that gives me no room to accelerate at all.

Not in my class either.

In my class and similar ones friends have taken at least in Chicago they recommend to go 5-8mph faster than what the other traffic is going regardless of what the limit is to reduce your chances of an accident do to riding too slow. I have many friends who are police officers too and they give bikes up to a 10mph leeway in most cases at least around here.

???I have to agree with the others, especially after flipping through MSF's books and not seeing anything about it.
I can believe that law enforcement might allow wiggle room though, but that can be said about cars as well.

I wouldn't expect to find speeding encouraged in MSF curriculum since this would be in conflict with the law. This does not mean individual instructors may give advice above and beyond what is in the curriculum.  Driving or riding at or below the speed limit on may highways is downright scary.

I never saw it mentioned in the article he had ever ridden a motorcycle before.


that in itself is foolish to:

a. purchase an electric bike that only goes 68mph
b. ride it across the country
c. be on an interstate.


No further comments from me. I think his idea was a bit foolish, but still did not deserve what happened.

a. purchase an electric bike that only goes 68mph   -  only interstates have speeds higher
b. ride it across the country   -   people ride bikes across country all the time
c. be on an interstate.  -   this one is tough. only in the states is this a real issue

]

The I5 is an interstate and the limit is 70 most of the way. Mostly big rigs and vacationers on it, and the occasional bike or sport car going 100+mph. That is a rough ride even in car. I've done it. No place for new riders. I wouldn't even think of it with my limited experience on a bike. Still no justifacation for the accident though.

Say what you say, great article with excellent writting.... Damn shame about the accident! I was very inspired and looking forward to seeing him reach his goal.

As far as 80% of the posts, even in the article the author posts quotes and excerpts from the guys online blog where he clearly is aware of the dangers and risks he is taking not only from the roadtrip but also from his choice of transportation vehicle.

Yet he still went for it not only as a personal challenge/adventure but also as a statement  of his beliefs and convictions and this to me is the essence of his journey,it's terrible uncle Murphy had to pull his usuals and it ended up like that, but like many have said this could have also happened in any other type of vehicle perhaps his condition would be better granted but the end result would have been the same (not completing his goal).

Best wishes and blessing for him and his family.

unrelated:

Note that the rider is charging his vehicle in the hotel/motel room.

I am going to go on and take eventual issue with this type of conduct and electric vehicles.

Cars/Bikes/etc take fuel for the engine to run. I purchase gasoline at a 'filling station'.

Electric vehicle take 'fuel' for the motor to run. This electricity is provided by a wall outlet. Somebody has to pay for this. Charging large batteries uses a large quantity of energy. This is paid for by the building tenant, such as a home owner for their private home energy use, or the hotel/motel in this situation. (We need not point at the silliness of 'green' claims related to electric vehicles since fossil fuels are being burned to heat water vapor to turn turbines to provide electricity, some of which is used to charge those batteries. That's robbing-peter-to-pay-paul argument might belong better in the E-15 thread, or elsewhere.)

The 'beef' here is that, as use like this increases, the cost is going to get passed along to the other hotel patrons. Perhaps ones that don't have an electric car or bike, for whatever reason. Here's to hoping the electric cars of the future require a different voltage or outlet so they can't just go around stealing power from others and have to legitimately pay for it the same way I have to pay for fuel for my motorcycle/car.

As soon as businesses see electric vehicles become more than a novelty they'll wise up and either prohibit charging or demand payment for use of thier outlets.  That of course could end up opening up a whole other can of liability worms, so yeah any notion of mass use of electric vehicles (or hydrogen vehicles for that matter) will have to jump the supporting infrastructure hurdle.

Lets follow that line of thinking in another direction.  If the production of fuel is held against the vehicle then add the production, and distribution, of gas to the tailpipe of gas powered cars.  After all critics of the electric car point out electricity doesn't grow on trees.  Well, where do you think gas comes from?  The use of fossil fuels is being held against the electric vehicle but the production cost, and distribution cost to truck it to filling stations, doesn't count against gas cars?

If fuel and vehicle are tied together you have to do it across the board.....

no, i already do 'do it across the board' with my gasoline vehicle. i don't like that people forget those costs when looking at "alternative fuel" vehicles.

electricity isn't free. There's is a cost. I sure as hell don't want to pay that cost for somebody else (unless, say, they want to equally fund my fuel consumption needs)

That's cool.  Most critics use that line of thinking then never apply it to gas cars.  I prefer to separate fuel from vehicle.  Because it's almost impossible to quantify the combined fuel/vehicle footprint.

 
I don't think you'll have to worry about cost.  By time electric vehicles are that popular infrastructure will be in place to take care of that.  Nobody wants to pay for their neighbors fuel comsumption.

I heard an interesting take on this situation recently, regarding fueling up.

Gas stations aren't fans of 'lectric cars, not because they don't provide electricity (they could) but because of the slow turn-around. Electric cars take a while to charge, unlike a quick gas fillup.

Enter fast food companies, like our friends at the McDonalds or perhaps a Sonic - who could offer the 'fill up' while you were eating, since you'll be sitting there for a bit anyhow.

Interesting change in marketing strategies would be on the horizon.

That's pretty amazing.  I hadn't even thought of that.  Because the one thing that would hamper switching to electric cars is the refuel time.  I don't mind 50 miles per charge.  It's having to sit for half an hour to do it that would suck.

I saw a documentary titled "Who Killed The Electric Car" about the Ford EV1.  It would seem the biggest, or one of the biggest factors at play, is simply the resistance to change.  A lot of which is based on who would stand to lose $$$ in the deal.

That's the GM EV1. There are new sources on the horizon for electricity. They are all ready burning switchgrass and sugar cane leftovers in Florida. In fact ALL coal burning powerplants could burn 80% biomass without any change to the equipment. That is the fact. But they are resistent to change because the power plants are directly tied to the coal industry. Something has to change more than just the vehicles. I agree, fossil fuel=fossil fuel...CURRENTLY. But coal is infinite, and things will inevidably change soon. It would be foolish to continue at our current rate of coal consumption and then have nothing at all 100 or so years from now.

Its interesting driving back roads in West TN when I go back home now. There's very little cotton, but there is lots of switchgrass

Say whatever you want about the Enertia, going 15000 miles on about $85 worth of electricity=mega efficiency. That $85 worth of electricity has to be much easier on the environment than 300 gallons of gasoline burned by a 50MPG vehicle. Plus the Enertia is manufactured largely from recycled materials, I can't find any way to criticize this vehicle as a great daily commuter.

Very cool vehicle indeed. With coal burning powerplants however, they are the largest producers of CO2 that we have. Followed closely by airplanes, big trucks and busses. We need cleaner ways to get electricity if the change is too be made. Very true that he made an amazing journey, unfortunately ending tragically. I still believe, however that the Enertia is unsuited for a highway like the I5.

...think its less of a priority now thanks to al gore's invention being the undoing of al gore's pet project.

 ;D LOL. Yea, I believe he invented the internet too. Funny...in 1998 a 20 year study on the on the use of algae for biofuel rolled accross the presidents desk and Gore has never mentioned it. I guess it became important to him once the "chad" count came in. :P

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf)

Al Gore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHCVyllnck#normal)

It is a good point, and I was curious, so I tried to get some idea of how much power is consumed during a recharge.  I am lazy, so I am going with cost:  Brammo claims a charge cost of about 35 cents for the four hour cycle.   According to this calculator (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html), that's like leaving the coffee maker in the room on for the same amount of time.

I have heard a lot about switchgrass lately - that seemed promising a few years ago, but ERoEI wasn't working out quite yet. Anything new on that front?  Cellulosic ethanol seems pretty promising, a lot of scientists seem to be a few years away from turning corn cobs into fuel.

You can't use current electricity rates as any indication of future savings.  13 cent power today may end up being 20 cent power tomorrow if a lot of people start using electric vehicles and that cost affects everything, so you're just redistributing fuel cost across everything else you purchase.  There is no magic bullet to solve future energy needs.

Sooo... $.50 for a recharge?  ;D  That's still about a 1/10th of what I pay to go 45 miles in my small truck.

Let's say we go to mostly electric vehicles.  The cost of fuel would have to increase more rapidly than the efficiencies gained by going to electric for fuel costs to impact consumer goods.  I think you are assuming we are either not paying for fuel costs now, or that once we go electric, the costs will skyrocket - in the latter case, I don't see much evidence to support that.

From what I understand the electric grid scales very well with demand.   Adding a bunch of electric cars doing overnight charges would mean the power suppliers would just keep producing at night -instead of shutting down the power plants that are more expensive (to them) to run- to meet the need.  What this would do to cost remains to be seen, but chances are cost would start to approach daytime rates, depending on how many cars are plugged in.

Bottom line:  it is super cheap to run this thing.  And while it is true that it does not run on nothing, and it does have a carbon footprint, I don't see much standing in the way of an electric vehicle future.

Bingo. And in fact power plants are more efficient when they run continuously rather than shutting down and starting back up.

Let's put some numbers on this shall we.

From Brammo's site it says a full recharge is 3.1 kWH and around 3 hours which gives us a total of 1.03kW usage or 0.001MW.

Let's say the average person would normally travel 7000 miles in a year (brammo uses 10k for thier cost savings analysis) and 80% of those miles would be within a round trip range of an Enertia, so that give us 5600miles traveled and with the 45 mile range one would need to recharge around 124 times a year.

So with 124 recharges a year and 0.001MW used during that recharge ONE person would add 0.129MW of demand to the grid in a year.

Now there're around 127 million commuters in the USA, so let's say just 1% run out to buy Enertia's which would give us 1.27 million people going green.

If you're following those 1.27 million people would add demand of 163 GigaW to the grid.

From EIA's numbers the estimated total yearly power generation capactiy in the USA is 2026.9 GW, so just 1% of the commuting population switching to an electric motorcycle would add an 8% demand on the electric grid.

Again from EIA the current plans are for adding around 20MW of capacity per year or 1/10th of 1% of current capacity

um yeah, not sustainable.

I get different results than you do.  Looking at energy first, then power:

According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/epa/epa.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/epa/epa.html) we generated 4,157 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of energy in 2007, but only 60.2% of that was electric utility plants i.e. 2502 billion kWh.  Using your assumptions, 124 recharges per year at 3.1kWh is 384.4kWh of energy per person (per year) times 1.27M people is about 0.488 billion kWh or a very, very tiny fraction of our annual generation, roughly 0.02%.

Looking at it from a power perspective, "Total net summer capacity in the United States as of December 31, 2007 was 995 gigawatts".  Assuming all 1.27M Brammisti from coast to coast plug in their bikes at the same time and assuming each one draws about a kilowatt we're looking at about 1.27GW which is enough to get you back to the future but still only a little more than 1% of the grid's power capacity.

Considering il d00d's point that a lot of the recharging would happen at night when demand is typically low it looks to me as if our grid has plenty of capacity.  I'm not sure what you mean by "sustainable" since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, but at least our infrastructure could handle the additional load.

haha


I remember studying a lot about the rates changing based on night use and how the plants (boilers) were ramped up and down according to load back in undergrad power-gen classes. Quite interesting in application here, however, its a pipe dream to think people will only charge their brammo and the like at night, or that ahem, some of us, will use considerably more electricity and have to charge more often because we are quite hamfisted and fun loving.

My math worked out a little different too :) That's millions and not thousands of gigawatt hours

From the EIA website:
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.jpg)

4,157 billion KWh, or 4.1 Million gigawatts.

Here is a pretty good paper which outlines this scenario, and includes the break-even numbers for buying a plug-in electric hybrid given different gas and electric prices.
http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf (http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf)

Nope. You're talking about gigawatts. Time travel requires jiggawatts.

You hit somebody from behind???you're at fault.

That sums it up.

d. do it on the evening of November 26th, the deadliest night of the year. [bang]

P.S. accident = unintentional. Even if it happens via negligence (mech. failure/bald tire blowout?), it can still be an accident.

wasn't the case when i got nailed from behind in my cadillac by some broad doing 60 in a 35 around a blind corner.
i had turned out from a stop sign, so naturally she had the right of way, even though there was no way i could see her, and if she had been doing the speed limit (which her stuck speedometer, 2 foot skid marks, and obliterated minivan had indicated that she factually was NOT upon impact) would not have come around the blind bend so fast as to spread my cars ass-parts all over the road. that was totally my fault...

make the beast with two backsing pregnant dog.