G-Wiz takes on Jeremy Clarkson
Recently, Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson wrote a rather scathing review of the G-Wiz electric vehicle sold in Europe and popular in London. Clarkson is not one to hold back his opinion, which we respect - even when we disagree, and hold back he did not. He hated the G-Wiz and cited its' lackluster safety when rammed head on into an immovable object. He also said it was slow and cramped, except he used more lively words to say it.
GoinGreen is the company which distributes the G-Wiz in London, and they have responded to Clarkson's review. I have copied the entire response past the break, if you are interested. They mention the fact that as a "quadricycle", the machine does not need to be tested by ramming it into large immovable objects, and that the machine has a stellar safety record. One might think that the low-speed of the vehicle would be a boon for its safety record.
The real question might be whether the quadricycle should be exempt from safety tests; and if not, what safety tests should it have to pass?
Related:
[Source: GoinGreen via Treehugger]
6 August 2007: Well, not exactly. Jeremy Clarkson once again attacked the "bunch of nitwits in charge of the greenhouse gas debate" in his Sunday Times review of the G-Wiz. JC is still trying to minimise the benefits of electric vehicles and criticise the G-Wiz in order to protect the status quo of polluting, energy guzzling vehicles, on behalf of his paymasters.
For a start, JC somewhat disingenuously reviewed the wrong G-Wiz. If he had approached GoinGreen for a test drive vehicle we would have pointed this out to him and provided him with the significantly improved G-Wiz ac drive that we launched over a year ago, instead of the dc drive model he refers to in his review.
Clarkson then questioned the safety of the low speed G-Wiz. The fact is that the G-Wiz is designed and used as a vehicle for congested urban roads. It has an exemplary safety record, with no reported serious injuries in over 20 million customer-driven miles, a record unmatched by most marques. He refered to a Euro NCAP crash test but failed to mention that 60% of the car models available in the UK do not show Euro NCAP ratings - a test designed for cars capable of high speeds and a test for which the G-Wiz as a quadricycle is neither designed for nor required to take.
Finally Clarkson again omitted to mention that although the G-Wiz can be charged using any kind of electricity (thereby reducing their emissions by 60% versus the average car), the vast majority of owners charge using electricity from renewable sources, thereby reducing not just emissions to zero, but total pollution to virtually zero as well.
Two inconvenient truths: cars that have engines and therefore use petrol / diesel are one of the primary causes of climate change; and speed kills. With the support of TFL and Westminster Council, GoinGreen is leading the way in improving health and safety for all Londoners, with the introduction of the first zero emission vehicle and big financial incentives to boot. The G-Wiz is one of the most popular and fastest growing vehicles in London, in spite of Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear's efforts to prevent this.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MyPart 4:20PM (8/11/2007)
OK, I even had to look this up but couldn't find the answer. Where are the pedals that you use to pedal this thing around?
If there are no pedals, how can this be a cycle-anything. If there are no pedals, I'm calling B.S. on this VEHICLES classification as a four wheeled bicycle.
In the U.S., I think this would be called a NEV or possibly and enclosed golf cart. Either way, the footage doesn't make it appear very safe and while it may not be fast itself, I'm guessing the cars that might be coming toward it occasionally are.
Buyer beware...
Reply
Chris M 5:41PM (8/11/2007)
Yes, it should meet safety standards - the safety standards appropriate to a low speed vehicle.
However, I get the uneasy feeling the G-Wiz might not meet even those reduced standards.
Reply
theotherdave 11:16PM (8/11/2007)
The top speed of the G-Whiz is irrelevant for the purposes of safety testing. What matters is the environment in which it the car is driven.
Even if the G-Whiz is banned from the motorway due to it's low top speed, there is still ample opportunity for another faster (and more importantly, heavier) vehicle to collide with it. The body of the G-Whiz needs to be able to cope with an appropriate level of kinetic energy.
IMO, the market for these cars is dubious. The Smart ForTwo gets nearly the same gas mileage while offering an appropriate level of protection for use on the public road.
Reply
Keith Wakeham 10:07AM (8/12/2007)
Quadracycle likely means not a 4 wheel bicycle but a 4 wheel motorcycle. Remember motorcycles don't have pedals either, be a little stupid to call it a motor-quadracycle, or 2 wheeler a bi-motor-cycle.
Either way their is something stupid here.
The car tops out at 45 mph and the ncap type test simulates two cars head on at 40mph. But if a regular car can go say 150 mph and it only is crash tested at the fraction of the speed why does the g-wiz have to do it at 40 and then get ridiculed for it. How fast do you drive an average car in a city - probably 30-45 mph. Who fast will you drive a g-wiz in a city - probably 30-45 mph.
Why can your gas engined car go close to 200km/hr even for a low end vehicle. Well small engines don't produce much power till high rpm, so when accelerating you need to hit 4000 rpm for casual acceleration, and more like 6000 or 7000 for closer to what is quoted. But the engine is very inefficient their, so when your cruising you want the engine in a more efficient area, around 2000 to 2500 rpm. So your in fifth gear at 2000 at 45mph and your red line is 9k, then top speed is limited by engine but was the car intened to be driven at 200mph
An emphatic NOOOO! So you crash the car at what ever speed it will normally go. If the G-wiz normally goes 40 then head on ncap is fine, if its normal speed is 20 then have to do some figuring because its on the road with other cars and what is likely to hit it, or it hit.
At the same time, ncap of 40mph front to front is not very sensible for say, a supercar, where people will keep trying to go faster and fasert.
Reply
SenatorPerry 6:09AM (8/13/2007)
They are saying it is safer than moped. Why is it okay that a vehicle with no walls or seat belts is not required to pass a crash test? What is it about having 4 wheels is inheriantly less safe than a moped?
Even hitting a small bird can be fatal on a moped, but at least the GWiz has a windscreen. Loose gravel put me down on my ped. My guess is that the extra 2 wheels would have fixed that.
Why is there a double standard?
Reply
GoodCheer 9:47AM (8/13/2007)
I think SenatorPerry is right. Small electric cars and NEVs will be on the roads with cars that can (and in some cases do) go 50 mph in the city. But the same is true of motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, and joggers. Should all of those things be required to have crash worthiness standards that will insure survivability on the roads?
Reply
GoodCheer 9:51AM (8/13/2007)
As Keith alluded, the suffix "-cycle" means "wheel". It has nothing to do with motive power.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cycle
Reply