Would you drive a G-Wiz?

Fresh debate about the G-Wiz electric car has kicked off. Last time I wrote about it on this blog, a fierce row ensued about its environmental benefits, which you can find here.  This time it’s not the green implications of nipping around in this small, low emission vehicle that are at stake but its safety. It has failed a Department for Transport crash test. For main story, see here. In its defence, GoinGreen, the company that imports and sells the cars, has said that there have been no reported deaths or serious injuries associated with the 2,000 vehicles on the roads in the UK and India.
Which seems a little odd, since the Government is making us feel as though anyone driving one might as well be going the wrong way around the M25. But the fact is these cars are designed to be driven slowly, in built-up areas. They only ever reach 45 mph, for goodness sake. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be aware that they are considerably less safe than, say, the latest range of BMW SUVs, but I know what I’d rather drive. As it happens, I wobble around town on two wheels, courtesy of a trusty mountain bike bought second hand in 1991. Along with all the motorbike and moped riders, I must be more far more at risk than G-Wiz drivers. Would you prefer to cocoon yourself in metal in a polluting vehicle that promises to protect you or sacrifice a degree of safety for a lighter environmental footprint?

Click here for Times Online's top ten other environmentally-friendly cars.

Comments

Typical green logic- perhaps history's largest genocide would also reduce our "carbon footprint." No more polluters

[Jim]

not so, whoever posted above. i agree with the eco-worrier. you do not buy a g-wiz because you think you'll be as safe as houses. you buy one to get around cheaply and cleanly in the city. they serve a purpose and i don't think they should be banned.

[Gordon]

You've all missed the point. The fact is the crash tests performed were done at 30mph. Which is not exactly fast, and the speed you'll probably be doing in the city, where you'll be driving.

And in the 30mph crash, in your G-Wiz, you'd be lucky to come out alive. And I don't want to think about what'd happen if you were rear-ended in one with your kids in the back...

[Andy]

As the blog correctly says, the G-Wiz has failed a Department for Transport (DfT) crash test. This is, however, a test which the DfT themselves will have advised Goingreen they didn’t need to pass.

You can’t tell someone they don’t need to pass, or indeed sit, a test, and then conduct it secretly anyway, publicly criticising them when they fail.

Unfortunately it’s Goingreen (the importers of the G-Wiz) and Reva (the manufacturers) who are left looking bad, despite following the regulations by the book. They’ve done everything the DfT and the European commission told them they had to do.

TopGear magazine and Stephen Ladyman MP are responsible for this electric car bashing. There are plenty of other cars classified as quadricycles (because they’re also less than 400Kg) that would fail the standard crash test for cars. Microcar have one that’s capable of 72mph but, presumably because it’s not battery electric, you don’t hear people kicking up a stink about how badly that would fare in a crash. Despite there being lots of petrol quadricycles they could have picked, the second car that the DfT will now crash test is also electric. This is despite there being far more petrol quadricycles on the road than electric ones. The slow motion videos will inevitably be played on national news programs, still images plastered all over the media with sensationalist wording. To me they aren’t interested in increasing driver/passenger safety, they’re simply trying to damage the reputation of electric cars.

[Keith Johnston, MD GoinGreen]

To clarify an important point here, the crash test performed by Top Gear was not the regulatory crash test (UNECE Regulation 94) for cars, which is neither required nor recommended under current legislation for quadricycles, but a higher speed (40 mph) frontal off-set crash test. If the G-Wiz was as dangerous a vehicle as some of the commentators are stating, it would not have a safety record of 20 million miles with no reported serious injuries. Safety is determined by many factors, not least driver attitude, the type of roads on which vehicles are driven and speed. The G-Wiz is designed and used as a low speed urban commuter vehicle, with an average actual speed of 10 mph in London. Appropriate safety tests have a role in assisting with consumer choice and over time in raising standards. This is a call for balanced, informed debate and an end to this hysteria.
Keith Johnston
Managing Director
GoinGreen

[Matthew Graybosch]

I'll take the extra armor, thank you, and let the planet be damned.

[P Watts]

It is not about bashing electric or other environmentally friendly cars, it is about informing people that there is a fundamnetal design flaw with the construction of the g wiz. It is perfectly possible to design a small, lightweight car that can perform well in a EuroNCAP test - see the Smart ForTwo and the PSA c1/107/aygo. And as for the argument that cars rarely average more than 10mph in london - they do go faster for short bursts and it would only take a g-wiz going fifteen miles an hour and a normal car doing 25 having a head on collision and the results are similar to that in the video.

[geoff]

" And as for the argument that cars rarely average more than 10mph in london - they do go faster for short bursts and it would only take a g-wiz going fifteen miles an hour and a normal car doing 25 having a head on collision and the results are similar to that in the video."

Absolutly - I second that!!! Its only common-sence! of course!

[Furat]

How many other cars get to their crash test at their top speed?

What would your car look like if it was driven into a wall going at 160 mph?

The vast majority of the detractors of the G-Wiz don't like it because it is easier to emulat etheir idol Clarkson than it is to think independently. They are the same people who repeat the myths about how slow traffic is in london. If traffic is so slow, the g-Wiz would never approach 40 mph, and probably would survive crashes at the lower speeds we see on inner-city streets.

Incidentally, low-speed, inner-city driving is exactly what these cars were designed for, and exactly where they are being driven.

This test, sponsored by a baised party is like testing out a submarine in the middle of the desert.

[Andy]

Writing “It’s only common sense of course!!” in agreement with a foolishly incorrect statement makes you look twice as daft as the person who originally wrote it.

If a G-Wiz (at 15mph) collided head-on with another car (travelling at 25mph) the results would NOT be similar to the video. You don’t add the speeds together. The energy is proportional to the SQUARE of the speeds. Hitting a fixed object at 40mph is similar to a head-on between two cars, both of which are travelling at 30mph. TopGear even state this in the G-Wiz crash test video, so clearly neither of you have even watched it.

Andy

[Jonathan]

I think we need a few facts here:

1. There actually have been two Reva G-Wiz's crash tested, one on request of the Australian department of transport (since we here lack Reva's).

The test results where estimated to be so bad that the English Department of transport made the Australians sign an agreement in the event that the (expensive) crash test dummies where totally destroyed.

2. The results where worse than anybody anticipated.

3. The Reva is NOT I repeat NOT a car. Its classed as a Quadra Cycle. And it only got registered by breaking the law (read: Illegal) in the UK since, a Quadracycle is meant to be under 400kg and the only way that Reva could sneak it in was take the batteries out for rego and put them in afterwards. Its like trying to register a normal car on dry weight with no fuel and oil in it....

Now Reva (and the importers) will deny this, but it is a fact.

4. People think all electric cars are good on the environment.....yeah O.K....(that opens a can of worms so I'll leave it at that!)

5. The Reva G-Wiz would be O.K if all the cars on the road where like it, but they are not. Saying they go at an AVERAGE of 10mp/h is a joke.

6. Problems with the Reva G-wiz, like seatbelt mounting points and the ridigity of the chassis mean that it really can't be modified to be safe. For example a upper seatbelt mount on a car (at least one sold in Australia) must able take a load of 90 G's. The engineering staff (both government and private) doubted the Reva G-Wiz would be able to do this without the B pillar collapsing. Infact most of the engineering people where horrified on how bad these things are.

7. And the fundamental problem. The Reva G-wiz looks like a car. People will expect it to act like a car. On a Quadracycle you accept the fact that you are out in the open with no protection and you have to wear a helmet.

I personally think the Reva G-Wiz should be taken off the roads in the UK in the interest of Public safety, But since I'm Australian it doesn't matter what I think....

It has been an on going saga to get the Reva G-Wiz into Australia and registered, but the cons outweighed the pros, and generated a lot of anti Reva G-Wiz dirt in the process. The worst thing however was the use of the media (by the importers) with their ignorance of people on matters like this (Automotive engineering etc) to try and create a public outcry (using the environmental movement) to get a fundamentally unsafe vehicle out on the roads.

I personally agree with the concept of the Electric car, but the Reva G-Wiz is an example of WHAT NOT TO DO. I belive the Reva G-Wiz has done far more harm to the electric car movement than good.

So please, kill the Reva G-Wiz off and get people to make a REAL electric car (like the th!nk)…..it’s a lost cause….

Oh and incase this post gets deleted in a attempt to sweep a good argument under the carpet, I think I'll email this to a few media people in the UK....

[Jonathan]

Oh and another comment, the idea that this crash test was done on the whim of the "Government wanting to take a good green product away from the people" is a joke. Comeon people. Grow up. It is not a big bad conspiracy theory….

The Minister, Steven Ladyman has a duty to police what new cars are allowed on the roads on the UK and if they are safe or not. He's just doing his job. I can't believe what people are saying about him over this. This is a disgrace. He didn't start all of this, if want to blame somebody, blame the Australian Department of transport, and then inturn a place here called the "Solar Shop" who has been constantly pushing over the last few years to get the Reva G-Wiz imported and complied in Australia.

I have seen quoted weights of the Reva at 700 odd Kg, which is in no way a quadra cycle.

The importers should be MADE to feel bad, since their car is fundamentally flawed. Sorry.

[Andy]

Jonathan, in section 2.3b of the following document it states the law with regard to quadricycle weight.

http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/Legislation/English/SubLeg/427/43.pdf

If, after reading the bit “not including the mass of the batteries”, you then reread your ‘fact’ 3 there’ll be no denying that you look like a goon.

I particularly like the way you wrote “Now Reva (and the importers) will deny this, but it is a fact.” You need to stop making stuff up in an attempt to win arguments.

[Jonathan]

So does that make every other point invalid?

Fair point anyway, thankyou for pointing that out for me. The proposed definition that was to be used here in Australia (which won't happen anymore after the crash results) was a hard 400kg limit. It seems the UK definition is different.

Sadly doesn't change anything since the fundamental idea of a Quadracycle is a light weight vehicle with low inertia in the case of a accident hence the lack of safety features.

I still believe the point still stands (well re-edited a bit thankyou!). I hope that the UK government removes that clause, so the Reva G-Wiz can be removed as a Quadra Cycle and complied as a real car. If not, all cars should be removed from their owners and crushed in the interest of public safety.

By the way I resent the personal attack, can you please stick to the matter at hand instead of attacking peoples credibility? I'm sorry its behaviour like this which make people loose faith in politicians with their constant bickering.....Just stating that I was wrong would have been enough.

[Andrew Harmsworth]

What about this as an alternative? The Smart EV: http://tinyurl.com/254vlt

Seeing as you can crash Smart cars at 50 mph and still get out alive, a Smart EV sounds like an excellent alternative to the G-Wiz.

If only you could buy one!

[Andy]

I’m sure Keith Johnston also resents the personal attack on his credibility. As the managing director of Goingreen (the importers of the G-Wiz) he’s ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. Since he’s already posted a comment further up the page it’s obvious that he’s aware of what’s being written here. Falsely proclaiming (as fact) that he and his company broke the law is, to me, a rather malicious attack on his personal integrity and professional credibility. As well as being recklessly libellous, it makes your last comment look a bit hypocritical.

But, if you resent the personal attack then I shall, in your own words, grow up.

You’ve asked “So does that make every other point invalid?”

No. 6 – Apparently, in Australia, the upper seatbelt mount must be able to take a specific load, but the engineering staff doubted that the G-Wiz was capable of doing this.
Is this the way the Australian Department for Transport conducts it’s research?
They didn’t actually get anyone to do the test, they just assumed that it would fail? You’d certainly be hard pressed to call that a fact. If that’s specifically one of the tests requested of the British DfT then it’s just a repeat of your comment No.1.

No. 4 doesn’t appear to be a point, and certainly isn’t a fact.

No.5 sounds like an argument that could be used for banning 4x4s and encouraging more people to buy G-Wizzes.

No.7 - People expecting it to act like a car because it looks like one is an education issue. Whilst this could be used in defence of Topgear’s behaviour it shouldn’t be used as a reason to crush the G-Wiz.

Are you suggesting that we ban all the quadricycles (which look like cars) that fail the standard car crash-test? Including all the ICE ones? (I don’t know how many there are in total in the UK but there are hundreds of thousands of these across Europe, and the decision will be made at the European level. Don’t forget that the G-Wiz isn’t the only vehicle in this category that looks ‘similar’ to a car).

[siani]

Way to go Andy, warrior for correct physics. :D

for myself, i can't see any logic at all in encouraging cycling while at the same time damning small vehicles like the G-Wiz on the grounds of safety. a bicyclist can reach similar speeds with no protection whatsoever. and there's a lot more to safety than crash test performance - it's far better not to HAVE the accident in the first place.

safety equipment like air bags and crumple zones unavoidably adds weight and reduces the possibility for efficient use of space in a vehicle. for myself, i'd far rather have the option of choosing to drive carefully, watch out for other drivers, and take the small risk of an utterly unavoidable accident leading to me being more seriously injured, if that'll save the planet.

but then, i drive a 2cv, so i would say that.