Clarkson Trashes G-Wiz - G-Wiz Fights Back
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 08.10.07
“And now let us move on to what happens when you let a bunch of nitwits take charge of the greenhouse gas debate. The G-Wiz.”
We think it would be fair to say that Jeremy Clarkson, Britain’s most prominent motoring journalist, doesn’t like the increasingly popular all-electric G-Wiz. But then Clarkson isn’t known for his environmental sensibilities – he was recently in trouble for leaving huge track marks across the Makgadikgadi salt pans in Botswana after driving various off-road vehicles across it whilst filming a TV show, apparently causing damage that is expected to last for decades.
Apparently back from his ‘ecotourism’ escapades, Clarkson decided to road test the G-Wiz for the Times Newspaper. His review was, unsurprisingly, less than complimentary. After a protracted rant about why science isn’t taught properly in schools any more, Jeremy goes on to pick the little EV apart, piece by piece. His main complaint being the size and speed of the thing:
“First things first. It is very small. And it is even smaller than that when you’re inside. It is so small in fact that anyone over the age of four will find their left knee is jammed behind the windscreen washer switch, causing to it spray the windscreen constantly as you drive along. Actually, that’s not true. You will only spray the windscreen until you get to a right-hand bend which, no matter how slowly you go, and believe me the G-Wiz goes very slowly indeed, will cause you to slide right across the car until you are sitting in the passenger seat. In many ways this is better. Because while you can still easily reach and operate all the controls, other road users will assume you’re the passenger, and therefore that the stupid little car is not yours.”
From our perspective, the speed of the G-Wiz is hardly an issue, given that it is intended solely as an urban runaround, and wouldn’t last five seconds on the motorway anyway. Similarly, we suspect that the size is actually a bonus for many of the growing legion of G-Wiz drivers who need to find a place to park on the crowded streets of London. So while it may not appeal to folks with a taste for petrol-hungry, large cars, like Clarkson, it nevertheless has its place for spacially deprived and environmentally conscious urbanites.
Clarkson does bring up a serious point about the G-Wiz’s safety record though, which was also mentioned in our comments section when we last wrote about its increasing popularity. Apparently because the G-Wiz is not technically classed as a car, but a quadracycle, it is not required to pass the usual safety tests that cars are. A recent Top Gear program put it through the rigors of the Euro NCAP safety test and it was found wanting on a number of accounts. This allegation, however, has got the folks at GoinGreen, the London distributor of the G-Wiz, fuming. They have issued a full response to Clarkson’s review here, but this is what they had to say about the safety issue:
“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 also weighed into the age-old ‘electricity is made in power stations’ argument, though unsurprisingly failed to offer any detailed analysis of what that actually means for electric vehicles. He didn’t discuss the relative emissions of an electric vehicle charged from the conventional grid versus an internal combustion engine, nor did he discuss the fact that the majority of G-Wiz owners choose a green tariff to power their vehicle. For anyone wanting to look at the emissions implications of powering vehicles from grid supplied electricity, you could do a lot worse than check out this thread over at our forums.
Image courtesy of LiteGreen.com
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas
- Council's Parking Fees Reward Electric Vehicles and Renewable Energy
- World’s Fastest Electric Superbike: 125 MPH & No Carbon Emissions
- $19,000 Electric Car Coming to US in May 2009: Introducing the Wheego Whip
International Development Design Summit: Design to Save the World
|
Kitchen Cart by Muji -- There's a Whole Kitchen in There!
|
I have viewed crash test footage of the G-Wiz and from what I saw you would fair poorly if you were hit buy a larger vehicle. That would be most cars on the road going by the size of the car. I find it strange that it is so fragle, I saw a high speed crash test of a smart car and it did very well considering there isn't much crumple zone space. So with the right engineering even a very small car can be safe. Granted the smart can be driven on a motorway where this safety is needed more while the G-Wiz is a "quadracycle" which means it doesn't a have to meet the safety standards of a motorcar.
I personally wouldn't drive or ride in a G-Wiz, what if a truck/bus loses it's brakes at the wrong time. Drunken idiot a night. If it's built anything like a Zap, which I have had a chance to look over, a good size motorcycle would go right through it if it hit the side. Sorry, give me a car build to current safety standards.
I respectfully disagree with Tim Russellll. It's fine if you want to drive a sturdy vehicle, but an argument can be made for lighter vehicles as well. Personally, I ride a motorcycle when the weather allows because it saves on gasoline (and because it is fun). I'd like to get a practical, lightweight vehicle so that I can minimize my gasoline use in the winter too. To some extent, the results of crash tests matter very little to me. Long ago I came to terms with the realization that there will always be a bigger, heavier vehicle that 'might' hit me. I won't live my life in fear of what 'might' happen. I'll take reasonable precautions, and stay alert to drive defensively, but I'm willing to accept some risks to drive a vehicle that makes a statement about conserving our resources and is reasonably priced.
“And now let us move on to what happens when you let a bunch of nitwits take charge of the greenhouse gas debate.
Please explain. The Ice caps on Mars are melting too, could it be the Sun? And How did SUV drivers cause that?
Irrelevant, yes, but I love the graphic pattern on the car. Is it representing the disturbed air around the the car in motion? If it isn't, can it? That would be so cool to see cars painted to represent their air flow, or heat distribution, or stress analysis (FEA paint job!).
Lynne, that was awesome. That is probably the first time I've seen FEA mentioned outside class.
Of course, to see a stress pattern like that on the skin of a car would probably keep me from getting anywhere near it.
Back to the discussion, I don't see why vehicles like the G-Wiz or the Smart car even need to exist if mass transit was improved dramatically and more people rode bikes. Apart from the "OH NO I CAN'T SIT BESIDE A RANDOM STRANGER I NEED TO DRIVE MY OWN CAR AND BE FREE" argument, of course.
Then again, that's one of the main reasons that got us into this problem with greenhouse gases to begin with.
It looks great but most likely i would not drive it.My work requires a truck.It is diesel/biodiesel.Otherwise i drive a motorcycle.The motorcycle gets about 60 mpg and the truck 25-30 mpg.
Gotta agree with Clarkson (again!). Cars like this are almost always joyless pieces of crap, in the tradition of the old East German Trabant.
I think it's great that Clarkson reviews vehicles like this. Most people aren't solely obsessed with the often illusory "green" aspects of any vehicle. He's right to give an alternative non-treehugger view on these things to counterbalance all the sparklers that get shoved up our butts about how great they are. The fact is, anyone buying a substandard vehicle like this nowadays, for whatever reason, is bound to be disappointed with it's lack of quality and performance. Why should we lower the bar?
I don't see why vehicles like the G-Wiz or the Smart car even need to exist if mass transit was improved dramatically and more people rode bikes. Apart from the "OH NO I CAN'T SIT BESIDE A RANDOM STRANGER I NEED TO DRIVE MY OWN CAR AND BE FREE" argument, of course.
That's two different arguments. There's the promiscuity with other people, and there's freedom, which is more linked to the fact that a car goes where you want, when you want.
I've been using mass transit (and bicycle) for a long time. Up until my thirties I never owned a motorized vehicle. Now I've got a job that's located in an unpractical location for bicycling, and it takes 45 minutes of mass transit to go there while it only takes 10-15 minutes in my own vehicle. It's not that the bus network is lacking (I take one bus to go from home to downtown, then another to go from there to work, with 10 minutes waiting times at worst. That's reasonably good). It's just that mass transit is darn slow.
So now I own a scooter and a car, and I save an hour of travel each day. I'd never go back. I'm eagerly awaiting electric solutions that will fit me, but I won't go back to mass transportation. Too much freedom on my scooter :-)
That's it after reading these comments it time to own up, I look at this site because green tech interests me but I'm not a huge treehugger. I like to drive, hate public transit my 2 cars have V6 engines and so does the one my wife drives. I do care enough that the next car I get will be a 4 cyl, maybe a hybrid and maybe a diesel. I'd love to get a plug-in with a good all electric range like the Volt concept e-flex system. I have never liked Toyota so I won't buy one of their cars. GM I'm not crazy about but give me the product and we'll talk.
I totally agree with mike h. don't lower the bar on automotive tech. I must say I find many treehuggers blinded by MPG, electric range etc. while ignoring safety and any possible driving enjoyment. Oh I'm sorry to you don't enjoy driving, do you. For those that drive a gas car some of you must wince everytime you turn the key 'cause your carbon emmissions just went up again.
Gregg Nicholas I love motorcycles and have owned several in my life. Great MPG and fun but I have a small child and that changes ones outlook.
The fact of the matter is when it comes to cars I would rather have one that provides modern crash protection. The G-Wiz is fragle, I have stood next to a Zap and got to look it over and wow is that a flimsy body structure. The Smart car on the other hand handles crashes quite well from test footage I've seen. That tells me if you keep the bar high enough you can get a well engineered small efficent car.
More critism of the G-Wiz here -
www.greenermachine.com
http://www.greenermachine.com/index.php?pOption=post&pPostId=12
I rarely agree with Clarkson, but this time I have to agree with him. The G-Wiz is simply too small, it is merely a gimmick, and a fashion statement for those Londoners who wish to be seen as green.
Vehicles like the G-Wiz are not the solution. It is simply too impractical, and too expensive to ever take hold anywhere other than a place like London. When it comes down to it, improvements on public transport, better roads where jams are less likely, and tighter emissions regulations are the way forwards. Not gimmicks.
Small cars get the "unsafe" rap, but it's the big cars that are unsafe. Which would you rather have run into you?
I used a smart car when I was in Europe. Gasoline mileage was XLent. What we need is a plug in smart car hybrid.
Just a quicky- they didn't drive SUVs through Africa, they drove beat-up ancient European cars. The entire point was to show, you don't need SUVs to tackle difficult driving, which come to think of it is an issue that should be addressed by the green community.
Anything that gets people out of 300+HP vehicles, and into 100HP cars can't hurt.
...very true Dendroica,
The whole basis of the episode was that the "I need an SUV for the rigors of the daily drive" argument was moot if they could get across part of Africa driving some old sedans.
Respectfully...why make such a hype over what Jeremy had said anyways? Lets be honest...the G-Wiz is a sh!tty car...no performance...no real protection when in crash situation...nothing really brilliant on this car, point. But isn't the real issue the saving of the environment? So what if the little frog can't compete against a lambrgini or whatever, that wasn't the point of building the, so called, car. Now stop giving grief to critics and start actually doing something to develop a car you tree-huggers can afford to defend. there is nothing exiting about environmentally Friendly cars at the moment...nothing, and it's about time someone start giving that ingredient.....even if it has the performance of a G-Wiz...if it's cheap, at least it's one thing to be exited about.
10/4