The fraud is less a legal term but my impression of the misleading reviewers and the poor quality of the paper. I did get a research paper by the two authors who sad to say, wrote a clunker. This is the feedback I sent to European web sites promoting the paper:
Quote:
Having paid the $40, I'm able to quote and criticize the original report, something missing from the current reviewers including those selling this useless report:
The authors report on pp. 277 that "According to Ashley (2002), OEMs ""must subsidize current hybrid car models heavily to make them affordable"" " Unfortunately, the authors failed to report from "consumerguideauto" that, "Toyota officials recently told Bloomberg News that Prius is turning a small per-unit profit . . ." In fact, the author's hybrid sales figure on pp. 273, "Sales of HEV vehicles in the USA," shows a greater than 10 fold increase between 2002 and 2006 with no explanation of how the 2002 "subsidies" are maintained and Toyota hasn't gone broke (" Sûr nous perdons l'argent dans chaque vente mais le succès vient du volume !")
The authors put conditions on diesel efficiency pp. 276 with "when comparing with modern diesel vehicles with high pressure direct injection and turbo charging, HEVs lose out when it comes to constant driving over longer distances." This well qualified and limited diesel performance, by no means the standard for all diesels, presumes cities and urban driving do not exist. It is a fact taken out of context by the reviewers making inflated diesel claims. The authors didn't emphasize the diesel limitations enough.
There are other errors including inadequate references, pp. 279 to "Les Echos, 5/10/206"; misleading appendices pp. 287 mixing models to mask hybrid efficiency with vehicle classes having no hybrids; or pp. 288 equating the "Smart for two CDI (diesel)" and a Prius instead of the Honda Insight, another hybrid, two-seater.
The paper flaws are only matched by reviewers who cherry pick whatever nonsense they wish to echo. Worse, there is no synthesis, no value added analysis as shown by repeating the 2002 subsidy claim while HEV sales increase by an order of magnitude. Rather than advancing our understanding, this paper sweeps together a collection of outdated and improperly qualified reports with no synthesis. Thus they remain bewildered by a Chinese hybrid market rather than observing the obvious.
With this paper, I've bought $40 of rubish and would warn serious people away from it. Furthermore, I do not care for the unethical panders of this poor excuse of for research. The authors Chanaron and Teske may be serious people but this must not be their best work.
Bob Wilson
|
That pretty well sums it up. There are more problems with this report that a careful and detailed reading would expose. But there comes a time when you grow tried of beating the spot where the dead horse was dragged away from.
The time is approaching when I may have to start writing my book of hybrids. The sad thing is I know it will take at least a year and that on the day it is released, it will be out of date. But there are so many interesting and pioneering efforts that otherwise will be lost in this transient age. . . .
Bob Wilson
(1)
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/m...ment-101817858 - another copycat!