Hi,
I noticed the original article had a place for comments so I left this rather tame one:
Quote:
The quote, "Guido Reinking, editor of Automobilwoche, says: “There is no more ineffective or expensive method of cutting emissions than by combining a gasoline engine and an electric motor to power a vehicle.”" follows a topic sentence about the T&E study. Was his quote part of their study?
Guido's comment seems at odds with the earlier report, "a common answer to the question of who makes the greenest car is Toyota, thanks to its high-profile 105g/km CO2 Prius." I suspect his comment is just a snippet of his original editorial but without the full text, it may be out of context. He may have addressed the performance of the Prius.
It would be unfair to comment about a snipped of Guido's article although it is at odds with the measured Prius performance. Perhaps Guido might be invited to complete the article and/or expound on the inconsistency?
|
I tried to find Guido's original editorial but soon discovered I would have to pay for that privilege. I have no problem with subscribing to the online magazine
http://www.autospeed.com.au/ because they provide useful technical content and don't lock up everything behind a fee. But it is rough to 'pay for' the privilege to have an accurate opinion piece from someone whose snippet suggests they are brain-dead. Still, I wanted to be as fair as possible while pointing out the obvious problems.
Given the high ranking of the HCH, I suspect another comment would be in order. However, I don't have the source material to cite correctly. Still, it would be good to suggest that accuracy also is an important ethical goal.
Bob Wilson