Troy...

I don't know what bug bit you, but certainly not the reading variety.

As you can easily tell from sales statistics (over which we have no control), such hybrids as Prius, Accord, et al are suffering badly because they are expensive and rely on government largess to gain any traction. Toyota has asked for even more government tax credits to boost hybrid sales. And all manufacturers are offering discounts and incentives on hybrid models because the public is becoming increasingly aware of their shortcomings.

Again, if you learn to read and write in complete and sane sentences, Dust to Dust answers all of your questions. You may not like the answers, but it doesn't change the facts. Hybrids, as a means of saving energy for society as a whole, are a bad deal. Period. No reason to argue the fact because it is inarguable. Just ask any engineer. More complexity equals more cost equals more energy demands. What's so tough for you to understand?

Finally, Toyota has been and continues to be a subscriber and client as are virtually all auto makers -- all of whom have hybrids in their fleets and offer them for sale.

Grow up, take remedial reading courses and live a happier life.

Art

PS: Save energy. Don't bother responding. Your emails have been black listed.


now that you have read the response, let me give you some background.
I emailed asking where they generated revenue. They plainly stated that they receive requests to write research papers by companies and are paid to do so. So much for independence. And defiantly no possibility of peer review. So I then questioned their methods of data comparison such as stating a hybrid is only viable for half as many miles as a hummer. The above email is the response. I particularly enjoy that they don't attempt to address the short comings in the research, he simply attacks my grammar and ability to read.

Please if you are irritated by the spread of disinformation slowing the addressing of pollution issues email these people and tell them what you think of the bogus report.

Art@cnwmr.com

P.S. here is my email that generated the above response

no, I have just been curious as to how an organization can take itself seriously publishing such inaccurate garbage. It seems as though the only explanation is that Ford, GM or Chrysler would have asked for a report to justify the results you achieved by so poorly manipulating poorly collected data.

thanks for the reply

 

Let me suggest that CNW Marketing is no better or worse than any other hybrid skeptic. In this case, he has overlooked the limited supply that made hybrid-electric sales into a seller's market. As for performance, as good as they are, there is room for improvements which are coming along nicely. For example, I'm blown away by Camry performance considering the size and quality of the sedan.
Trying to change a mind that is already made up is a bit like trying to separate "a fool from his folly." I too sent him some facts neglected in his first report (aka., the Dept. of Energy fleet report) and his answer was to ignore them. In short, he has one view and nothing we say or do will change him. BUT there is something we need to do.

Everytime CNW Marketing is cited as a source, send a 'letter to the editor' with the facts and data. Keep it simple, no vendictive, but cite sources that point out the foolishness . . . sources that are local and can be checked with a simple phone call.

Over time, what happens is CNW's anti-hybrid bias is answered by news fact-checkers who need the research we can provide. This is what it takes to nibble away at CNW's credibility. Eventually, citing CNW Marketing become equivalent to citing a side-walk standing, aluminum foil hatted, Luddite. That is how to answer.

When hybrid skeptics and trolls come here with a chip on their shoulders, the most effective thing we can do is to answer them with the facts and data. Blank out their insults and address the technical content factually without emotion. But do answer with the facts and data. This prepares you to deal with local news sources who pickup 'the buzz' and get them on your side.

If one of them really 'pisses you off', then track their abuses of other forums and compete with the facts and data. What happens is the anti-hybrid skeptics lose credibility and the game is over.

Bob Wilson

 

Just ask any engineer. More complexity equals more cost equals more energy demands. What's so tough for you to understand?

I'm an engineer and I understand that any system that recovers energy that would otherwise be dissipated as heat (regen braking) and eliminates the use of energy for no purpose (stop at idle) will cost less to run.

 

The thing is, I am an engineer. Well not a licensed PE, but my job is engineering. I understand these issues, have contacts in the automotive industry which I speak to and learn about the issues as seen from the inside.

I was emailing, not to change his mind, but to see if there was justification for some of the "facts" in the report that I take issue with. Such as the disproportionally low hybrid useful life span. Or very low operating miles. These are both HUGE problems that cause the "data" to be off by probably several orders of magnitude.

His childishness was illustrated well by his attacking my literacy without knowing anything about me. I can only presume it is his way of shielding himself from any real criticism.

Bottom line, if they attack data collection with the same professional nature they attacked me, then it is not surprising that the report reads like a report written to make a big 3 automaker executive confident he is making the correct decision to de-fund R&D in the hybrid segment.

People must buy these reports to reassure themselves they are making the right decisions.

 

CNW knows they are an opinion for hire outfit, but will defend to their dying breath they are not. I expect arguments and challenges with them would go no where. If challenged to defend data, I see why they don't reply because they can't. If challenged another way, they'll send what we see here. Although I won't defend them in any way, I don't know if calling their work "garbage" and "poorly manipulated poorly collected data" gave much of a chance to get any kind of reply other than the insulting one they sent (as true as those accusations may be). At any rate, very unprofessional on their part, and only serves to reinforce what kind of outfit they really are.

 

I wonder how long CNW's 'dusty' report will last if every GM hybrid announcement is followed by 'letters to the editor' pointing out that:

CNW Marketing has proven that GM's hybrid has a higher energy cost than their Hummer (and cite their nonsense.)

Bob Wilson

 

HA! Good point. 100 bucks that after the GM hybrid trucks hit the market we get another CNW report with "updated data" supporting that product some way.

 

LOL! Won't that be fun!

 

Here we go again.

 

Look, I really don't mean to be insulting, and I also sincerely agree with the substance of most of the points you make (CNW is terrible and the reply you received was ridiculous and offensively inaccurate, not to mention rude), but can I venture a small criticism? When you are trying to make these kinds of people take you seriously, the best way to get their attention and force them to face your facts and arguments is to write to them in a very clear, grammatical and professional way. Running a grammar check, or a spell check, or going back through to edit your comments before you send them is usually a good idea. It makes you sound more educated and more credible, that's all. The same rationale applies when writing to Congress or other politicians to advocate for a position.

Even posts to this forum can sometimes merit extra editing; we expect readers to learn from the things we say, but if we want them to listen to us, we have to sound like we know what we are talking about when we post. There are a number of people here, like Bob Wilson or plusaf, who simply radiate credibility, because they generally write at a high level of vocabulary, language, structure and content that reflects a detailed understanding of hybrid issues and an informed perspective. It is easier to have an impact when you come across that way.

Please don't take this personally; many posts here are full of typos, misspellings, errors, or whatever, and that's completely fine; it's a discussion forum, and I'm far from perfect, myself. So write however you would like; this is just my two cents on effective advocacy.