Mostly the official lines are that they wish to make the new technology exciting etc
I think most of this is a cynical marketting ploy to disguise the fact that it's easier to make an alternative fuel cell sportscar than a mainstream car (with the exception of the Honda FCX).
The reasons I believe it is easier for a manufacturer to produce a sportscar are:
- Inherently lightweight chassis meaning smaller motors can be used, increasing range. Or same size motors, faster acceleration etc.
- Cabin packing may not be the first priority, giving a space in which it is easier to package a motor and batteries. No need to provide 500 litres of boot space and rear seats that fold flat.
- A higher purchase cost for "sportscars", thereby helping, in part, to balance their books.
- Smaller chassis and body with less "comfort" requirements, meaning greater lee-way on aerodynamics (lower rooflines etc), enhancing range.
- A sportscar is a luxury item, it is not likely to be used daily or over long distances (most won't take their Lotus Elises on holiday due to lack of boot space, cabin space and refinement) so a limited range and long recharge time won't affect owners in the same way it would for a car used for family holidays or commuting.
So, while I applaud them for trying to create an alternative fuel car it will be more impressive if they can produce a car that seats five, has a boot, a useful range and an answer to the long-term life of battery packs.
One current comprimise seems to be that most are designed to be "recharged at home on a 13amp fuse" to fit in with our current infrastructure. Could there not be a move to installing a plug on a seperate 30 amp fuse (like your cooker), thus decreasing recharge time.
Anyway, I'm losing coherency as the time approaches midnight, so I'll sign off before I talk more gibberish...
-