Talk:Enfield Automotive/Archive 1

No sources cited, not verified, possible copy-and-paste and/or original research. This article needs major work. Realkyhick 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What works as a source?
I have added pictures, and just a couple of minutes ago some newspaper clippings, that are hard facts of this articles originality. What makes a good source? A link to an html page? I am not much of a computers person and on this subject all my sources are taken from the original archives. They are scanned. Does this not count as a valid enough source? Please help me understand what is needed so that Wikipedia will accept my article. I would really appreciate your help as I am confused. All my ORIGINAL items seem to not be enough. Thank you in advance. Constantine Adraktas 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Newspaper or magazine stories will work just fine, even if they aren't found online. The FT, Time and the Guardian are superbly credible sources. You should try to give the name of the publication, date, author (if shown), and page number. (It works the same way you used to do on term papers in school. Yeah, I hated those, too.) If the source is available online somewhere, that's even better because you can include the link that others can click on and go straight to the story. There's a template called "cite news" where you just fill in the blanks. Also see [|this section on how to insert footnotes]. In fact, you would do well to read the whole article at "Citations".


 * The photos are another problem. If those photos were from a copyrighted source, then they probably can't be used at all because of copyright laws. There are lot of other editors and admins here at Wikipedia that get pretty worked up about photos that may not be free to use, sometimes a little too worked up for my taste. But if the photos were part of a government publication, they are probably free to use — that's the case here in the States, and I think it's that way in the UK too.


 * The subject of the article is clearly notable (and interesting). Just rough in the information and sources as best as you can and we'll worry about the aesthetics later. You can contact me on my user talk page if you need more help. Realkyhick 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Mr. Adraktas, it is apparent that you are using this article, and related ones, to promote your particular point of view about the company's history. Because of your confrontational editing, you have been blocked and will likely continue to be given your course of action. Under these circumstances, I can't be much help. Realkyhick 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007

DEAR REALKYHICK

1. ON THE FT, TIMES AND EVENING STANDARD

The Images I posted are scannings of the very articles. The articles appeared in 1971 and 1973 and, unfortunately, the above mentioned Newspapers do not go that far back on-line.

2. THE PHOTOS

The photos are mine and, consequently, if there is a question of copyright, then that is my copyright. I gave a lot of my photos to Newsspapers, The Electricity Council etc See the photos of the VDL 856K in parked in Mayfair. The VDL 856K was my car, the car I was driving in London for 4 years, and I took the photos near my flat (I live in [address deleted] in Mayfair)

3. CONTACTING YOU (It seems I have managed it)

I do not know how to add in the User page of somebody else!

4. PROMOTING MY VIEWS

With all due respect, you are 100 per cent wrong. I am only trying: (a) To restore the truth (b) Give the WIKIPEDIA readers Facts and Figures a variety of photos so that "they can feel as if they were there when when it was all happening"

SINCSERELY

CONSTANTINE ADRAKTAS

PS. Please see, also, the Discussion page in Enfield 8000 site


 * If the photos are yours and have no copyright, you need to establish that when uploading them, or go back and edit the comments for each photo to establish their source and copyright status. In these cases, you would merely indicate that you took the photos, you own the photos, there is no copyright involved, and that you are releasing al rights under the GFDL for use by Wikipedia.

'''I am pretty sure all the Images went under GFDL. They were posted by my computer instructor and he assured me he put them''' '''under GFDL. Can you check that out, please ?'''


 * Re your comment "To restore the truth": In cases like these, different sides have their own view of "the truth." As someone who was directly involved in the subject, you are violating conflict of interest guidelines, in that you are advocating your position over that of others. This article really needs to be handled by someone with a neutral position, so that a clear-eyed, objective view may emerge. Putting readers in a position where "they can feel as if they were there" is a little more than an article normally should do at Wikipedia. Realkyhick 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But has anybody else provided a different side, except the current ENFIELD 8000 article of Messrs KJBracey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KJBracey ) and Skartsis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skartsis )?

About which please notice the following:

On the basis of what this article was posted, if I may ask. The Enfield Automotive archives? The Electricity Council archives? The Enfield Automotive - Electricity Council contract of 1973? Genuine photographs of the Enfield being tested and in daily action? Press cuttings from the Financial Times, The Times and the Evening Standard of London? Letter from the Cabinet Office of the British Government?

And nobody noticed the discrepancies between the Commercial brochure (of a car that had no Sales) and the text of KJCBracey? Well, it helps to know inside - out a new product, its use and history!

As I have pointed out, the current version of the ENFIELD 8000 article is based (a) on a Commercial brochure for a car that was never sold and (b) on links that are purely geographical links. Furthermore, the current ENFIELD 8000 article provides two figures for the Range of the car which are 215 per cent apart. The question, for ANY Editor of WIKIPEDIA, is whether or not the current ENFIELD 8000 article satisfies the WIKIPEDIA principles and rules.

AND IN ANY CASE

If instead of me, somebody else, totally unrelated to the Enfield 8000 or Enfield Automotive, were to have sent the same Text and Images (as I have sent), would they (HIS Text and Images) have been deleted by the Editors of WIKIPEDIA ?

Merge?
Asides from the above discussion I propose that article Enfield 8000 referred to above, should be part of this article. Georgeg 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be aware we are working on the article with User:Constantine Adraktas. Once this is complete, it should become a large and very good article. I strongly object to this proposal, at least until the discussions are over. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the ongoing work, that is why i suggested the merge. If you are building a page on Enfield Automotive, then why not include all the info from Enfield 8000 now that you are doing all the hard work? Could you give a reason for your strong objection please? Do you not agree that there is 100% overlap between the two articles? Georgeg 23:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The information is almost all relevant to only the car - some information could go here, but the car article needs its own. I agree that the company-related information should be merged here, but it should keep its own article. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just second what Matt's already said here. I think there's enough information to warrant two separate articles.  Into The Fray  T / C  01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Against my normal deletionist tendencies, I think that separate articles are warranted here.


 * Matt, thanks for stepping in to help out. I wanted to help the original author, but frankly this appears to be a major undertaking and I simply don't have time — high school football season is fast approaching, and I'm a high school sports writer. The effort deserves more time that I could devote. Realkyhick 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Realkyhick

Not withstanding the Football season (are you covering the Buckeyes? - I spent my freshman year at Ohio State University, living in a dormitory under the stadium),you might wish to include in your article some of the new information that has been added to (User:TheFearow/Enfield 8000) Constantine Adraktas 06:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments expressed in the article
Please don't take me wrong, I am thrilled that Mr. Adraktas has stepped in, providing exciting information about the Enfield venture. Actually, it is cases like this that make Wikipedia an absolutely amazing source of knowledge. I have a few comments, though:

1. The article "sounds" like expressing personal emotions/experiences in a way that it undermines its encyclopedic nature. Certainly, I could expess some arguments on some of the issues raised - I know Mr. Georgios Michael (a car designer) who was involved in the whole affair. In this stage, though, I would rather not start another thread, especially since there are some "gray areas".

2. One think that bothers me is the way Greece is treated in the context of supporting one argument or another. We should be more careful, especially in a medium like Wikipedia. I can't help sensing a trace of "Greece-bashing", a popular sport among us Greeks.

I do agree, though, that altogether this discussion can lead to an extremely informative article. Skartsis 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On your points above:

(1) Nobody is judging Mr. Giorgios Michael as a car designer PER SE. However, he had nothing to do with the development and design of the ENFIELD 8000. In any case the author of the ENFIELD 8000 article was Mr. Bracey (and in my user page he provides the source of his information - See, also, User:TheFearow/Enfield 8000 and, if I understand correctly, you just added the commercial brochure provided to you by Mr. Michael, with a conflicting and wrong range.

(2) There is no "Greece-bashing" as a sport etc! That the transfer of ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE and the ENFIELD 8000 car to Greece was a business mistake (not withstanding any other non-car reasons) is indisputable. Greece, unfortunately, did not and does not have a motor industry infrastructure (like the UK and USA, where the E8000ECC was to have been produced) and you know better than I what has happened to couple of attempts in that direction (Salonica - Volos).

Furthermore, in addition to Mr. John Goulandris and myself, Greeks living abroad, there was another Greek in the Enfield team. Mr. Carolos Balian, the designer of the Control System of the ENFIELD 80000.A system that was interfered with in Syros, according to Mr.Goulandris (see comment made by him in User:TheFearow/Enfield 8000 Constantine Adraktas 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ALSO

Have you noticed that there is a 215 per cent discrepancy between the Range in the text of the ENFIELD 8000 article and the Range quoted in the Commercial brochure attached to the said article?

Actually, both such Range figures are not correct. But if one of them, say the Range for the Bikini, as appearing in the said brochure as being 120 - 140 Kilometres (75 - 87 Miles) were correct, THEN the Range of the Enfield Electric City Car, the E8000ECC, would have been much higher because of it having a lower Aerodynamic coefficient than the Bikini (even lower than the Porsche!). The higher the Aerodynamic coefficient the faster the batteries get depleted and the more battery energy goes into heating the Atmosphere instead of increasing the Range. Constantine Adraktas 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Images
Realkyhick, thank you for returning my Gallery of Images

Two Images are missing, however, and one of them is Lord Rothschild's letter ! Constantine Adraktas 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It is back Constantine Adraktas 10:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE - UPDATED COMMENTS FROM USER CONSTANTINE ADRAKTAS - 11 AUGUST 2007
Enfield Automotive was created in the United Kingdom in the 60s. Prior to the Enfield 8000 Electric City Car ( known as the E8000ECC ), Enfield Automotive developed Electric Passenger Vehicles of un - acceptable performance and safety standards, according to the Electricity Council and MIRA, with bodies made of Fibreglass and ABS plastic ( the Enfield 465 ).

This contribution is based on:

( A ) The original of the Electricity Council – Enfield Automotive contract, negotiated and signed in January 1973 by the 1969 to 1975 Chairman cum Managing and Technical Director of Enfield Automotive, after the E8000ECC passed rigorous tests at MIRA (the Motor Industry Research Association) including crash ((to see a live crash test go to BBC in the Internet, search for Reva Electric Car and you will see a link for a relevant video) and pave test(s, was aerodynamically tested in Farnborough and was driven around Chester for five days by relevant Electricity Council Research Center (ECRC) members.

Following the signing of the above mentioned contract, the E8000ECC was driven around London by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the British Government's Cabinet Office and was graciously commended, in writing, by him personally.

( B ) Articles from the United Kingdom and International press ( Financial Times, The London Times, Time magazine, the London Evening Standard etc ).

( C ) Copies of some of the Enfield Automotive files, in the possession of its 1969 - 1975 Chairman.

Enfield Automotive and the E8000ECC were moved away from the United Kingdom to the Greek island of Syros during the oil crisis 'of 1973. There was "no obvious" business reason to have them move away from the United Kingdom, a car producing country ,which had, also, supplied Enfield Automotive and the E8000ECC with a unique start up contract, to Greece, a country without a car production infrastructure whatsoever (see below paragraph starting with "Then came the Oil crisis of 1972 ... ".

The E8000ECC could have been produced in the UK or any other country with advance Motor Industry infrastructure, like the USA, with a genuine "Greek island experiment" on the side, if the financier was keen and sincere to put Greece on the Electric Car producing countries map.

The key characteristics of the E8000ECC were:

( 1 ) The range of the E8000ECC was between 50 to 90 miles, depending on the number of stops and starts, terrain gradients, number of passengers, batteries condition etc.

The E8000ECC with License plate number VDL 856K has been driven in London (between Mayfair and the City, visiting friends, going to the theatre and to restaurants etc – every aspect of a daily life routine) for four consecutive years and its range was logged daily. The practical range of the E8000ECC was substantially greater than the one quoted above, if it were “plugged in” during the day, anywhere one would park and a simple electricity socket was available, as the car had a built – in on - board charger.If the E8000ECC was still alive today, it would enjoy two important benefits the current Mayor of London,Mr.Livingstone, has given to Electric Cars:

( a ) Charging sockets on Parking Meters.

( b ) No Levy for entering into Central London ( applicable to Internal Combustion Engine cars).

( 2 ) The top speed of the E8000ECC was between 70mph and 80mph, depending on the number of passengers and the condition of the batteries.

A speed of over 60mph was achieved by Lord Weinstock, the creator and Chairman of GEC (General Electric Company, UK), as he was attempting to get a speeding ticket for the E8000ECC, in Park Lane, Mayfair, London. A police car accosted him with the policemen looking in curiously, as the E8000ECC was silent as well. No speeding ticket was issued!

( 3 ) The Enfield 8000 was a 2 + 2 seater car, for 2 people in the front individual seats and 2 more on the bench seat at the back.

( 4 ) The "Bikini" was an E8000ECC with a body composed of simple and flat panels. It was never "crash tested", hence it could not obtain a certificate of "road worthiness".

Furthermore the Bikini did not have a range of 120 to 140 Kilometres, that is 75 to 87 Miles, as the Commercial brochure posted claims.

( a ) If the above were true then the Enfield 8000 would have had a much higher range than 75 to 87 Miles, as having a by far lower Aerodynamic coefficient (hence more efficient use of the batteries capacity) than that of the Bikini.

( b ) The text, however, adjacent to the Commercial brochure, states that the range of the Enfield 8000 was less than half of that for the Bikini, namely, between 35 and 40 Miles!

( 5 ) The reason for the elimination of the Enfield 8000 (the E8000ECC's various versions were based, simply, on different bodies added to the same chassis and all other components and systems – all developed in the UK) is not that “no permit was issued for its mass production, due to tax categorization issues connected with its electric power”, for it to having been produced in Syros, Greece.

Those were the days of the Greek Military Junta which was very keen to issue any permits whatsoever that would give them worldwide visibility, like the first ever mass production of an Electric Car in the World. Furthermore the Junta was very close to the London based Greek owners of Enfield Automotive, Enfield - Neorion, Neorion and N.J.Goulandris, the latter being the source for all the other companies. As a matter of fact, one of the top Greek Junta members, Mr.Constandopoulos, became the Managing Director of Enfield - Neorion.

Moreover:The E8000ECC had passed all the necessary tests for production in the United Kingdom and was on its way to be produced in the United States of America. The latter courtesy of President Reagan, then Governor of California, who sent a cargo plane to have three E8000ECCs be moved to California in support of his Clean Air legislation.Prior to the 1973 Oil crisis, the Oil companies, supported by the Ca,r companies were doing their best to have the E8000ECC eliminated. Especially after the Electricity Council – Enfield Automotive contract was signed in January 1973 and that contract was followed by many other contracts around the world (example: from Lead producers in Australia, from a new town developer in Catalina, California etc ).

Prior to the Oil crisis of 1973, the Chairman of Enfield Automotive and Aristotle Onassis, still owner of Olympic Airways, were ready to conclude a very interesting deal. A company with the name of OLYMPIC - ENFIELD were to be formed to:

( a ) Use the E8000ECC and its Summer version (not the Bikini) in the airports OA was operating in.

( b ) Rent out both cars above, firstly to OA clients and, then, to the general pyblic.

Then came the Oil crisis of 1973 which, in a very short period, saw that a “parking lot” of Tankers stretched from the port of Piraeus to the Isthmus of Corinth. At that point the Enfield 8000 moved away from a “car producing – car components producing – relevant labor availability” country (UK) to a Greek island with none of the above but an unstable shipyard owned by the Enfield Automotive financier. None of the 60 Tankers, owned by the parent company of Enfield Automotive, joined the above mentioned “parking lot”. The Enfield 8000 was removed from UK and not only.

Numerous attempts to have the design and Enfield Automotive/Enfield – Neorion bought, so that the car can move on to mass production, were ignored, not even examined.. One of the offers was from the United States of America! So the Oil and Car lobby versus the Enfield 8000 confrontation was won by the said lobby. A confrontation on the lines of the film "Who killed the Electric Car?".(www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html)

After a few years and once the Enfield 8000 was unceremoniously buried in Syros and the Greek Military Junta collapsed, the 1969 to 1975 Chairman of Enfield Automotive met with Constantine Caramanlis, the Greek Prime Minister to discuss ways of resurrecting the Enfield 8000. In vain, as the owners would not (and by that time, probably, could not) break their undertaking with the Oil companies, an undertaking that provided them with long term Oil Transportation contracts in exchange for them eliminating the Enfield 8000 from the face of the earth. The rest of the Greek Shipowners had their Tankers parked in the Piraeus to Corinth cemetery.

30 years later, the 1969 - 1975 Chairman of Enfield Automotive met with John Goulandris:

( a ) He said "We made a big mistake not continuing with the E8000ECC or finding a way to sell the company and your design to you and the Anglo - American supporters of yours, somehow behind the back of the Oil companies, Imagine where the E8000ECC would be today!"

( b ) And he asked "What did the people in Syros did to your design and the Range of the car dropped dramatically. Did they change the Control System? We had a lot of complaints from the Electricity Council"

One distinct difference between the E8000ECC and the Enfield models preceding it (and, maybe, the ones handled by Syros), was that:

(a) The E8000ECC was using 12 Volt batteries, 8 of them, organised in 2 groups of batteries. The batteries in each group were connected in Series (Voltage was 48 Volts per group) and the 2 groups of batteries were connected in Parallel, hence the total Voltage was still 48 Volts.

(a) above, was one but not the only reason, the range of the E8000ECC was superior to the range of other Enfields.

(b) Previous models, however, were using 8 batteries of 6 Volts each connected in Series, hence the total Voltage was, again, 48 Volts.

( 6 ) Additional characteristics of the E8000ECC and its direct derivatives.

( 6.1 ) Aluminium body of Rolls Royce standards – against corrosion.

( 6.2 ) Rolls Royce interior standards (leather etc).

( 6.3 ) Turning circle same as the traditional London cab.

( 6.4 ) Although more Aerodynamic than the Porsche (confirmed by relevant above mentioned test), it had the same ease of “going in – coming out” as that of a London cab. The Aerodynamics of the E8000ECC were not based in traditional Motor Industry principles and ideas but rather on principles and ideas carried over from the MIT Aeronautics department and its involvement in the Apollo programme.

( 6.5 ) It was based on Commercially available components and parts, for easy maintenance and worldwide replacement availability.

( 6.6 ) No gear lever – Automatic with the reverse via a simple switch (The E8000ECC had a series of shunts to vary the voltage in steps).

( 6.7 ) A built in on – board charger.

( 6.8 ) It was dangerously silent, as people sometimes cross a street relying on the absence of car noise.

( 6.9)The E8000ECC was Ecologically friendly not only because it was not emitting gasses and noise onto the Atmosphere but. also, because it was not heating the Atmosphere (Global Warming) unnecessarily, thanks to its Aerodynamics.

Special tribute to Messrs John Ashby (Chief of the Design Department) and Carolos Balian (Control System),whose contributions in the development of the E8000ECC were crucial.

Many of the photographs posted previously, are from the private collection of the company’s 1969 – 1975 Chairman and you can find more photographs, worldwide E8000ECC user messages etc in a Yahoo Groups site of the Enfield Electric Cars fans. ("autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/enfieldelectriccars").

A copy of the Electricity Council - Enfield Automotive January 1973 contract can be posted on this site or a different site or can be e-mailed to you upon request Constantine Adraktas 10:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

35 YEARS LATER - IF ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE HAD SURVIVED WOULD IT GET SIMILAR COMMENTS IN "THE TIMES" TODAY ?
August 5, 2007 – By Jeremy Clarkson – THE TIMES Reva G-Wiz DC

Kiss your knees goodbye, green people The G-Wiz. I have often mocked this little car for being slow, ugly, unsafe and hypocritical. But I have never driven one. . . until now.

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. Sadly, however, the moment only lasts until you turn left. Because then you’ll slide back behind the wheel and the windscreen washing will start all over again. Until you brake. Then your knee will shoot forwards into the radio release button, which will pop the fascia on to the floor. Still, at least it has a radio, because otherwise luxuries are few and to be found only in the shape of two crummy cup holders and some leather-look fabric that is glued haphazardly to the door linings. Imagine a coal cellar and you have some idea of how well appointed this car is. And so what about life in the back? Well, there are two seats back there but God has not yet designed a creature that could fit in them, and it’s pretty much the same story in the boot, which is the size of a mouse.

Speed. Well 0-60mph is impossible because it won’t do 60mph. In fact, this is the first car I’ve driven that seems to have no top speed at all. It’s like walking, only less comfortable. Small wonder this is not classified as a car by the European Union. They call it a quadracycle, which means it can be sold without having to pass the usual safety tests. Pity, because a recent test by Top Gear Magazine found that it was unsafe at pretty much any of its speeds. All two of them.

Actually, I should be serious because boffins using the much respected Euro NCAP test procedures found a number of design flaws that could kill or maim. You may save the planet with this car. But you could well lose a leg in the process. You will certainly lose all your friends because to justify your significant £7,000 purchase (£8,299 for the newer AC version), you will need to explain, loudly and often, that it uses no fuel, that you simply charge it up at night – using power from a power station incidentally – and you’re good to go 40 miles. Unless you use the lights. Or the radio. Or the washer jets. Which you will, a lot. In which case it’s only 30 miles, or maybe 20, before you coast to a halt. . . in the rain you caused by not buying a Range Rover.

There’s another thing, too. Children playing in the street can hear a Range Rover coming and know to get out of the way. The G-Wiz, on the other hand, is near silent, which means they may run in front of you to retrieve a lost ball. You may then hit them. . . causing your car to disintegrate and your legs to come off.

Even if I were a committed environmentalist I would not buy this car. It is too small, too dangerous and I’m sorry but it runs on juice from a power station, hardly a flower in the big green scheme of things.

What’s more, a few luvvies in London are not going to make the slightest bit of difference, even if it’s correct that cars are buggering up the ice pack. We will not be saved by going backwards. We will be saved by someone using technology to go forwards. We will be saved, in other words, by science, maths and the lost British art of invention.

Vital statistics

Model Reva G-Wiz DC Motor 48V DC motor Power 4.8kW continuous (13.1kW peak) Torque 50 lb ft @ 2000rpm Gearbox Single-speed automatic Range Up to 40 miles (32, mixed roads) C02 Equivalent of 63g/km if charged from fossil-fuel source Acceleration n/a Top speed 40mph Price £6,999 Constantine Adraktas 08:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THE ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR WITH TODAY'S BATTERY AND ELECTRIC MOTORS TECHNOLOGIES
I just saw a BBC 24 HOURS program on the Lotus Electric Sports car.

If the E8000ECC had survived the indirect effect of the 1973 Oil crisis, then:

(1) It would have been using Lithium Ion Batteries (unsafe then), in a pack half the size of the then E8000ECC batteries.

(2) It would have using in - wheel Electric Motors which leave the space previously occupied by the conventional engine and drive train for additional battery capacity and amenities (not proven then).

And, mainly, because of (1) above:

(3) It would have a Range of over 2O0 Miles.

($) It could have a Top Speed of 120 Miles an Hour, for travelling outside the city. Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See below some relevant links:

(1) http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/electric_vehicles/index.html (The Energy blog) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(2) http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/08/telsa_electric.html (Tesla Roadster and Lotus) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(3) http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4472 (ZAP and Lotus) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(4) http://news.com.com/Revving+up+for+the+all-electric+SUV/2100-11389_3-6139703.html (Altair Nanotechnology -  Battery) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(5) http://www.valence.com/technology/index.html (Valence Technology - Battery) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(6) http://www.physorg.com/preview3539.html (Toshiba - Battery) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk (Elon Musk - Electric Cars and Computers) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX (Elon Musk - Space) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(9) http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/charging_and_batteries.php (Tesla - Charging and Batteries) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(10) http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/electric_power.php (Tesla - Efficiency versus performance) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(11) http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php (Tesla - Electric Motor - Acceleration and Torque) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(12) http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=58 (Tesla - Regenerative Breaking) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(13) http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php (Tesla - Well to Wheel Energy Efficiency) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(14) http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/perf_specs.php (Tesla - Performance Specifications) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(15) http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/tech_specs.php (Tesla - Technical Specifications) Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(16) http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers.php (White Papers - See PDFs on "The 21st Century Electric Car" and "The Tesla Battery System") Constantine Adraktas 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LORD ROTHSCHILD, HEAD OF THE THINK TANK, WHO SENT THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO KONSTANTINE ADRAKTAS DATED 29 JUNE 1973
(1) Rothschild was educated at the Harrow School and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he read Physiology, French and English. He played first-class cricket for the University and Northamptonshire. At Cambridge he was known for his playboy lifestyle, driving a Bugatti and collecting art and rare books.

At Trinity, Rothschild joined the secret society, the Cambridge Apostles, which at that time was predominantly Marxist, though he "was mildly left-wing but never a Marxist". There he became friends with KGB spies Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, who were also members. Rothschild gave Blunt £100 to purchase "Eliezer and Rebecca" by Nicholas Poussin. The painting was sold by Blunt's executors in 1985 for £100,000 (totalling £192,500 with tax remission ) and is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum. He is also alleged to have supplied an apartment in London where Burgess and Blunt could meet, leading to suspicions that he was the so-called Fifth Man in the Cambridge Spy Ring. The Fifth Man has never been formally identified, although more than a dozen names have been suggested, including that of John Cairncross.

Rothschild inherited his title at the age of 26 following the death of his uncle Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild on 27 August 1937, and sat as a Labour Party peer in the House of Lords.

(2) Rothschild was recruited to work for MI5 during World War II in roles including bomb disposal, disinformation and espionage, winning the George Medal. Because of his association with Burgess and Blunt, he was questioned by Special Branch at the time of Blunt's unmasking in 1964 and was apparently cleared, subsequently working on projects for the British government. Rumours continued to circulate, and Rothschild himself took the step of publishing a letter in British newspapers on 3 December 1986 to state "... I am not, and never have been, a Soviet agent." Roland Perry's 1994 book The Fifth Man repeated the charges without firm authority, and there remains no evidence to suggest that Rothschild spied for the Soviet Union. [5]

(3) After the war, he joined the zoology department at Cambridge University from 1950 to 1970. He served as chairman of the Agricultural Research Council from 1948 to 1958 and as worldwide head of research at Royal Dutch/Shell from 1963 to 1970. He continued to work in security issues, namely as a security adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He was also head of the Central Policy Review Staff from 1971 to 1974 (known popularly as the "Think Tank"), a high-level committee which provided policy advice to government until Margaret Thatcher abolished it. In 1982 he published An Enquiry into the Social Science Research Council at the behest of Keith Joseph.

FROM WIKIPEDIA Constantine Adraktas 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT - ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE - A VALID SOURCE FOR THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS?
I have the Electricity Council contract in PDF format and, I believe, you will find it useful and revealing. How do I sent it to you? Please answer on my user page or both, yours and mine. Constantine Adraktas 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)