Tesla Roadster Runs For 241 Miles In E-Rally 294
N!NJA writes with the mention of a recent alternative energies rally where the Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery. "That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph)."
Pssht! No big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
You can give just about *any* car dramatic improvements in fuel economy if you know how to drive them correctly. See HyperMilingA. [wikipedia.org]
Just to see if it worked, I tried it with an ageing GMC Van (big, full sized, full of people) and measured an increase in fuel economy from about 20 MPG to over 30! Of course, there's something about driving on a freeway at 45 MPH and coasting to a stop from a half mile away that annoys the bajeezus out of other drivers.... I must have been flipped off half a dozen times!
Re:This is meaninglesss... (Score:3, Interesting)
Results vary. My 2000 Golf TDI automatic was rated 34/45mpg (original sticker, old EPA rating), which is 29/40 under the new EPA rating. In the 150,000 mile life of the car to date, I have averaged 44mpg, including town and highway. And I regularly travel at 70mph.
Re:Why isn't GM, with its billions of cars sold... (Score:2, Interesting)
Troll indeed!
Re:28mph over 280 miles is not good... (Score:3, Interesting)
And the Roadster and Model S are only limited to 45 minutes or so because of the type of cells they use (and they have to baby them to get what they do out of them). NiMHs can handle 30 minute charges, phosphates and spinels 15 minutes or so, and titanates 5-10. Assuming you have sufficient cooling in the packs and wire them appropriately, of course. Around a third to half of the announced mass-production EVs have a sub-30-minute charging option, and some (like Phoenix and LightningCar) have sub-10 minute charging options announced. And then there's Project Better Place, which is a whole different story....
Yeah, the chargers needed for delivering that power that fast are pretty impressive beasts (such as the 250kW Aerovironment PosiCharge or the 250kW Norvick MinitCharge), but that's really no more power than common industrial facilities use, except that they have to handle it nonstop, while the chargers only need to handle it in pulses. And no, it doesn't strain the grid when they use their own battery banks, and no, they're not unreasonably expensive (~$125k or so -- about the same as a gas station on a per-pump basis).
Lithium-ion polymer may be the next advance (Score:4, Interesting)
Lithium-oon polymer will take over soon enough. Compared to the good old Lithium-ion (not polymer), it packs more energy per weight and volume, does not enforce specific cell proximity and shape (semi-fluid?) and has lower risk of exploding. The price is already about the same.
Things are always improving :-)
Re:Very promising! (Score:3, Interesting)
My bet is most of those smouldering wrecks are due to fires started by electrical faults in the car (the 12V car battery usually provides enough current when shorted to start an "electrical fire").
Even if that is the case, what exactly do you think it was that fuels the burn if not the gigajoule or so of chemical energy stored in the gas tank?
Secondly - the difference between laptop li-ion batteries and a car gas tank is the tank has a very very tough metal wall separating the reactants
Except when damaged -- say, in an accident, or once a fire starts elsewhere and the flames spread (such as a fuel or oil fire in the engine).
Re:Very promising! (Score:1, Interesting)
There's an important difference though. In a battery, all the energy is stored and ready to be released in a moment's time. With a tank of gas, the explosion is limited by the amount of oxygen in the area and how fast it's leaking from the tank. It's like the difference between a bomb, and lighting a gallon of gas on fire. Sure the gas will burn hot, but it'll take a while for the fire to get going. A bomb goes off nearly instantly.
Re:Why isn't GM, with its billions of cars sold... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well the Japanese and European car makers have good, profitable markets for their small cars. GM and Ford have narrower markets and are more exposed to changes in market conditions.
I don't know about GM but Ford makes more fuel efficient vehicles in Europe. Here's a "Business Week" article about "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have [businessweek.com]". TFA says it's not available in the US because it runs on diesel and that the fuel has a bad rep. As biodiesel [wikipedia.org] is getting more popular in the US I say this is BS as an excuse.
Falcon
Re:Great (Score:2, Interesting)
A Tesla wouldn't be affordable even if it wasn't electric. It's a Lotus Elise with the engine replaced.
In addition to the parent to my post, this isn't true. According to this post [teslamotors.com] the two share few parts, such as the windshield and the softtop.
Which in my opinion is a HUGE mistake. They should have taken the elise, gutted the drivetrain, and THEN retrofitted their own battery powered drivetrain.
Tesla shouldn't be a car company, the should be a powertrain company that is showcased in their choices of a few cars.
Golf TDI Gas Tank (Score:1, Interesting)
what is so groundbreaking about a 750 mile range if your car has a 100 gallon tank in the back seat?
The 1.9L 2006 VW Golf TDI [transmitmedia.com] has a 12.5 gal tank. Here are the numbers [fueleconomy.gov]. Please notice the EPA ratings barely break 40MPG for the 2006 (newest) and about the same with older models.
While I'm sure the mileage is great, I'm skeptical of the claim that fnj can 'go over 600 miles without coming close to empty' though. With a 'best fillup' of 781 miles, one would be breaking 60MPG. That's barely achievable even with VW's diesel hybrid [wired.com]. fnj must do a lot of modestly paced highway hypermiling down a 700 mile slope or something... heh. Just a quick search around shows anecdotal evidence that people typically get about 45 highway with their Gold TDIs... that's probably more like it.
But yeah, diesel engines are just more efficient than their gasoline counterparts.