Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

More on the Tango Electric Car 378

Posted by michael from the shocking-developments dept.
jj00 writes "Here is an interesting story about a father-son built car in Spokane, Washington. What is most surprising is its top speed (130 MPH) and its weight (about the same as a Camry), and it runs on batteries!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on the Tango Electric Car More

More on the Tango Electric Car

Comments Filter:

  • "Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alwsn ( 593349 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:36AM (#6538702)
    "Golf cart on steroids!"

    Hrm, how about Shiny, Fast, Red Coffin.

    I'm all for electric cars, and I understand that the creators wanted something to cut through traffic, but I don't think I'd really want to move one of these things through traffic next to insane soccer moms in their H2s.
    • Safety? It has jet-pilot seat belts and a racing-regulation roll cage; it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns.

      I don't know man, this 3,000 pound car weighs more than my Mazda Protege (approx. 2.6k pounds)

      • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alwsn ( 593349 ) * on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:05AM (#6538775)
        "Safety? It has jet-pilot seat belts and a racing-regulation roll cage; it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns." from the article

        I don't know man, this 3,000 pound car weighs more than my Mazda Protege (approx. 2.6k pounds)
        -mandalayx

        And it's obviously much smaller. I wonder how it would do in a crash test. It looks like a dense bullet compared to other cars.
        -SKPhoton

        In terms of being able to survive a collision with another vehicle, I don't really think the weight of the vehicle is the important issue. Larger cars are safer than smaller cars not because they weigh more, but because they have more room to let the car crumple to absorb the energy created by a collision.

        If you don't have this extra room, not only is the body of the vehicle more likely to collapse on you, but you also will have much higher g-forces during the crash. In a large car you might have a foot or 2 of 'crunch' space before the car becomes rigid and forcing you to a very rapid stop. In a very small car such as this, even if the body of the car maintained it's integrity during the crash (it doesn't crush you) you'd be much more prone to be injured by rapid deceleration because it lacks this 'crunch' space that would allow it a smoother deceleration.

        • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vanyel ( 28049 ) * on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:27AM (#6538836) Journal
          In terms of being able to survive a collision with another vehicle, I don't really think the weight of the vehicle is the important issue. Larger cars are safer than smaller cars not because they weigh more, but because they have more room to let the car crumple to absorb the energy created by a collision.

          That's probably part of it, but weight matters also due to decelleration forces. If that energy isn't going into the mass of the car, it's going into you.

        • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:5, Funny)

          by Alien Being ( 18488 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:51AM (#6538883)
          "Larger cars are safer than smaller cars not because they weigh more, but because they have more room to let the car crumple to absorb the energy created by a collision."

          We could test that theory. You drive a Yugo and I'll give you the crumple "advantage" by driving an M1 Abrams tank. We'll drive into each other head-on each going 50.

          • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Zan Zu from Eridu ( 165657 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @07:32AM (#6539021) Journal
            Bullshit. You shouldn't take a Yugo and a M1 but a car with crumple zones and a car without crumple zones, each weighing the same.

            More mass means more kinetic energy when moving. This kinetic energy is transferred during a collision, and this is what kills the passengers of the Yugo, but it doesn't protect the passengers of the M1 much. If it were two M1s colliding, probably noone would survive.

            • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:4, Interesting)

              by MKalus ( 72765 ) <mkalus@@@gmail...com> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @08:33AM (#6539139) Homepage
              More mass means more kinetic energy when moving. This kinetic energy is transferred during a collision, and this is what kills the passengers of the Yugo, but it doesn't protect the passengers of the M1 much. If it were two M1s colliding, probably noone would survive.

              Take a guess why most of the crashtest these days are made against a deforming barrier for once, and why no SUV producer ever crashed his SUV against another one.

              The end-result would be anything but comforting for the soccer moms who buy them because of "safety".

              M.
            • Bullshit. You shouldn't take a Yugo and a M1 but a car with crumple zones and a car without crumple zones, each weighing the same.

              I couldn't find any crash photos of an M1 [bmwm1.com], but here are a couple [wreckedexotics.com] M3s [wreckedexotics.com].
            • I have a better solution... Keep the speed limit at 70 and fine the asshats that drive like idiots severly.

              $1000.00 for a speeding ticket(3 months suspension and a $500.00 fine added for 3 speeding tickets in a year) and $5000.00 plus 3 months community service for tailgaiting or reckless driving would fix the problem quicky.

              Also adding a tax on vehicles based on weight AND efficiency would solve these problems fast.

              The soccer mom would think twice when her Suburban costs her $700.00 a year for plates.

            • Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" (Score:4, Informative)

              by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @03:40PM (#6540934) Homepage
              Then you are just comparing crumple zones. We all know that having crumple zones is a good thing... That has been proven for years. They expand the moment of impact, which lowers force exerted upon passengers at a linear rate.

              What you should do is collide two moving vehicles of different weight. If you collide two 3k lb cars together at 50 mph, the energy from the collision will cancel and both drivers will come to a dead stop. If, on the other hand, you collide a 10k lb vehicle and a 1k lb vehicle, the 1k lb vehicle will have the lower of the two energies. Without pulling out my old physics textbook, that means that after the collision, the driver of the 10k car will still be going about 45 mph in the original direction of travel, but the driver of the 1k car will be traveling 45 mph in the opposite direction, for a velocity change of 95 MPH during the moment of impact. 5 MPH vs 95 MPH... Who is going to survive this crash?

              Don't be so fast to shout bullshit.

              -Chris

              P.S. The passengers of the car don't feel the force of the kinetic energy of the opposing car during a crash, they feel the force of the kinetic energy the car they are in exerts upon them in response to the force of the second car. The mass of the car you are in is very important to the overall equation.
        • In terms of being able to survive a collision with another vehicle, I don't really think the weight of the vehicle is the important issue. Larger cars are safer than smaller cars not because they weigh more, but because they have more room to let the car crumple to absorb the energy created by a collision.

          True, but the problem is for example that SUVs (as they are trucks) don't really do that.

          Also, it is not ony YOUR car that has to crumble but the other one as well, it doesn't really matter who conv
    • Yeah, you're right. The only way to beat the insane soccer Moms in their suburban tanks is to assert your right to join them.</sarc>
  • It gets 80 miles per charge and has a pretty respectable top speed, but if it's just a small father-son venture then what wider scale impact will it have on cars? Don't take this the wrong way, I'm all for any kind of advancement in electric car mass production, but if this is just a two person personal project then there may not be much point in it.

    Of course, I might just be missing the point completely and this is just a cool hack and not something practical.
    • It gets 80 miles per charge and has a pretty respectable top speed, but if it's just a small father-son venture then what wider scale impact will it have on cars?

      If you recall, there was another Father and Son venture from Spokane, They wrote a little game called Myst.

      BTW, the Car uses off the shelf parts. 80K for a prototype, could easily come down in price. And then add the electric tax credit on top of it. And the proposed usage in HOV lanes, Seems like a winner.

    • Did you read the article? The article states that it began as an idea two decades ago that with the help of the son became reality. Once people saw the original prototype that was hand crafted and taking on tour to automobile symposiums other engineerin firms and automakers help out either for free or very cheaply to redesin the chassis and to use parts already in poduction for other cars( cheaper that way). So I do believe the car you see is not the original but a newer version created by companies spearhe

  • Safety (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SKPhoton ( 683703 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:41AM (#6538711) Homepage
    Looking at the car, one can't help but wonder about its safety.

    "It has jet-pilot seat belts and a racing-regulation roll cage; it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns."

    If they put air bags in the thing, it'd compress you quite well. They need pictures of the inside of the car as well. I would not like to see this car in an accident. Even the "bumper" if you would call it that, is virtually non-existant.

    So you have enough room for a passenger in the back? A comfortable passenger or tightly squeezed passenger?

    "A narrow car could or even travel between lanes, like a motorcycle." could it? sure. could it legally? uhh

    • Re:Safety (Score:2, Informative)

      by A1miras ( 595087 )
      "A narrow car could or even travel between lanes, like a motorcycle." could it? sure. could it legally? uhh

      A car could do it just as legal as a motorcycle can. It's fully legal to share lanes with any other vehicle(at least in California).

      However, weaving in and out of lanes is not legal, technically motrocycles have to "pick a lane" though that usually doesn't happen...
    • I've seen one, and it's been much discussed on the EV mailing list. The car is designed to race car standards, as mentioned in your quote even. Still, it'll be nice to see the results when they get the funding to do the crash tests...

      There is room for a passenger in back; it isn't the easiest thing to get into, but not the worst either. It's a little cramped, but it's not intended for long trips either.
    • It all depends on the state. Some states it is legal to drive between rows of cars. Why you would risk that in stop and go traffic is beyond me. Here in Minnesota you can share a lane with only another motorcycle if you so choose. You can not ride between lanes of traffic intentionaly.

      The reason its bad if you ride side by side is if one person swerves to miss something the other rider doesnt see... However i dont think this would be a large issues with this vehicle since it is on four wheels with a low ce

  • Center of Gravity - 160MPH? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anubi ( 640541 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:42AM (#6538712) Journal
    This car really looks neat for general scooting around town...

    But it looks in the photos to have a terrible center of gravity problem.. looks like it would roll quite easily.

    Funny the article mentioned splitting lanes such as motorcycles... with the roads filling up more and more with SUV's, even the motorcyclists are ending up with more and more rapped knuckles from the SUV mirrors. Somehow I don't think its too practical for anybody to try to split lanes.

    And yes, the parking looks like a dream.

    • Whoops, meant 130MPH ( top speed ). My bad.

      But anyway, I don't think I would even feel safe at 60. Maybe 35-40 tops if the wind wasn't blowing.

    • RTFA.

      Top speed is 130 mph, not 160 mph.

      RTFA some more.

      U.S. Patent No. 6,328,121 (Ultra-Narrow Automobile Stabilized with Ballast)... Safety? It has jet-pilot seat belts and a racing-regulation roll cage; it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns.

      And moderators, RTFA before you mode up dumbass posts like the parent.

    • "it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns." Even though it weighs as much as a normal car, it's a heck of a lot smaller; it sounds like it isn't a problem.
    • Actually, it's probably quite stable. Most electric cars have 80% or more of their mass in the batteries that are down below the axle level. So from that standpoint anyway, they're pretty safe.

      The first thing I thought of when I read the article was WHY? Why would anybody make an electric with that kind of performance? With an 80 mile range, it's obviously just going to be a commuter car. It'll probably spend 90% of its time in heavy stop and go traffic. I mean, that's supposed to be part of the appeal of the thing, right? It's small and maneuverable and you can park it just about anywhere. So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130? (and is anyone else wondering what the real numbers would be if someone took that thing out to a drag strip and timed it?)

      Couldn't they put in a motor that's a little less beefy and knock the price down a few thou? Wouldn't that improve its range and make it safer?

      • So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130? (and is anyone else wondering what the real numbers would be if someone took that thing out to a drag strip and timed it?)

        From the article: By winter they had a drivable car, and by fall, they were racing it on autocross tracks

        Seems like theres a good chance that these are fairly accurate numbers.

      • Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:14AM (#6538797)
        I'd guess that part of the reason for the speed is "because we could". But also, electric cars are generally seen as toy cars. Mention that this 'toy' car accelerates faster than a Porsche, and suddenly it seems much less toy like.

      • Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:22AM (#6538821) Homepage Journal
        So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130?

        To make it fun to drive

      • Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The speed and acceleration is there simply because they can.
        The performance of the motor is due to the strength of the electromagnets in it, and that's very cheap to increase compared to a gas engine. Gas provides more staying power, but it can't touch electric for raw performance.

      • Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? (Score:5, Informative)

        by vanyel ( 28049 ) * on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:40AM (#6538861) Journal
        From their posts on the EV list, they're going for the fun exotic factor to justify the $80K price a limited production vehicle has to get. After the early adopters have gotten things going, then they can ramp up and lower the cost. At least that's my understanding of the plan...

        And if you look at the videos, you can see that it's *very* stable.

        The motor that's in it is a small fraction of the cost.

        They've had it at Woodburn, Oregon's annual EV drag races in earlier prototypes. Come to this year's (August 31) [nedra.com] and if you're lucky, maybe they'll bring one this year.

        Come to the OEVA EV Awareness Day tomorrow (today? July 26) [oeva.org] and if you're real lucky, maybe they'll have one here then too (they did last year).

      • The reason they're making it a sports car is so they can sell it! I mean, its fun to make it a sports car, but commuter cars have a huge disadvantage here in the U.S. Mainly, they look like they're for dorks.

        I mean that will all due respect. They're funny looking. And the people with the most money to spend on cars are baby-boomers who saw a nation built on the automobile. Americans take pride in cars, which may not be the case in every nation in the world. To an American, a car is a status symbol, an eman
    • But it looks in the photos to have a terrible center of gravity problem.. looks like it would roll quite easily.

      From the website.

      [snip]Because safety is such a concern for small cars in particular, we have designed the Tango around a roll cage that meets or exceeds both SCCA and NHRA regulations. These are racing organizations that specify cage design to protect the occupants of cars crashing at over 200 mph. In addition, the extremely high strength-to-surface area ratio of a steel roll cage allows super
      • Yeh.. but somehow the idea of a 200mph crash in any car sounds scary to me.

        I guess there's a lot for me to understand. Its not a crash with another Tango that scares me, its the crash with the Ford Excursion that scares me... and its not the fact he just hits me, its that not only does he hit me, he then proceeds to drive OVER me. The law of inertia would make this scenario inevitable. I don't know if this car's roll bar was designed to dissipate the energy of a ton of mass heading my way. But then, th

  • Like half a Smart (Score:3, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... .com minus punct> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:53AM (#6538743) Journal
    (The Smart is the Mercedes-built minicar you can see zipping around European cities).
    Practical, easy to park, and completely disappointing sales.
    Why? Most cars are not bought because they are economical or easy to park. They are bought because they are the meanest, biggest, fastest machines the limited budget will buy. Cars are as much, or more about conspicuous consumption as they are about getting from point A to point B.
    It's a nice idea, but won't quite work as a "mine's bigger than your's" concept.
    Perhaps they can steal some ideas from how Smarts are sold here: mainly rented out, plastered with advertising, since people love look at them, but hate the idea of doing the morning commute in them.
    Make cities smaller, walk more.
    • The reason the Smart has such disappointing sales is mainly due to the price. For the same price as a two-seater 600 cc engine (even though you can buy them turbocharged) you could buy yourself a 4-seater with a 1200cc engine.

      What this translates into is a car which you would only buy as a second or third car and isn't really all that practical. It will still get stuck in traffic jams and a lot of cities in Europe have ALL parking bays painted out on the road anyway, including the parallel parking bays, ma
    • Hardly "completely disappointing sales".

      They're all over the place in London, Paris, Madrid, Milan.

  • YOU'D BETTER KEEP THOSE THINGS OUT OF TEXAS (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:54AM (#6538747)
    Here in Texas, we believe in burning good old fashioned fossil fuels, and preferably lots of them. Electric cars have no place in our state. Houston is the #1 most polluted city in the USA, and we don't intend to give up the title without a fight.

    We suggest you take your electric car back to California where it came from and come back with a proper Texas sized pickup truck or SUV.

    Yours truly,
    Fmr Guvner of Texas George Walker Bush

  • Website has videos! (Score:5, Informative)

    by fmita ( 517041 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @04:55AM (#6538752) Homepage Journal
    Check out their website at http://www.commutercars.com [commutercars.com] . Under the gallery section, they've got a video of it in action. Pretty neat-o.

  • Rick's dad, Bill, was an electrical engineer who designed one of the world's first computers, then worked for IBM.

    Start the "if computer engineers built cars" jokes [quasisemi.com] already!

  • Electric is not a synonym for efficient (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gvc ( 167165 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:08AM (#6538780)
    Notably absent from the article is any mention of the energy efficiency of this beast. At one-and-a-half-tons, it hauls around a lot of mass for a single seater.

    We seem to assume that because we can't see or smell it that electricity is 'free energy.' Electricity is not free; electrical energy generation and storage are horribly inefficient and not particularly environmentally friendly. Radioactive waste, diverted watersheds, burnt fossil fuels, or lead-acid batteries are friendly neither to your pocket book nor to your planet.

    That said, I do acknowledge that the creators' original intent was to use fuel cells which may prove to be a superior energy delivery system. However, even if I subtract out 1000 lbs for the
    batteries, the car is still very heavy for its capacity. Even worse than the new Mini, which weighs more than double the original.

    • Re:Electric is not a synonym for efficient (Score:5, Informative)

      by frenchs ( 42465 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @06:56AM (#6538966) Homepage
      From the manufacturer website:

      For that average commute of 20 miles and up to 24 miles per charge, the total cost per mile of the Tango is approximately 30% lower than that of a Honda Insight. This includes battery replacement, maintenance, and the cost of electricity at $.05 per kWh (as in the Northwest). The Honda Insight has an EPA rating of 56 mpg city and 57 highway.
      Link To Reference Here [commutercars.com]
    • Electricity is not free; electrical energy generation and storage are horribly inefficient

      Bullshit. A large power plant is very efficient -- much more so than a gasoline engine (which has 20-30% efficiency). Storage is slightly less efficient, but still approaches 80-90% efficiency with the right charging methods.

      lead-acid batteries are friendly neither to your pocket book nor to your planet.

      Virtually all lead-acid batteries are recycled. You can recover pretty much 100% of the lead from one and u

  • Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeeverNO@SPAMnerdshack.com> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:11AM (#6538788)
    I love it. It's small, efficient, fast, and has plenty range to get me around town. I'm first in line to get the 20 grand "peoples model."

    I rather doubt I'd do 130 in it, though. But having 1100 pounds of batteries under the floorboards it great for stability. But in terms of crash safety, something this small and dense (Just shy of a ton with NO batteries) looks like it would get crushed by it's own intertia in a crash with a structure.

    At any rate, it doesn't mesh very well with oil companies or automakers, and they will probably pay out the ass to make it fail. GE offered to do a small test run, then rescinded and sued California over the 10% ZEV requirement. I mean, for almost all practical purposes around town this could replace our Camry. Except for long-distance trips or visits to the hardware store, it will do just as well. But it doesn't feed oil companies nearly as much money, and automakers make a bigger profit selling Stupid Useless Vehicles (to most who buy them).

    I would have to agree that, for most people, it is indeed un-American to drive an SUV. Most of you don't need the damn thing, and by getting 8 MPG you just give middle-eastern oil theocracies more economic weapons to hold at our throats.
    • . . .was the "need" for a particular item a requirement for ownership of said item ? "Want" sells a whole lot more units, and can be cultivated cheaply via advertising.

      And also, "want" items generally sell with a lot larger mark-up than "need" commodities. So which will J. Random Dealer want to sell ??

  • patent mania! (Score:2, Informative)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 )
    At the moment, however, U.S. Patent No. 6,328,121 (Ultra-Narrow Automobile Stabilized with Ballast) is causing a jam in front of Spokane's Northtown Mall. Traffic stops, drivers gawk.

    Holy fuck, they got a patent for a car that's narrow! It's like a regular car, but narrow. Wow that's so fucking novel!

    Oh but it's got a low center of gravity too?! No one ever would have thought of that...
    • Wtf, slashdotters bitch about patents constantly, but me pointing out this idiotic one (a lot more idiotic then most of the patent bitching) gets modded as 'troll'. What the fuck ever. There is absolutely nothing non-obvious about a 'narrow car' with a low center of gravity. Christ.

  • Don't let mass transit die (Score:5, Informative)

    by nounderscores ( 246517 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:29AM (#6538838)
    From the article William Garrison, UC Berkeley professor emeritus and co-author of "Tomorrow's Transportation." "People want variety . . . They don't want people telling them what to do. We wealthy people with bleeding hearts say we need mass transit for the poor. The hell with that. The poor need money. If they had money, they wouldn't take transit."

    I'm sorry Mr Garrison, but people do want variety. I'm all for effective electric cars, but we should allow our already working mass transit systems be developed to be equally or more convenient to use at the same time. In paris, you don't need a train time table: the trains are always two minutes apart. In Australia, tramstops have little touchscreen kiosks which allow you to plan your route, buy a ticket and even optimise your time.

    I want my big SUV to go out bushbashing and hauling lumber in a trailer, I want to be able to rent/buy a small electric two seater so that don't get quashed in a road accident that would have killed a motorcyclist when I go shopping on my own and I want to be able to buy a ticket to a train that runs on time so I can read manuals or highlight meeting minutes or just plain sleep on my way to my tech job in the city where parking is a pain in the ass anyway.

    • Re:Don't let mass transit die (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jgardn ( 539054 ) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @08:59AM (#6539188) Homepage Journal
      I like mass transit. I lived for several years in Seoul, Korea. In Seoul, the subways are a godsend. You can get anywhere in the city in about half or quarter the time it takes to ride a bus or drive. And the subways aren't for the poor as they would be in America. They are the best option for most long-distance travel in Seoul.

      The busses are awesome as well. The busses that actually go places run every 5 or 10 minutes. You don't have to schedule yourself around the busses' schedule.

      You can pick up a taxi for cheap short trips anywhere in the city. These are great to provide the "last mile" to your destination, if you don't have time to walk it.

      The problem is that nowhere in America do we even get close to the population density of Seoul. Here in Seattle and the Puget Sound area (Tacoma to Everett), the population density is closer to Middle of Nowhere, New Mexico than Seoul. We can't afford to build subways under our city. We can't afford to run busses every five or ten minutes. There cannot be enough taxi drivers to make it useful for short, quick trips. And even if we could, it wouldn't be much more efficient than driving.

      So the problem is about mobility. In Seoul, you can go anywhere you want in a reasonable amount of time without a car. With a car, you can't get there any faster or cheaper.

      In Seattle, you *can't* go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time *unless* you have a car.

      That's where this Tango comes in. It is exactly what we Americans would use. I would buy one for its fuel cost efficiency alone. I really don't care too much for safety, as long as it is more safe than a motorcycle (which is pretty damn safe). It provides me with the ability to go pretty much anywhere I want anytime I want, which the busses don't, and walking or biking can't. I can give a lift to a friend, or put some goods in the back. That's why I drive a Hyundai Accent. That's why I would get one of these.

  • Okay I'm a pig... (Score:4, Funny)

    by gykh ( 625487 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:32AM (#6538843) Journal
    Warning: You read this at your own discretion. Not politically correct. In the slightest. With bells on.
    "Cool," declares a 20-year-old strawberry blonde, snapping a paparazzi shot. "Can I borrow it and drive to California?" A silvery couple in matching pink polo shirts inquires about the nearest dealership. A woman with toddlers wants to know about safety. --emphasis mine

    Did anyone else scroll back up to check if the author was a woman?

    Don't call me chauvanist - any Real Man? would have written:
    "Cool," declares a hot chick, snapping a paparazzi shot. "Can I borrow it and drive to California?" A couple of homosexual seniors inquire about the nearest dealership. The hot chick (with encumbrances) wants to know about safety.

  • The answer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @05:36AM (#6538851) Homepage Journal
    Fiberglass crumple zones making the car as wide as, say, a honda civic. In the bargain you could recline people a little more. Push the wheels out and put them on some nice bendable steel to give people something to hit. All that crap is cheap anyway.

    If the car handles that well with this wide a track, imagine how it would handle with the track of a normal auto. It would also improve safety. It's not going to be legal to park them nose to the curb any time soon because it's clear that they are a car and not a motorcycle (at that weight, there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever what class they will be in.) You don't need to make the car any longer (though another foot wouldn't hurt it and would buy you a more reclined position) but you certainly need to make it look less goofy. I suggest a lower, wider stance, and a trunk. Or at least looking more like a station wagon and less like a vending machine.

  • what happens to batteries in an accident (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @06:04AM (#6538903)
    You know, with talk of electric cars, I wonder what's going to happen in a medium-speed crash with lots of batteries in a car. Sulfuric acid everywhere?
    • With compartmentalization and protection, it wouldn't be any worse than crashing with 25 gallons of gasoline. We (well, SANE people) don't drive around with unprotected fuel tanks in the passenger compartment, so why wouldn't batteries also be compartmentalized away in a steel container outside (in this case, underneath) the passenger compartment? That's right, they are!

      Accident wise, I think this would be better than gasoline/desiel, as lead-acid batteries, while corrosive, pose less of a threat than a ca

  • How to sell an electric car (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @06:13AM (#6538915) Homepage
    WhilstI would dearly love to end our reliance on fossil fuels (and as a side benefit other than the environment, America could come home and stop trying to rule the world to ensure its own fuel supply), the electric car won't take off because it has an image problem.

    People don't want to buy a car because it's good for the environment, they don't buy it for its fuel efficiency, and they don't buy it because it'll seat half a basketball team. They buy a car mostly because they are a status symbol way of getting from A to B. So, to sell electric cars, here's a small list of how to make them DESIRABLE:

    1. Make it FAST. 0-60MPH in 4 seconds minimum. (Doesn't matter if you actually USE that acceleration, it's street cred poser value, for the most part the "mine's bigger than yours" syndrome)

    2. Make it STYLISH. Not your usual avant garde electric enviro-car. Take a look at rally cars and real sports cars for inspiration. Get Porsche or Ferrari to build one.

    3. Get them seen in public, not as show cars, but being used to do things better than their petrol counterparts. Rally driving, motor racing etc. Give them performance in spades, ultra-low C of G, and watch them out-turn regular cars.

    4. Get the racing fraternity (all types) to hold competitions. I mean REAL F1 or TOCA type competitions that use cars you'd be able to buy. Not the solar/electric challenge type competition that most people only see as the dead donkey story at the end of the news.

    5. Finally, make them rechargeable through simple means ie. domestic power plugs or some other common infrastructure ALREADY IN PLACE. Chicken and egg scenarios are doomed from the get go.

    Do those things, and you will sell electric cars. Until then, it's never going to take off.
    • 1. "...zooms from zero to 60 in four seconds" nuf sed.
      2. " Working from a photo-shopped picture of a 1998 Mercedes A-Class hatchback..." and Mercedes seem to be doing ok with that style given how many I've seen around.
      3. "... causing a jam in front of Spokane's Northtown Mall. Traffic stops, drivers gawk." nef sed.
      4. "...leaving a puff of rubber smoke and conventional Corvettes and Porsches in the dust.". Sounds like most sets of traffic lights will do that part!
      5. "... Three hours to completely recharge
    • What you mean like the T-Zero [acpropulsion.com]?

  • Obligatory Simpsons Quote: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alex Belits ( 437 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @06:17AM (#6538923) Homepage
    -- Who holds back electric car?
    -- We do! We do!

  • Too expensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2003 @07:00AM (#6538973)
    Why do they hope to ask $20000 for the mass produced model when one could find much cheaper gasoline mass produced cars?
    Electric engines are much simpler, smaller and cheaper than combustion ones and electric cars transmission systems can be much more simplified, thus cheaper. A good set of batteries cannot stand the huge amount of money saved by -not- using a combustion engine.
    Plus, current sockets aren't widely available like gas stations.
    I like that car, as did most people cited in the article, but they need a killer price to actually make people want to buy it now.
    • It's that sort of short sighted attitude that is the very reason many cities in the states are choking to death on polution fumes from cars.

      Go ahead... buy your gas-guzzler, but don't come bitching to the rest of us when you get nailed for higher fuel prices when a environmentally aware government gets in and slugs you at the pump. At current fuel prices it might seem a high cost investment but I'd bet that'll be very differnet picture five years from now.

  • Nice, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @07:31AM (#6539018)
    I'll take a tzero [acpropulsion.com] thanks.
  • Hmm, this car probably lacks stability and will bump over at the first turn.

    • Re:stability (Score:3, Funny)

      by aaaurgh ( 455697 )
      Did you actually read the article or just look at the pretty pictures?

      The weight of the lead acid batteries provide more than sufficient roll stability "...including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns." FTFA!
  • From the article: "Rick Woodbury starts every morning with silent meditation in a small Tibetan Buddhist temple in Spokane. His prayers call for an end to sickness, war and suffering, but since he doesn't know how to do those things, he decided instead to create an environmental traffic-busting car."

    That's pretty cool of them to point out.

  • Less pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <<giles.jones> <at> <zen.co.uk>> on Saturday July 26, 2003 @08:55AM (#6539180)
    These vehicles do nothing to solve pollution, to get energy you need to have it stored somewhere. Either in a liquid fuel or in a battery. Batteries need charging and so you need electricity, to produce electricity you need to burn stuff, start off some nuclear reaction or use loads of wind power.

    All you're doing really is relocating the pollution elsewhere or changing the form of the pollution.

    Also the batteries and motors will have a limited life and will need replacing. A diesel engine can last around 200,000 miles, I don't think an electric motor will last that long. These cars do nothing to solve the waste that is used tyres, millions of tyres are used each year and there's no simple way of recycling them.

    So guys, stop wasting your time and invent the teleporter! :)
    • The inventor is not only concerned with environmental concerns, but also societal concerns - traffic and noise, as well as pollution.

      It is much more efficient to control, filter and dispose of emmissions from a power plant than from a million independant cars.

      These cars are smaller.

      These cars are more maneuverable.

      These cars are quieter.
      Since you don't know (and didn't investigate) how long an electric motor, or a battery will last, I'm not sure why you bring them up as arguments. The tire concern

      • You make some valid points, but quieter cars can result in more pedestrian accidents as they can't hear them coming.

        I brought up tyres (tires) since I would rather people were researching ways to reduce these problems too. People won't drive electic cars until they are forced to.

        As for the 4x4/SUV problem, in the UK 4x4 ownership is on the increase due to factors like speed bumps (sleeping policemen). People aren't going to want to scale down their transport if they have a family.

        Nobody really knows how

    • Re:Less pollution? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zouden ( 232738 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @09:45AM (#6539285)
      All you're doing really is relocating the pollution elsewhere or changing the form of the pollution.

      True, but in the end it works out more efficient: because a large power plant is designed solely to produce power, it is much more efficient and cleaner at doing it than a small combustion engine is, even taking power transport into consideration.
      We don't all have diesel generators in our back sheds to power our homes, because it is cheaper and cleaner to have a high-effeciency power plant supplying millions of homes.

  • The batteries cannot leak. (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1337_h4x0r ( 643377 ) on Saturday July 26, 2003 @09:37AM (#6539261)

    SEALED, VIBRATION RESISTANT, AND LEAK PROOF, EVEN WHEN BROKEN

    In an OPTIMA battery, the lead plates and separator are wound and tightly compressed into a cell tube so they can't move, shed, or break, even in severe shock and vibration applications. In independent SAE tests, the OPTIMA kept working after being subjected to vibrations up to 5G for 12 hours. As in all AGM TECHNOLOGY BATTERIES, there is no "free acid" that can leak out or spill and the OPTIMA can be operated effectively in any position -- even upside down -- without any risk of leaking and because it is sealed, no corrosion can form on the posts, connectors, or cables.

    At DC Battery, we have been shown tests in which the a bullet is fired into an Optima leaving a huge hole in the center. Even with the battery's interior exposed, there was no leakage and when placed into a vehicle, it performed perfectly.

  • The strange tall and narrow design seems to be only possible because of the heavy lead ballast. I wonder if you could use a lighter power source and use gyroscopes to stabilize, similar to the Segway.

    Eco-geeks might smack me...

    Throw in an internal combustion engine and a stabilizing gyroscope. It would be quite the feat to include regenerative breaking and turn it into a hybrid... or, and I've heard of this being tried somewhere, maybe it was done in the '70s... have a mechanical engineering lunatic d

  • They burn! Someone please shoot me if I ever drive one of those monstrosities.

    I'm a fan of large cars - my current car is a '70 Mercury Marquis convertible (it's a yacht on wheels, basically). I bet it's safer than this little thing even though it only has lap belts.

  • Who in their right mind would drive a car like the tango at 130 MPH? As narrow a footprint that thing has, one slight hiccup on the steering wheel and you'd be doing a long, life-ending tumbler down the road in the blink of an eye.


    WIDEN the vehicle if you intend that it be driven at highway speeds (and higher...130 MPH?).

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close