Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology Hardware

The World's Fastest Electric Car 400

Posted by timothy from the forbes-sans-flames dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this review, Forbes.com looks at the fastest electric vehicle in the world, the tzero roadster built by AC Propulsion Inc. 'The tzero does 0 to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, according to the company, and it does it on only 200 horsepower.' The company says it starts faster than a Ferrari F355. It also has a limited range of 280 to 300 miles at 60 mph on a single charge. The company expects a price somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari, but Forbes says it carries a $220,000 sticker price. This overview contains more details and links. It also includes a rendering of the Tzero. Please note that the Forbes article has a very different focus from the one mentioned in a previous Slashdot reference."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World's Fastest Electric Car More

The World's Fastest Electric Car

Comments Filter:

  • Forbes missed a good point - go figure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:15AM (#7280567) Journal
    ...hybrids, diesels and hydrogen cars now seem like more viable alternatives to electric cars, whose customers have complained about their golf-cart powerplant noise and limited range.

    The difference between a traditional electric car and one of those new-fangled hybrid cars is the power source only. What is really amazing about this car is that a 110lb electric engine produces 200 hp and that easly makes the transtion between electic, hybrid, and hydrogen cars. I am still scatching my head about diesel engines being included.

    • Diesel cars that do 60mpg+ are common in europe and japan and if I remember correctly theres even one model that does 100mpg (but with pretty non existent performance)

    • Where's the energy saving? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Davak ( 526912 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#7280706) Homepage
      Not trolling... I just honestly don't know.

      How are electrical cars more energy efficent than gas powered ones? We get the majority of our electricity from burning fossil fuels.

      If we all convert over to electrical cars, will be not just burning more oil and coal in our power plants?

      Where the energy-saving step that I am missing?

      Davak

      • Re:Where's the energy saving? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#7280726) Homepage
        Power plants are incredibly more efficient at producing electricity than your car engine.
        • And very high losses in transmitting that power from the plant to my house.
          Don't know off hand, but I'm guessing it would all come out in the wash...
        • " Power plants are incredibly more efficient at producing electricity than your car engine."

          This is for the most part false. While some powerplants are high efficency, like over 50 percent, that is rare. Most are in the 30-40 percent land the same as a car engine depending on fuel.

          Also most powerplants in the US are coal, which is both very unclean, and not a very efficent plant. and nuclear plants can't be run at their full potentials do to safety concerns.

          A new car engine is one of the most efficent
      • Depending on the type of hybrid, there are two ways it can improve efficiency. In a 'serial' hybrid, the IC (internal combustion) engine runs pretty much at constant speed and charges batteries. The actual motive power is provided by an electric motor (which is often used as a generator during braking, which also charges the battery. This is called regenerative braking). Because IC engines are most efficient at a constant RPM, you can tune the whole setup to run the IC engine at it's most efficient while ch

      • It's in a bunch of places (Score:5, Informative)

        by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:56AM (#7280936) Homepage Journal
        How are electrical cars more energy efficent than gas powered ones?
        Among other things, electric cars don't sit in traffic with their engines idling but doing no work. They also have no throttling losses [swri.edu] from operating at part load.
        We get the majority of our electricity from burning fossil fuels.
        If you have e.g. a Ford Ranger which uses 300 watt-hours/mile at the wheels while getting 25 miles per gallon at cruise, it is operating at about 21% efficiency. A typical old-technology coal-fired steam turbine gets 30-35% efficiency, a gas-fired combined-cycle turbine plant can beat 50% handily, and other technologies can probably hit 60% or more. If these are used along with co-generation to supply heat for other uses, total utilization of the fuel can probably exceed 80%. That's four times what the truck can get on its own.
        If we all convert over to electrical cars, will be not just burning more oil and coal in our power plants?
        But given the higher efficiency, we'll be burning less overall. We'll also have the option of supplying cars from nuclear, wind, hydropower or solar; anything that makes electricity is the same as far as the car is concerned.

        The substantial storage capacity of electric car battery packs would also give benefits for the electrical grid (which should be high on our list of priorities after 8/14/2003). See the papers at acpropulsion.com about vehicle-to-grid ancillary services.

        And no, I have no relationship with these guys, I just think they're clever and have a damned good idea.

        • Re:It's in a bunch of places (Score:4, Informative)

          by jimsum ( 587942 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:19AM (#7281154)
          The Ford Ranger is actually less efficient since you didn't account for the energy costs of producing the gas. Producing gasoline from crude oil is about 88% efficient.
        • I would think that you could drive a generator with a gas-fired turbine, keep the electric motors on the wheels and get much more efficiency than most cars while allowing you to use the current energy storage infrastructure (IE: gas stations.) I can't imagine that a turbine would be much heavier than the huge batteries these things require. Transitioning to diesel, hydrogen or propane wouldn't be all that hard, either.

          • I would think that you could drive a generator with a gas-fired turbine, keep the electric motors on the wheels

            It's been done, or close enough.

            and get much more efficiency than most cars while allowing you to use the current energy storage infrastructure (IE: gas stations.)

            And you'd be wrong. Did you ever wonder why none of the high-efficiency hybrid vehicles uses a gas turbine? It's because you need regenerators and a bottoming-cycle to get decent efficiency out of one, and you can't shoehorn those

        • But aren't there 10-15% losses in the electricity grid, which is basically one BIG resistor? (Granted, there are inefficiencies in the distribution of gas as well.)
          • A friend of mine works for AustinEnergy (Austin, TX Municipal Utility) used their non-public information on transport losses and pollution to work out the calculations for losses and compared gasoline to electric.

            Even worst case (coal fired electric plant) the electric car still came out ahead in pollution and energy efficency, and that was ignoring the energy/pollution involved in pumping, refining and transporting gasoline. (The numbers compared pump to road vs coal to road)

            The best case though is much
      • Here in Washington (Seattle City Light) most of our electricity - 85% - comes from relatively clean hydro. It should work out to pollute less per mile except...

        What I'm more curious about is how much pollution does creating these cars generate? And then, how much pollution is created when you have to get rid of the batteries (and the rest of the car?), even assume you recycle the parts until they're useless?

  • Ad Campaign... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bcolflesh ( 710514 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:16AM (#7280578) Homepage
    The World's Fastest Electric Car - don't let the price shock you.

  • Talking about electric cars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by photonic ( 584757 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:17AM (#7280589)
    What about the world's fastest SOLAR-electric car?
    The Nuna II [nuonsolarteam.nl], just won the World Solar Challenge [wsc.org.au], travelling 3000 kilometers in just 31 hours, averaging around 97 km/h.

  • And the tree is the... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:17AM (#7280591)
    World's fastest stopper. 60 to 0 in 0 seconds flat.
    • 60 to 0 in 0 seconds flat.

      That's if you measure the front bumper. The rear bumper decelerates at a different rate. Quite unfortunately for those sitting in-between.
      • That's if you measure the front bumper. The rear bumper decelerates at a different rate. Quite unfortunately for those sitting in-between.

        I'd quite prefer this to the full force of a 60 mile an hour impact to a perfectly ridged automobile when it impacts the tree. Better to risk being squished than to impale yourself on a steering wheel.
      • front bumper = skull

        rear bumper = brain

        sheering, compaction, laceration and finally disintegration make for a fine ending to a speedy life. i like the concept of perceived time lasting while your brain fires rapidly during the process. relive lemonaide on the porch with grandma while your car converts you to a stain.

  • Golf Carts (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:17AM (#7280595) Journal
    Anyone who golfs knows what kind of punch an electric golf cart has from a stand still shouldn't be surprised by this. Nothing beats waiting for your playing partner to get one foot in the cart and then flooring it. He gets bended backwards over the seat like a pretzel. Pisses at your and struggling with a sore back, he shanks it the rest of the round. Fun with inertia!
    • Don't laugh...

      The new Lexus Hybrids [lexus.com] (lexus-hybrid.com temporarily down) will have up to an extra 1000 newton-meters of electrical torque available. The RX400H is being sold as an *upgrade* to the RX330. "V8 power with compact car fuel efficiency".

      Hybrid isn't the rinky-dink compact car anymore. It is profitable.

  • Battery life! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by illogique ( 598061 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:21AM (#7280632)
    if it's like a laptop, you will have to change de battery after 1-2 years!! and how costly is a car battery??

  • What about the Tengo? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jpatters ( 883 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:23AM (#7280646)
    What about the Tengo [commutercars.com]?
    It gets 0-60 in about 4 seconds, and a top speed of 130MPH. That is certainly better than 3.6 and 60.
  • It gets to 60 in 3.6 seconds, but has a top speed of 65. Getting to the top speed has never been so fun!

    </sarcasm>

  • How much coal, oil, gas is required on a large scale to make all of that extra electricity that would be required? Seems to be close to a zero sum proposition.

    • Re:How much oil to make the electricity? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by horza ( 87255 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:53AM (#7280910) Homepage
      How much coal, oil, gas is required on a large scale to make all of that extra electricity that would be required? Seems to be close to a zero sum proposition.

      With every country but the USA moving to minimum renewable energy targets, it's an increasingly attractive proposition. Plus you can generate your own electricity if you wish, using renewable sources. I won't rehash all the benefits of centralising the cleaning of fumes in a power station as opposed to millions of portable generators, as already discussed dozens of times on Slashdot, so even in todays infrastructure it still makes sense (especially countries like France where over 80% of energy is nuclear).

      Phillip.
    • Even if were 0-sum, at least it wouldn't all be being burnt Mb>right in your face like it is now.

      I hate smog, and it's getting worse here (UK). When I go up to London, the sky colours are wrong from all the crap in the air. I'd really hate to live in LA.

      J.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ...couldn't they have introduced this BEFORE we went to war for all of that oil?
  • [the electric car] also has a limited range of 280 to 300 miles at 60 mph on a single charge.
    As opposed to the Ferrari, which has an unlimited range? Given its gas consumption and small size, I wonder just how much more range the Ferrari has? Does anyone know?

    Also, is the electric car most efficient (in terms of miles per.. um, Watt I guess) at 60 mph? Or was that speed chosen because it's what gas-powered cars use?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    • Road&Track, 7/03 Road Test.

      13.3mpg tested mileage, with a 29.1 gallon tank - I'm guessing they did a separate "run to dry" range test, mileage*capacity gives 387 miles. All for..$62.57! (29.1gals Shell Formula 94@$2.15/gal, hampton bays NY)
    • It doesn't really matter that much. I would guess the Ferrari has a 15 gallon tank at about 12Mpg so would get around 180 miles. But here is the important part if you run out of fuel it only takes a few minutes to get more. Not to mention the cars have different perposes the TZero is more of a proof of concept the Ferrari is a toy for the rich that like to go very fast and impress people.

      Of course this brings up the biggest problem with electric cars. The problem isn't speed or range as much as it is charg
    • As opposed to the Ferrari, which has an unlimited range? Given its gas consumption and small size, I wonder just how much more range the Ferrari has? Does anyone know?
      I don't know, but I do know that you can 'recharge' the Ferrari in under 5 minutes.

  • maybe a bit too light.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:44AM (#7280848) Journal
    Drivers get an analog current meter, voltmeter, altimeter

    I have a problem getting into a car that is so likely to become airborne that the manufactuer put in an altimeter.

  • 200hp is 200hp, gas or electric.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caveat ( 26803 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:47AM (#7280874)
    ..the only reason that 200hp can push the car to 60 in ~4 seconds is because the thing is the size of a matchbox (look at the Gallery pics, the car is about as big as a gas pump :D). I suffered with an MR2 MkII for a couple of years, this thing looks 2/3 the size...good thing it only has an hour range, my legs couldn't take much more.
    • Learn about torque. Electric motors generate tons of it at any speed. Gas engines don't. Most people havent a clue what horsepower actually is. these days its a well abused marketing term. Sort of like claiming mhz in a computer processor defines how fast it computes.
  • It comes with an optional 20kW gas generator in a little streamlined trailer for "continuous highway cruising"...doesn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose of the excercise?

  • Electric Motors have high torque (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pz ( 113803 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @09:54AM (#7280911) Journal
    Electric motors, unlike internal combustion engines, can generate maximum torque at zero RPM. This translates directly into excellent off-line acceleration, impressive 0-60 times, and all-round high performance. Around-town driving in an electric car should give the impression that there's a much bigger engine due to our preconceptions based on internal combusion (thus, the comment "only 200 hp"). Top speed, however, will seem stunted in comparison to that available from an internal combustion engine because they generally produce increasing torque with increasing RPM (especially below 2000 RPM).
    • 200hp is 200hp

      yes, true in the strictest sense, however a gas or desiel must use a clutch or transmision with significant losses because they have zero torq at zero speed. A variavble freqeuncy induction drive (like this) can generate all that torque at start, so you can actually apply more force, even tought the peak is still the same level.
    • 200hp is more hp than my turbo-charged internal combustion engine car. My car has a speed limiter on it set to 220kph, but it can certainly go faster if that's removed. 200hp is a lot, even if it seems miserly in these days 500+hp.

    • Top speed, however, will seem stunted in comparison to that available from an internal combustion engine because they generally produce increasing torque with increasing RPM

      If the motors are embedded in each wheel, they could always operate in low-RPM high-torque ranges. Four motors operating simultaneously could be powerful enough to forego any need for gear reduction. The only disadvantage would be excessive weight in the suspension (i.e., not great for a sports car).

      • Actually, it would probably be more practical to put the motors where traditionally the differentials would go, and embed the planetary gear set in the motor itself. This allows two motors and a lightweight suspension.
  • I visited Warwick Castle in England last year, and in the Mill there is an electic car... from before 1900!

    Warwick Castle-
    http://www.warwick-castle.co.uk/castle/mi ll.asp

    Is it me, or did the internal combustion engine somehow stop research in this area for a long time?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • When I was a nipper, they said electric cars would be the transport of the future.

    A quarter of a century on and they're still being touted as the transport of the future.

    They probably always will be being touted as the transport of the future.


    Nobody has ever made a battery-powered water heater, nobody ever will, and there's a very good reason for that. Energy density has pretty much maxed-out. Crucially, so has motor efficiency. You already can convert over 90% of the energy stored in a battery to
    • There is no "problem" with electric car deployment. The real issue is that everyone underestimates the cost of starting-up a new technology. There will indeed be a "knee" in the development curve, as there has just been with flat-panel screens. Remember, it took from about the mid 1970s until after 2000 before LCDs developed from a curiosity to a significant contender against CRT monitors. That's 25 years of vigorous incremental development to overcome a technology that was only invented 30 years earlie
    • > Electric cars are also at least as polluting as any other fuel, because the
      > energy has to be generated somehow.

      Car engines have really lousy efficiency compared to power plants. If a car engines runs at anything not close to full throttle, it's even less efficient. If the car engines runs at an rpm not close to the maximum torque, it's even less efficient. But if you choose to ignore that, you're absolutely right.

      > The greater the mass of the battery, so the more energy is required to
      > acce

      • Re:Electric cars (Score:3, Informative)

        by ajs318 ( 655362 )
        Regenerative braking doesn't recover all the energy. I apologise for not making that more obvious. The wastage due to friction {an absolute, not a percentage} is directly proportional to mass -- so heavier vehicles are less efficient.

        I think you are also being quite pessimistic about the efficiency of internal combustion engines. With proper engine management and continuously-variable transmission systems, engines are much more efficient today than they used to be. An ordinary car has only five gear
  • weight is MORE important than hp. hp can overcome weight, but that doesn't help handling.

    it's surprising how many people don't consider the weight of a vehicle when comparing them. eg, the guy at work who thinks his 3100lbs 175hp altima is way faster than my ~2200lbs 127hp escort gt.
  • Sure it gets to 60 quick, but GM has the record I think with an EV1...it did 183.
  • Hmm, that would be quite enough power for a small SUV to get decent acceleration.

    Finally, the fuel-efficient crowd have my attention.

    Scale that up and let me know when Lincoln puts out an electric Navigator.

    BTW, 200 HP is more than the vast majority of the small sedans on the road.
  • -1 Redundant.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/1952 22 3&mode=thread&tid=126

    Posted just over a month ago.
  • It is odd to me that Forbes seemed to complain that the TZero ONLY has 280-300 miles in range on a single charge.

    My first car, which had a 16 gallon tank only did about 300 miles before it needed a refill. I think many of today's SUV's have a similar range. Yeah for a serious road-trip it becomes a problem because you can't just stop at a gas station, but I don't think this little roadster is a long-haul kind of vehicle anyways.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close