230mph Electric Car 768
An anonymous reader writes "It ain't cheap, but Hiroshi Shimizu has finally shown off his latest electric car 'Eliica'. It accelerates faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo, and will cruise for 200 miles on a one hour charge. Stories at drive.com.au, and an image video and tech video. Interestingly, Shimizu believes that the Japanese motor industry is deliberately ignoring his invention and instead focusing on complex hybrids, as a simple electric engine dramatically lowers the cost of manufacturing, and will lead to a flood of cheap, mass produced cars from Chinese factories." A UK auto site has a story as well, including a test drive.
Systemic Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they are. Electric cars may be more efficient and cheaper to build, but you have to plug them in and wait. That's not acceptable, if only once every year when your friend/family member needs a ride.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of it like the Propane tanks you can exchange at the Home Depot or Supermarket. You just simply would drive up to the "gas station", the empty battery gets pulled out, and a charged one installed.
Done, no muss, no fuss, no waiting.
This would also make sure that you always have a working battery AND it could also lower the entry level as you wouldn't need to replace the battery pack every couple of months.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
So, unless the charge station periodically takes out the old batteries and replaces them with brand new ones (which will cost a bundle of money, something they'll have to somehow pass on) people will start to see less and less mileage out from their "newly" replaced batteries. Would you be willing to trade in your brand new set of batteries and possibly get something that's close to dying?
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
(Unless you're returning a rental car. Then they'd be sure to always bill you for a 100% charge at 5X the standard rate + 23% tax no matter what you actually used.)
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:4, Informative)
The laptop meters you're thinking guestimate a percentage of charge left. The meters we're thinking of are more like the ones on the side of your house. They don't care what you are using in the house or what condition the generating station is in. They simply measure the amount of energy that has passed through them.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Informative)
That idea actually is old, it was initially proposed back in Germany in the late 80s, the idea being used for Busses who would "drag" the battery on a cart behind them.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Chep Pallets Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that is required is that it is done on a large scale and it would almost certainly require (local) government involvement.
Having to stop to recharge would not be a problem if all parking lots where required to have electric outlets. Very few people need to drive their cars non-stop.
Making a practical system for battery swapping is also just a matter of money and will.
The show-sto
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Funny)
I just wish those scientists would hurry up with a cheap, fast charging, super-mega-ultra-high energy density battery chemistry. I have been waiting, arms cros
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Politics aside, it's not fair to compare batteries to bills. Bills are basically the same, but batteries are not. Each car would have differing requirements in terms of pack voltage, peak current output, and total capacity. We can make the packs into smaller standardized cells (again, someone needs to standardize it which will be major pain) but then you may have cell and current inbalance problems which can be deadly in such a high capacity battery pack.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it'd be hard to make standards here in much the same manner as bills.
1) Pick an atomic battery unit with a specific RMS voltage, max current, and total capacity. There might be some other requirements...this would require expertise in battery design that I don't have.
2) Create different sizes that are multiples of this at
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
How about if the Gov. allowed your employer to charge your car during work whilst in the company car park without charging you tax on the perk.
Now look at the current cost of an electric car when the driving is essentially free. This could be the catalyst required to jump-start the electric car business. If more people buy them, the prices will come down and the technology will improve. As a bonus, the more peo
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no they don't. Unlike batteries, a dollar bill has no intrinsic value, it is only an abstraction of value backed by the US government.
My raggedy dollar bill with a pair of horns and a mustache scribbled on ol' George's face will buy exactly the same amount of goods as a brand new, crisp and tidy, bill will.
On the other hand, a dead battery ain't going to produce any more juice even if George Bush and Alan Greenspan personally praise it on the floor during a joint session of congress.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Informative)
If you bleached all the color out of a dollar bill, for example, you'd have a hard time convincing people it was a dollar bill. There would be a similar problem if you cut it up into tiny pieces, or if you scribbled until you couldn't see ol' George's face, or any other green part
Already Solved - Vanadium Redox (Score:5, Informative)
These are already in industrial use. They are discussed here [seastead.org]
Re:Already Solved - Vanadium Redox (Score:3, Informative)
Vanadium (atomic number 23) is present in bauxite, which is an important aluminum ore, so it shouldn't be impossible to up the current feedstock of vanadium to support using it in this application. Costwise, due to the fact that there isn't a ton of need for it, the price is not indicative of what it would be in a situation where there was heavy supply/demand effects; that said, in 98 it went for about $5.50 per pound.
Sulfuric acid is currently manufactured in large qu
Re:Already Solved - Vanadium Redox (Score:3, Informative)
But it isn't like gasoline; the vanadium isn't actually used up. The vanadium is in solution; when you charge it, you chemically change it; discharge reverses the change. Think of it like a lead-acid battery; how often do you have to replace the lead and acid in one of those?
Re:Solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Out in the bush you operate the jack and the screws yourself, in the city there'll be some fancy pants automatic system.
Alternatively some vehicles already use a crane to carry the spare wheel under the car, you just do the same thing, but with electric drive, and bigger.
The disadvantage of putting the batteries under the car is that the floor is raised, so the aerodynamics will be worse, but it keeps the batteries outside the cabin, and the han
Change insurance! (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree - I would happily have one. First, it looks wicked! And second, by far the majority of my driving is less than 50 km / day on weekdays. There would be no problem using it as a commuting vehicle for me.
What I think really needs to change, is in the insurance arena. I own a 1989 Toyota 4runner. Reliable, but hellish on gas. I own this vehicle, because there are occasions when I *NEED* the carrying capacity and 4WD (hiking, whitewater kayaking etc). Yes, I own a SUV, and I am one of the few with a legitimate use for it.
Having said this, I don't need an SUV to commute to work. If it were possible for me to switch my plates to a more fuel efficent car - without taking out a separate policy - and only use my SUV when I needed it, I would be saving myself money, and doing a great deal for the environment. As it is, here in BC, if you have two vehicles, you have two insurance policies, there is no sharing allowed.
An electric car would be perfect for that.
[OT] Re:Change insurance! (Score:3, Interesting)
You sign up and get a smartcard. You use the web to select what make/model car you want, and when you need it from/to. It gives you the pickup location nearest your house.
When you want to use the car, you go to the point at the right time, and place your smartcard on the windscreen. The doors and glove compartment open, giving you the keys. You then have full use of the car until your time's up. The cars are always gassed, always clean, a
Re:Change insurance! (Score:3, Informative)
Going even further offtopic, that is not the case in BC. Your "points" accumulate to the driver, not to the policy. One of the benefits of an insurance monopoly operated by a crown corporation. Drive like an idiot, have lots of accidents, and you'll be paying high premiums for years (not high enough
Re:Change insurance! (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true - when I lived in the Okanagan skiing at Apex and Silver Star, almost universally the vehicles that were rolled or in ditches were 4X4 capable. People don't seem to realize that 4X4 helps you go it does not help you stop. This is why I drive in 2WD until I get stuck, then turn on 4WD.
Re:Systemic Problems (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unanswered question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydro-electric. Wind turbines. Nuclear power plants. Geo thermal. Even if it is all produced by oil-burning power plants, the power plant will get FAR more effeciency out of it than your own car's engine ever could, and pollute far less at the same time.
The thing is, once people switch to electric cars, the whole world can switch to 100% clean energy sources, without negatively affecting everyone's vehicles... Unlike today
It should be noted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It should be noted (Score:3, Informative)
Horsepower is on the high end.
Re:It should be noted (Score:3, Informative)
Horsepower is on the high end.
That's because HP is a function of engine RPM and gearing .
Re:It should be noted (Score:5, Informative)
Torque is instantenous force. Torque is what makes you accelerate.
Horsepower is a measurement of how much work an engine can do at a particular RPM.
When looking at car brochures/magazines, the hp/torque numbers quoted are maximum.
Ok, so lets put torque and HP into perspective and what each means to you, the driver.
Put these two cars side by side.
2003 Volkswagen Jetta with a 1.9 liter turbocharged diesel makes about 100 hp@ 5000 rpm, but 150 ftlb of torque at 1500 rpm.
2003 Mazda 6 with a 2.3 liter naturally aspirated gas engine makes about 160 hp@ 6000 rpm and 150 ftlb of troque at 3800 rpm.
Both cars weigh about 3000 pounds, give or take a few hundred. They both make make about the same amout of torque but the mazda makes 60 more hp than the VW.
Because the VW has the torque at 1500 rpm, its going to leave the mazda at the stoplight. However, once the mazda gets rolling, it is going to reach 60 mph faster than the VW would. Why? Because the mazda has more HP.
Note: numbers are approximate, i'm recaling from memory.
So what should you buy? Depends what you like. A diesel engine gives wonderful torque on the "low end" and thus gives alot of city drivablity and allows you to go up hills in a higher gear (for lazy manual tranny drivers who don't want to shift). Gas engines however are designed to produce torque in the midband and horsepower on the high end. If you like tearing up hills or want fast 0-60 times, go for gas.
In summary. Torque gives you acceleration, horsepower determines your 0-60 time.
Note: This is a very general explaination. As the previous poster mentioned gearing. Gearing is a way to multiply engine output to allow for maximum driveablity and mileage.
Re:It should be noted (Score:4, Informative)
Really the only thing that counts for acceleration is HP. But you cannot get HP without torque since HP equals torque*engine speed(rpm).
The fact that the VW has high torque at low RPM just means that it gets to its MAX HP faster during acceleration. It doesn't need to rev-up to get its power. The Mazda does need to rev up but once the Mazda gets to its max HP it does have more HP so it wins. You could get to the mazda's max HP zone fast by reving the engine and popping the clutch and using low gears. Thats what the transmission is there for really. It's there to let you stay in your max HP zone for a longer period of time. I guess you could say skillfull shifting at takeoff in order to get to high RPM fast (and stay there) would be more important with the Mazda.
Re:It should be noted (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't true.
They only accelerate fast IF YOU'RE STARING THE ENGINE AT ZERO RPM. Most of the time you gas-powered car doesn't sit there at ZERO RPM. It might be fair to say that an electric motor will always accelerate faster from ZERO RPM, but that sounds a lot less impressive (and with good reason)
Anyone who knows even a little about drag racing knows that you can get all the torque your tires can handle and then some while starting from a dead stop. This is because a gas-powered car has a clutch and transmission.
Re:It should be noted (Score:4, Informative)
Look at the specs [toyota.com] for the Prius:
Gas Engine:
76 hp @ 5000 rpm
82 ft-lb @ 4200 rpm
Electric Motor:
67 hp @ 1200-1540 rpm
295 ft-lb @ 0-1200 rpm
Both generate comperable max horsepower (albeit at different speeds), but the electric motor has "torque coming out the ass", and does so even at 0 rpm.
Re:It should be noted (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, the torque vs speed curve for a DC motor is a linear function that passes through the points (0 RPM, StallTorque) and (FreeSpeed, 0 ft-lb) where StallTorque is the maximum torque the motor can produce (the rotor is locked under load) and FreeSpeed is the speed of the rotor under no load.
Also of interest is the fact that at either of the extremes, that is, at stall or at no load, the motor is actually performing no mechanical work, despite consuming a (potentially large) amount of electricity.
At any rate, most performance EVs use AC drive systems. My '75 Rabbit conversion, however, uses a 20HP DC motor. And, yes, I can reach and maintain highway speeds (65-70 mph) in a reasonable amount of time.
http://www.eaaev.org/ [eaaev.org] for some EV info.
Re:It should be noted (Score:3, Informative)
All the time if you use a manual transmission. If you don't rev the engine before you drop the clutch you'll stall it unless you have some monster V8 or diesel with buckets of torque at idle rpm.
To bad for the competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To bad for the competition (Score:5, Insightful)
More correctly, here it is purportedly damaging a very good car.
The reality is that these things are seldom as straightforward as they seem, and whenever someone claims that the industry is in some giant collusion to keep an innovation down (rather that the more credible scenario that they are mercilessly looking for an opportunity to devastate their competitors and capture the market) you really need to look for the tinfoil helmets, and look deeper than the surface.
In this case very little is said, at least in the non-slashdotted article, about things like range, yet that has traditionally been the killer of electric cars. The motors and other basic element of designs are very well understood (putting many motors on a car is hardly innovative), but without sufficient power reserves it simply won't sell -- the whole reason why hybrids exist is that they allow them to leverage the tremendous power reserves of gas because batteries on their own are insufficient. Hence why the industry has been vigorously exploring fuel cells and electricity storage systems, but the technology isn't there yet. The car part of the equation isn't the problem.
Re:To bad for the competition (Score:5, Funny)
The reality is that these things are seldom as straightforward as they seem, and whenever someone claims that the industry is in some giant collusion to keep an innovation down (rather that the more credible scenario that they are mercilessly looking for an opportunity to devastate their competitors and capture the market) you really need to look for the tinfoil helmets, and look deeper than the surface.
You are just saying that because you are an industry mole. We all know that Detroit has a carburetor that will get 500 mpg on a gallon of tap water, but hasn't released it to the public because of the vast conspiracy with the oil companies, Saudi Arabia, and the global masonic conspiracy.
I'd love a cheap, mass produced 200 mile electric! (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably, the Chinese could license and start building these themselves, without waiting for Japan's lead? 200 miles is the critical value that I've been waiting for for a range, assuming that the recharge time isn't any longer than overnight....
Re:I'd love a cheap, mass produced 200 mile electr (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd love a cheap, mass produced 200 mile electr (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have an awesome electric car for sale now, and nobody will buy it, for fear of being stranded.
I always knew that we've got "combustion lock-in" which always seemed a bit irrational to me. I guess I didn't think it might be because of a conspiracy to shut out emerging auto competition. But is that a crazy explanation? Not really.
But... here's a way China could really kick our ass if they wanted to: They set up the infrastructure in their own country to run electric cars, get good at making them, and laugh at us while we're sending billions per week to the Middle East. It's not like the Chinese market is small, and I bet they could export the tech to India, Thailand, etc. That's enough to get this caught on. China is beginning to realize that they have the luxury of giving the world the finger. They can make their own DVD format, their own fancy cell phones, etc., and just aim those things at the domestic market... and they do fine! It might not be easy for them to break through with auto manufacturing, but I expect them to try (I don't know, have they already? I know they had some Porsche engineers meeting with the government asking them to propose a Wagen for the Chinese Volk....) The Chinese government might still have enough power to "give incentives" to large numbers of people to buy domestic cars once they're made. Of course, they could do that more effectively still if they start taxing gas at $10/gallon and using the proceeds to subsidize electric cars. It's in their interest anyway; they don't have a lot of domestic oil either.
Ugly? (Score:3, Insightful)
All kidding aside, I'm not trying to troll, and I know that there's probably some merit to his claims. But for the love of god, why do all these new efficient cars have to be so damned ugly? The prius is hideous, so is the echo, and now this?
I know some people will disagree, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but come on...
Re:Ugly? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the motors weren't available in more powerful configurations, it's somehow infeasible to get higher output motors.
Re:Ugly? (Score:4, Informative)
recharge time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:recharge time? (Score:3, Informative)
He had better be careful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He had better be careful. (Score:5, Funny)
You have to say "USA may have to liberate them to stop this."
Re:He had better be careful. (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda neat ... (Score:3, Informative)
The "tech video" isn't worth much IMHO (unless you understand Japanese), but the image video was kinda amusing in that it had data shown on the screen, but the Japanese style of commercials is definitely different than I'm used to and was entertaining in a different type of way.
One more interesting thing not mentioned above is that it has 8 wheels.
I don't care how efficient it is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't care how efficient it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://home.t-online.de/home/internationalrescu
Why We Hate Electric (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why We Hate Electric (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there are LOTS of reasons:
Sure it doesn't help that most electric cars are slow as hell, but they have tons of other inherent problems too. Every once in a while someone builds a fast electric car (there have been other fast electrics on the front page of
For $10,000 I could make a picnic table faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo but that doesn't make it the wave of the future.
The thing that sucks is not actually speed, but the inherent tradeoffs demanded by an electric car. You might get the speed but not the range, or like my picnic table you might get the speed and not even show up to compete on the other factors that make a car actually "good."
One thing at annoys me about this article people comparing acceleration of vehicles that aren't even in the same class. There are lots of cars out there faster than a Porsche IN A STRAIGHT LINE, but Porsches are not built to drive in a straight line.
The thing I have yet to see is an electric car that competes with ALL the perfomance characteristics of a good car. Automakers could easily fix your speed complaint but they would do so at the expense of equally important factors.
Re:Why We Hate Electric (Score:3, Insightful)
Your batteries aren't what makes your car hard to start (unless you've got a really crappy battery).
Plus, the batteries in this vehicle are NOT lead-acid like the ones in your car.
If it was actually an issue, the battery compartment could easily be insulated (a combustion engine compartment could not) a
It's all about batteries (Score:4, Insightful)
Electric cars don't become economical until batteries do. Don't hold your breath either. People have been working on this for a long time and there doesn't seem to be a breakthrough in the offing.
Re:It's all about batteries (Score:3, Informative)
-russ
Actually.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the gas station. We pull in, refuel and leave. How could the gas station business model work with an electric car? Simple. No one wants to wait for a battery to charge. But what if there was a cell-swap activity involved rather than a recharge? Perhaps in the future we'll be pulling into a station and they swap out our battery cells instead of adding more fuel? They make a profit by offering bad cell insurance or whatever and they get to own the cells... I dunno... I haven't really thought it through to the detail but on the outside it seems like a good way to continue our general business model and to continue to provide convenience to the end user. And most assuredly, the daily work-commuter would plug his machine in to charge each night.
But as for the idea that current auto makers intentionally suppressing electric cars? I'll go in on that since there is still too much money at stake for the old ways and the pressure would come from too many sources to determine any particular "bad guys." We just have to wait for the fossil fuels to run out before we can really expect electric cars to really take off...and then we can expect the current oligopoly to find a way to lock up the electric car and fuel systems in some other way... somehow they'll make a privately owned windmill to charge your car illegal...
Theres only one way around it (Score:5, Insightful)
Tucker was unable to win against the big three auto makers, nor was Delorean.
Mark my words, the only way we will ever see a flying car or radically advanced automobiles or cheap diamonds is if another government does it first.
If you dont want the powerful companies that control the US to stifle what you're doing take your innovation overseas and develop it there. That is the only way you can become a real player.
Re:Actually.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, you'd drive in and the car would attach to a charger. Given that many people aren't ultra precision drivers, there would have to be some sort of robotic arm that could connect to the car.
Yes, it would cost money but in mass, it shouldn'
Re:Actually.... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. No battery comes even close to the energy density of gasoline. I.e., batteries are heavier and larger than the same energy stored gasoline. And unsurprisingly this car is a huge 8-wheeler behemoth just to store enough batteries for a 200 mile cruise.
Worse yet, you also have to move those batteries. If a car has an extra, say, 500 kilos worth of batteries, it needs to accelerate and decelerate that extra weight as well. I.e., to have the same range and acceleration an electric car actually needs _more_ energy, because it needs to move more weight. Or to put it otherwise, to have the same range and acceleration, it carries batteries not only to match the energy value of a tank full of gas, but probably twice that.
So the gas station needs to swap all that. Instead of storing, say, 20 kilos of gasoline to refill a car, they need to store some 500 kilos worth of batteries per car served.
Can you see yet why that's not an economical idea?
2. We're talking a car that takes 10 hours to refill, has only 200 miles range between refills, is huge, and would cost 170,000 dollars to produce.
Sorry, no offense, but it seems to me like you don't need a conspiracy theory there. The car manufacturers would actually _love_ to build a better mouse trap than the competitors. But this car is simply _not_ the better mouse trap.
Yes, everyone keeps saying how it could make a nice car to _only_ drive to work and back, so you don't need more range and don't mind the 10 hour refill time. But how many would actually pay, say, $180,000 for a car to drive to work and back? (Assuming that the manufacturer sells it at only 5.9% more than the production costs.)
I don't know about you, but if I actually bought an 180,000$ car, I'd expect a helluva lot more from it than this car can do.
There just isn't a market for this car. That's all. There's no need to reach for the tinfoil hat, when a perfectly logical business reason exists.
Re:Actually.... (Score:3, Informative)
Its the Homer !!! (Score:5, Funny)
I RTFA and... (Score:5, Informative)
The slashdot post was a bit misleading I think, still pretty cool though.
I have got to get me one of THESE! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I have got to get me one of THESE! (Score:3, Funny)
They eat gasoline?
Formula 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
No conspiracy here. (Score:5, Insightful)
- Charging. You need to let these cars sit for a period of time between use to let the batteries top up. Without that, it's just a very expensive paperweight (and not a very good one at that.)
- Battery life. A typical Li-ion battery will lose twenty percent of its capacity [wikipedia.org] every year, from the day that they are manufactured. With a pure electric vehicle, that means a 20% drop in range. Would you buy a car that ranges up to 200 km the first year; 160 km the second; 128 km the third; and 102 km the fourth? (ie: a 50% drop in range every three and a bit years.) Would you buy a new set of batteries (see next point) every three years, or even more often?
- Cost. How much will those Li-ion batteries cost? (Hint: they're not cheap. My PowerBook needs a battery that costs $US130. And that's just a tiny fraction of what a car engine would need...)
- Charge cycles. The more you use a Li-ion battery, the faster it degrades. (The above 20% is regardless of usage, btw -- so even if the car sits in the garage...)
Those are just off the top of my head. There's probably plenty more. Car manufacturers know damn well that with disadvantages like the above, consumers won't buy. That's why they're not interested. There's no conspiracy here, folks. Move along.Re:No conspiracy here. (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the difficulties are much greater than that. Li-ion batteries are incredibly heavy, and therefore difficult to transport in a car. The vast majority of the electricity expended is wasted in just carrying the extra weight of the batteries.
In this case, they probably achieved the 200 mile range by using 10 times the normal number of batteries. But the car probably weighs 10 tons. I bet that's why it's huge, and has eight wheels (including four in the front).
Just recharging that many Li-ion
Re:No conspiracy here. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pure bullshit.
First of all, LiIon is about as light as batteries get. Lead Acid and NiMH batteries are FAR heavier, and cars with lead-acid batteries have been getting ranges over 100miles for a long time.
There is nothing "difficult" about transfering them. They are quite light. Lighter in fact than the engine and transmission in conventional cars.
Plus, if the batteries were, in fact, as light as air, they'd have to put some lead weights into the car. Without the weight of an engine, or batteries, your car would be in real danger of getting blown off the road in high winds, or even stolen by just being picked up and caried away by a couple guys
Re:No conspiracy here. (Score:5, Informative)
-russ
Re:No conspiracy here. (Score:3, Insightful)
With the exception of road trips, this is not the slightest bit of a limitation. You plug-in your car at night, and then can drive it all day.
Even if you drive it more than the max range on a single charge, just leaving it plugged-in for just an hour or so (at work, at home, wherever you've stopped) will help greatly to increase your range. Most people will just need to plug it in once a day. A lot like golf car
transmission (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you still have to balance power vs speed with gears? Or I guess with electricity you can supply power and speed on demand?
It'll be sad day when standard transmission dies out!
electric motors (Score:5, Informative)
ICE (internal combustion engines) really only produce torque in a VERY narrow range of revolutions, and are limited to a fairly low maximum rev count by mechanical issues..
an electric motor, comparatively, will spin as fast as you want it to, and make the same torque at any rpm (within reason)
as someone else pointed out, electric cars always out-accelerate ICE cars in these "electric sports car" tests for two reasons
1) instantaneous peak torque, held all the way up to V_max
2) car is a prototype with no basis in reality for production use.
The average ICE car engine is only usable from 1000 to 6000 rpm. Diesel truck engines are more like 500 to 2200 rpm. The enormous diesel ship engine everyone was sending the link to a few months back runs at _90_ rpm.
It is not uncommon for an electric motor to spin at 20,000 or more rpm. The only practical displacement motors going this fast are the Formula 1 3L V10s, which spin up to 19k rpm but need to be rebuilt after 1 weekend.
Re:transmission (Score:3, Informative)
With electric motors, you get high torque at low speeds and you don't need to keep the engine/motor running at the ideal rpm. So you don't really need to worry about transmission
"Why not?" you ask. Simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Why not?" you ask. Simple. (Score:4, Funny)
-bZj
What car do you own? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars are not computers. When people buy a new car every 3 years, it is because they want to. If they are buying a new car every 3 years, it is because it is breaking down, then they are a god damn idiot because they keep buying crap.
There is no 3vil corporate consipracy to force people to keep getting new cars. Car companies get all of their parts from suppliers. The only thing a car company does is put the stuff together. If a supplier sells a car company bad parts that break down, then they lose their contract. If I buy a car and it turns out to be crap, I just don't buy from that same company again. Take off the tin foil hat. Car companies want to sell cars. If electric cars could be made cheaply and even come close to having the same characteristics as a combustion car in all areas, car companies would be killing each other to sell the most.
Don't forget safety (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure I'll hear the usual arguments about how it wouldn't need all that if it didn't have to worry about splatting into a three ton SUV, but drivers (even electric car drivers) screw up and plow into things like trees. Cars have lots of extra metal to save passengers when that happens, and that metal is heavy. It's less heavy in a cleverly-designed Japanese car with crumple zones, as opposed to an American-built behemoth that depends on sheer mass to solve the problem, but it adds to the weight of every production car.
I'm not entirely certain what this car has that's new that allows it to be faster, and I hope whatever it is will scale to build a real car. Electric cars have a lot of potential to supplant gas and help break the dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But the figures can easily mislead you into believing that's closer than it is.
Re:Don't forget safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Care to fill in the rest of the world on what this heavy stuff is? Airbags, seatbelt, and seats don't weight all that much. Consumer cars don't have roll-cages, even though they'd be a huge safety feature, and add very little weight.
This thing no doubt has a strong frame, otherwise it couldn't reach high speeds.
So, what are these heavy safety features that cars have? I've certainly not seen them in any cars I've worked on.
The Plan! (Score:3, Funny)
really great stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Lest We Forget (Score:3, Informative)
For the record. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Some Issues with EVT's (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Ok so we decide to do electric.
How do we deal with the fact that over the past 100 years we have had time to build GAS fuel/support infrastructure to a convienant level?
I think it will take conservatively half that amount of time till every 7/11 is a EVT quick stop.
Training new Technicians.
Converting EVERY Gas station to a EVT stop.
(Thats a LOT of stations.)
Manufacturing plants/parts for the Power source.
2) The car...well the car has a lot of the same issues as the power.
How well does it work in hot/cold environments? How far can the motors really go?
Safety Regulations need to be revamped for this technoloy. With no past history, we start from scratch.
These are justa couple issues, that I see could amount to about 30 years and about a trillion dollars to make it all happen.
(Everyone Drives EVT's and they are just as convienant to use as liquid fueled or GAS cars.)
I just do not see how such a wide spread adoption could happen in a really short time, it is really a people issue in my opinion.
My point is that people I think are not putting into perspective what it takes to build the support structures required to support a pure EVT economy.
It will take a very long time, and it will cost a great deal.
I would also like to point out that ANY technology we select for an alternative to get from A -> B will have this problem.
How do we address it?
What do you think?
-Hack
I'd love one of these (Score:3, Interesting)
Charging issues (Score:3, Insightful)
I work in the field of electric storage, including batteries, and there is absolutely no reason they cannot come out with a vehicle that can't use batteries that can be rapid-charged, nor set up the charger to do them. (Granted, you would still be looking at a charge time of roughly an half-hour to an hour, little longer than it takes to get gas.) The standard deep-cycle batteries used for applications like RV's and boats cannot be charged like this, but those like the Optima [optimabatteries.com] and Odyssey [odysseybatteries.com] do have this capability.
This begs the question, then, why is there not a workable electric car out there? 200 miles is plenty for the average person's daily driving, and it would be a simple matter to charge the vehicle every night. (In fact, this is better for the health of deep cycle batteries than full discharge.)
Further, a half hour recharge would only be a slight inconvenience on cross-country trips, especially since recharging stations could be set up right along the interstate, or set up in rest stops, not requiring the underground tanks and the like that a gas station does. Generally, after driving 200 miles, I for one am ready to get out of the car for a little while anyway.
The biggest downside that I see is that the cost of replacing the batteries (especially premium batteries like the Odyssey or Optima) would be considerable, given that these cars would have to use banks of 10-15 batteries, at a current cost of about $160 per battery. Of course, the massive boost to production of these would probably create competition and an economy of scale, driving the price down, as more and more migrated to electric cars. The savings on gas (which will only get more expensive) would also be considerable, although a high volume of these cars would create additional demand on the electrical grid.
Wrong path in my opinion.... (Score:5, Interesting)
But you can already get electric scooters that go up to 100kph, and just 1Kw of electric motor will get you up to around 50 to 60 Kph.
How long before a 5 to 10 Kw electric car, weighing around 300Kg, with a lightweight tube-steel frame for a single person comes out under $2000 using the same technology as they build into present bikes and scooters?
The biggest hurdle to this was cheap electric motors in mass supply. Battery technology was at the right level a few years back. Now the motors are available because of scooters with hub drives appearing. Mostly being built for use *in* China.
And the niche for a vehicle that carries a single person around at 80 to 100 Kph for daily commuting that could park in a MC bay still exists (Clive Sinclair's M5 was a realisation of this niche, but failed for a number of reasons, although they are still worth more than when new)
I'm waiting for the $2000 model.... Even if I do have to license it, it will actually make it cheaper to drive to work...
Besides, I have a much more serious car to drive for when I want to have fun, which is wasted on the daily commute trip!
GrpA
Re:Wrong path in my opinion.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong path in my opinion.... (Score:3, Informative)
the fuel efficiency requirements to make it viable
Chk it out:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
Ex-MislTech
Re:Wrong path in my opinion.... (Score:3, Interesting)
*yawn* (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, making an electric car that can go reasonably fast, has a reasonably long cruising range, has a reasonably long battery life span, and is reasonably affordable does seem to be pretty tough to do. If you want to do some good for the planet in the area of electric cars, work on that problem.
steve
Uh, that MUST be 230 kph, not mph (Score:3, Informative)
Someone else mentioned battery exchange. I don't know if I was the source for that, but I described it some time ago as part of the necessary infrastructure for electric taxis. In that case, the battery ownership can be "globalized" to the cab companies, but I think it would be harder to do for privately owned cars.
Also, the troublesome side effect of battery exchange would be like having different size gas tanks depending on the condition of your current battery. I don't think this approach would be very practical for long distance travel, though it would be fine for commuters and cabs. It depends on your personal confidence level, but in my case, if my daily travel was less than about 2/3 of the normal charge state, I'd feel secure enough. If I was able to charge it up while I was at work or parked elsewhere, that would of course improve the effective range without battery swapping. You'd notice your battery deteriorating over time, but it would be a gradual thing, not like a sudden shock when you exchanged a factory fresh battery for an almost unchargeable one.
Re:Utility (Score:5, Insightful)
Drive to work, drive home, and charge. Exactly what people did with older mobile phones. One could argue that something that "fills" overnight when you are sleeping saves you 5min at the pumps once a week.
I'm not going to say that this is better than a gas powered car. The range of a gas powered car is limited only by tank size, and the availability of fuel pumps along your path of travel. But for a daily driver this would be more than acceptable, esp. among those two car households.
Re:Utility (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless of course, you drive for UPS for a living, but you could still drive this to get to the UPS warehouse to pick up your truck.
Re:the zero emissions fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
That does not work for coal powerplants as burning coal is just inherently dirty (and one could say poisonous). This is especially true for Bush's "grandfathered" coal plants which can avoid pollution standards because they are really old (try to figure out the logic behind that reasoning).
So the first thing we should do for the quality of our air is get rid of coal plants. Even if we replace them with nukes, it would be an improvement.
But after coal plants are done away with one can be reasonably sure that the plants will produce less pollution than cars' engines.
Re:the zero emissions fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the zero emissions fallacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't know where you got that piece of info, but it is not correct.
The plants were grandfathered in because we can not pass laws that are retroactive - you can not currently be held to laws that will be passed in the future. That is in the constitution - the law had to have been made that way. That's the logic in that.
Bush di