[Al_The_Man]

If only they can bring the price down :devious:
http://teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
Old Nickolai would be proud.
Al.

[miljnor]

very cool now they need to make it affordable!

[diarmaid]

Nice. How much is it at the moment?....maybe everyone on the zone could chip in and buy one together....of course I'd 'mind' it at my house.

[Al_The_Man]

Nice. How much is it at the moment?..

$100k US$.
Al.

[Geof]

Their website describes the batteries as 2000 Lithium ion cells similar to the type used in electronic equipment. Life could get exciting and short for the occupants of the vehicle if one of the cells near the center of the battery pack decided to burn, like the Sony manufactured cells used in Dell laptops, and put all the surrounding cells in thermal runaway. A tank full of gasoline may be a fire hazard but at least ot has no chance of igniting spontaneously.

Two of the backers of the Tesla are the Google guys.

[miljnor]

battery runnaway isn't that much of a concern if you build them right.

I have been flying R/c for awhile and the batteries we use are getting better every day and I have never had one go thermal on me! Although they can swell if misstreated. Thermal runnaway generally happens from overcharging and since the engineers have that under complete control of the onboard system I would think that it is a very unlikely scenerio.

[Geof]

battery runnaway isn't that much of a concern if you build them right......

Tell that to Sony and Dell.

[miljnor]

They tried to cut cost and bought bottom of the barrel. I highly doubt that a high-end auto manufacturing company buys junk batteries.

But hey that’s just me!

I have lawn darted a flying wing that has the battery in front (of course it does!) and accordioned the battery so it measured about 1/2-3/4" shorter than it did when new (which was approximately 1 week earlier )

And this battery still worked for several weeks before going bad. And it just pooched out a little and died. No fire and know runaway.

I actually drove a nail thru the first pack I ever bought just to see if it would go boom.

And yes I had protective gear on, as I read stories! It was also behind a plate of 1/4" aluminum with a hole in it! (Can’t ever be too sure ) STILL no boom!

At this point it was just cheaper to go buy some illegal fireworks and blow them up!

[NC Cams]

A study was conducted into the cradle to grave costs of electric versus IC engine power as well as the overall cost efficiency of one versus the other. This study also included the OVERALL environmental impact of the power system

Interestingly, it was found that the range and power of a tank of gasoline powered contemporary gas car engine far out performed that of electric vehicles, especially when you considered the environmentally not so friedly elements used in the batteries. The effects of the emissions coming out of the power plants also has to be considered which the electric vehicle proponents conveniently forget to mention include.

The article was published in one of the Ward's industry publications that is distributed freely to the suppliers of the auto industy. Sadly I was not permitted to take my copies of the article when I left the employ of an OEM powertrain group 3-4 years ago or else I'd give the total bibliography info.

Yes, an electric car has less mobile source pollution than a corresponding gas one BUT the stationary souce pollutants that come from the power plants where they get their power to recharge their batteries from has to be considered in the overall scheme of things.

Sadly, some tree huggers tend to think and conveniently neglect to consider is that the power that comes to you via wires has NO ramifications on the environment whatsoever. This fallacy couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Believe it or not, the exhaust coming out of some of today's cars operating in the California basin is actually CLEANER than the air going into the engine via the air cleaner.

EDIT

Do not think for a millisecond that the automakers buy only the finest parts. (nuts) They, too, buy from the lowest cost supplier. This means that they've been known to NOT have the parts perform as well or as long as they had hoped.

END EDIT

[ajl6549]

It looks cool, but what about that cool sports car sound?

[Geof]

......Yes, an electric car has less mobile source pollution than a corresponding gas one BUT the stationary souce pollutants that come from the power plants where they get their power to recharge their batteries from has to be considered in the overall scheme of things.

Sadly, some tree huggers tend to think and conveniently neglect to consider is that the power that comes to you via wires has NO ramifications on the environment whatsoever. This fallacy couldn't be any farther from the truth.....

Not only is the pollution simply moved to another location if the electric generating plant is using a fuel that could be used directly in an ic engine, such as natural gas, the overall energy efficiency can even be lower than simply running the engine on natural gas.

[Al_The_Man]

I am fortunate to get all my electricity from Hydro - virtually no fuel used in generation.
This is an exerpt from the article covering it in Electronic design.

"While electric cars have zero emissions, the power plants that provide their power when they're recharging consume energy and can emit plenty of pollution themselves. So, Tesla Motors conducted a "well-to-wheel" study including these factors and found that the Roadster still has double the energy efficiency of popular hybrid cars while generating a third of the carbon dioxide. Compared to other sports cars, it's six times as efficient while producing a tenth of the pollution."

Here is the link;
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/A...201/13201.html
Al.

[Geof]

.....and found that the Roadster still has double the energy efficiency of popular hybrid cars while generating a third of the carbon dioxide. Compared to other sports cars, it's six times as efficient while producing a tenth of the pollution." ......

When you do not give your figures or methodology it is possible to make all sorts of claims. If the first example comparing it with hybdrid cars was using the same energy source, i.e. both liquid hydrocarbon, then the claim is ridiculous because the energy content is directly related to the carbon dioxide produced. If the two energy sources where different then the carbon dioxide comparison is meaningless because coal which is often used for generating electricity is a high carbon content energy source while natural gas is a low carbon content energy source.

The absolute best efficiency in thermal electricity generation using coal or natural gas is less than 40% (although I will concede some natural gas turbine proponents claim better than that) and the best battery charge/discharge efficiency that is possible is around 85% so the overall efficiency is .40 * .85 = 34%. A gasoline engine will give up to 20% efficiency under good conditions and a hybrid may go to 25% or higher, again given good conditions so a claim that energy efficiency is doubled suggests that the test conditions have been carefully selected.

[miljnor]

Is everybody really that negative and dense?

Both technologies may or may not be as polluting as the other NO one can really say because all surveys are made to emphasize one point or another and its super easy to make them read one way or another!

The only true way to compare a survey is to read all the factors that lead up to the conclusion and see what the author was trying to prove. Most of the time people don't look at the background data of the survey.

That being said WHO CARES!

We need the technology, and if no one makes a purchasable or marketable product, the level of technology wont really go anywhere. We need new hi tech power plant so that the moneymen can start cranking the electrical technology out and make so real advances.

And no offense to the "gas has more energy" guys but who here thinks that fossil fuel is the wave of the future? And does anyone really think we will be driving around in IC motors in the next 100years?

[NC Cams]

Re: electrical power efficiency = people make all sorts of "assumptions" regading the transmittablity of electic power.

Really?

It would be REAL intereresting to generate 10000watts of power at the generator and then see how much of that is still useable after it gets stepped up and down and encouters the ineveitable transmission losses thru even the most efficient conductors and/or energy conversion devices. It is conventien to ignore them, which most evaluations I've seen do.

Why? Because how else can you justify spending research monies on what could actually be/are "loser technologies"?

I concur that alternate energy sources are needed now, perhaps more that ever. Especially in light of the political situation where most of the world's oil comes from.

However, when people make their "assumptions" or "projections" on half baked techno babble, incomplete loss identification, pie in the sky theories or pre-biased preferences on how to create power, NO ONE is served well by poorly evalutated systems and/or conversion processes.

Hydro power close by, GREAT source of cheap clean renewable energy. Now, ship that power from Niagra Power to South Central Los Angeles and you might find that it really isn't such a good deal anymore.

Face it guys, you have to look and and consider the WHOLE picture.

[Geof]

Is everybody really that negative and dense?......

Do mean me or the people who push impractical technologies? In my case I may be negative on the viability/feasibility of something like this electric car or electric cars in general but I really don't think I am dense. In the case of people who push these alternatives they are too positive, unrealistically so. They often are not dense but many times insufficiently informed or they are in formed but are taking advantage of the other people.

I agree our descendants will not be driving around in ic powered vehicles in 100 years. It is highly unlikely that individual transportaion devices like an automobile with a 100 hp, or more, engine will exist in 100 years. It is possible that personal transportation vehicles will exist but they will be markedly smaller than anything that exists today.

[Al_The_Man]

Is everybody really that negative and dense?
Both technologies may or may not be as polluting as the other NO one can really say because all surveys are made to emphasize one point or another and its super easy to make them read one way or another!
The only true way to compare a survey is to read all the factors that lead up to the conclusion and see what the author was trying to prove. Most of the time people don't look at the background data of the survey.
That being said WHO CARES!
We need the technology, and if no one makes a purchasable or marketable product, the level of technology wont really go anywhere. We need new hi tech power plant so that the moneymen can start cranking the electrical technology out and make so real advances.
And no offense to the "gas has more energy" guys but who here thinks that fossil fuel is the wave of the future? And does anyone really think we will be driving around in IC motors in the next 100years?

Totally agree.

The original post was not meant to champion the Electric Vehicle per se, but as another indication that hopefully the Internal Combustion engine in its present form will be replaced.
Although it has served well for a relatively long time, It is, I believe at the end of its development chain and hoplessly inefficient.
I am just glad that there are people out there coming up with new ideas.
There are already two huge populations ( China & India) that are already starting to want to use energy in the amounts we do in the west.
Al.
P.S. In 15yrs time there will probabally be a poster here asking if he can convert his clapped out Tesla to Mach3

[NC Cams]

Here are some realities to consider:

If you start pulling weight out of vehicles and going into "micro cars" or PTV's (personal transportation vehicles), some real interesting things start to happen.

Lets look at power. If you start developing for power, the motorcycle people have clearly shown that ungodly amounts of power can be extracted from a given displacement level. What if we asked them to extract more useable power out of a gallon of fuel???

Ok. So we then limit weight to anything form 500 to 1000lbs. Give it any displacement you want. When you look at the POWER DENSITY factor, it is real hard to match the power density in a gallon of gasoline. The motorcycle and micro car people have already shown that an IC powered hybrid will readily demonstrate superb fuel efficiency.

If you eliminate the "conjured up advantage" that the electric hybrid demonstrtates, it is very hard to get an electic or even a hybrid to match the performance of the IC engine when you eliminate the weight penalties that the fuel cells, batteries et al inflict upon the vehicle.

It would be interesting to see what a competition series would generate if you said " the race is 300 miles, run what you brung. But you only have X gals of gasoline available to you to get you there. The guy who finishes the race in the shortest time and who has the most amount of fuel left at the end wins - and you have to pass an emissions test at the end too."

You'd start to see more vehicles like the phenomenal Audi TDI that won Sebring and Lemans this year ( and I am NOT a diesel fan either but will give credit where it is due).

REAL technological advancing vehicles. Vehicles that RUN in real time on real race tracks with real challenges that are heads up with contemporary technologies. A product of development partnerships between oil companies and engine and car development firms.

NASCAR is/was entertaining. It is time for them address the challenges that REAL car companies face. Make power using renewable resources instead of the leaded high octane fuels of yesteryear. Time for lighter cars with less power running on E85 with a mandated 90% of the fuel this year that they can use next year. And 80% of the fuel used in 2005 for 2007 and even less the year after. The amounts are negotiable but you see the trend. Use less fuel but perform better.

Force the teams to enhance efficiency and power and still run fast and also start monitoring tailpipe emissions. REALLY challenge the guys to enhance efficiency and performance. Enough of the MORE SPEED AND MORE POWER crap that they're doing now.

It is time to find a more efficient way and what better way than for our most technologically based entertainment media, big time auto wrestling, to lead the charge. if two guys cross the finish line nose to tail but the second place guy wins more towards the point championship because he used LESS fuel, you could have two winners, the outright winner and the fuel efficiency winner.

The rules are changing in real life, so why not make autowrestling change as well???

[Geof]

[QUOTE=NC Cams]Here are some realities to consider:.... and all the rest. /QUOTE]

Careful NC you are making far too much sense in this one; that's no fun.

[NC Cams]

Geof: God knows I try, ONLY God knows how much I try.

I used to do "technology research" in conjunction with forward model planning for a global car company. The more we worked on the stuff the more obvious it all became.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is really out for the enhancement of the common good. The tree hugger is out to eliminate anything that isn't green. The marketing guy is only out to sell the next hot ticket for this model year. In the case I'm familiar with, global managment had their peconcieved notion/plan/marchine order and the rest of us were going thru motions writing this "plan" or "model research".

After a while you could see that the EPA had their objectives (aka preconcieved notions of what should be that changed with the administration). The oil companies had theirs. The trucking companies theirs. The domestic car companies theirs and the off shore companies theirs. Sort of huge cluster frock that was more about politics than engineering or real life problem solving.

If someone would have proposed a $1.50 per gallon gas tax that would have been earmarked for energy independenc research when I worked at the car company, the person's career would have been toast. However, now, we're paying the "tax" only it is going off shore to do no good for energy independance, health care coverage, nothing.

In fact, it is actually supporting the lifestyles/teachings/actions of people who litearlly want to kill us. Even when we can SEE a solution, we'll go about doing something, anything to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in some way, shape or form.

The fact of the matter is this: to use less fuel you need to do the following:

1. decrease the parasitic losses that cause the vehiclt to waste fuel be they mechanical, aerodynamic, less weight, whatever.

2. increase the fuel efficiency as in reduce the brake specific fuel consumption factor. This is defined as the lbs mass of fuel needed to make 1hp per hour.

3. Perform item 2 without reducing the HP/liter that the engine develops.

Lighter cars uses less fuel to accelerate. Lower parasitics requires less power input to achieve the same level of performance. Lighter cars can use smaller engines to achieve the same levels of performance. All real basic stuff yet it is hardly followed - frankly, it is regularly ignored.

Cars are heavier, Trucks are heavier and bigger. There is/are more and more option loading onto vehicles as the years go by.

The IC engine is well developed and well suited for use as an automotive powerplant. It is getting more developed as time goes on. In fact, what used to be high tech trick experimental is now common fare in basic grocery getters (IE: variable cam timing, fuel injection, electronic engine controls, etc). Trick stuff that used to be high tech but now is common ass ordinary - and durable too..

The last days of the IC engine were predicted to have taken place quite some time ago. However, due to the hard work of many folks, the damn think refuses to whimper it's last breath. I dunno it it will be around for another 100 years, but nobody EVER thought the 1955 Chevy small would/could survive as long as it did. By the way, it is still being produced in essentially the same identical form as it was back in 1955, over a half a century in production.

If this is any indication of what a well designed and iteratively developed engine is capable of doing, maybe the IC engine WILL still be around for 50 more years. One engine design alone might carry it a good way there....