If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Motor Trend)   Tesla's Model S has swept Yahoo Auto, Automobile Magazine, and MotorTrend's Car Of The Year awards. Welcome back, American ingenuity. We've missed you   (motortrend.com) divider line 249
    More: Cool, Model S, Motor Trend, luxury vehicles, MotorTrend, Nikola Tesla, Chevy Equinox, inflection points, exteriors  
•       •       •

13323 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 6:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-13 12:20:34 AM
sounds impressive
 
2012-11-13 12:25:48 AM
Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.
 
2012-11-13 12:29:43 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.
 
2012-11-13 12:35:09 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


If you'd RTFA, you would have noticed that their new Supercharger stations give the cars an extra 150 miles after 30 minutes of charging.

The price will go down after infrastructure and production start ramping up. You think Joe Sixpack was driving the first production models of gasoline-powered cars?
 
2012-11-13 12:38:53 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


In the last year, that wouldn't have been a problem for me, even when I was running in circles for work and various errands. And 60k is competitive with a BMW 5, lexus, or merc - all nice cars, but hardly exotics. Yes, a little out of my range, but another decent year in the market, who knows?

I don't see them becoming the replacement for the one-car minivan-owning family (if one exists anywhere in the US anymore), but they've gone from being a wildly exotic plaything of millionaires, to being a "maybe I'll take a look at it" alternative.
 
2012-11-13 12:44:03 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


Who drives more than 200 miles in a day on average?

And the few times a year someone does need to drive further, then just Priceline a rental car for a few days (~$12 a day usually). Or you know, use the second vehicle that the people who can drop $60K on a car usually have. If I was in the market for a car in that price range, I'd buy one.
 
2012-11-13 12:47:25 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


There aren't too many days when that range would pose a problem for me. It is kinda expensive, sure, but it's a newish technology and in a 'luxury' model.
 
2012-11-13 07:01:59 AM
Great idea, in theory.
www.blogcdn.com
Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust
 
2012-11-13 07:02:18 AM
Ingenuity would be making one of these for the price of a standard car. If costs aren't a factor, you can build damn near anything.
 
2012-11-13 07:05:44 AM

Mrbogey: Ingenuity would be making one of these for the price of a standard car. If costs aren't a factor, you can build damn near anything.


And yet the major car companies and all their years and billions in research gave us...the Chevy Volt
 
2012-11-13 07:06:35 AM
Interesting.
 
2012-11-13 07:08:15 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day?


A lot of people, actually. Now, obviously this is still a niche product. I don't know about you, but I live in an apartment complex so there's no convenient way for me to charge an electric car in the parking lot. So right away the bulk of your market is going to be people with a home/garage. But considering the price tag, most people in the market for a car like this probably already own their own home.

But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...

And as others have said, the electric car in general is still more or less in its infancy. I'll be interested to see where this leads the auto industry in 10 years.
 
2012-11-13 07:08:31 AM
The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.
 
2012-11-13 07:14:14 AM
Is the Tesla the one that catches fire in a crash? Or is that the Fisker?
 
2012-11-13 07:15:09 AM

enry: And yet the major car companies and all their years and billions in research gave us...the Chevy Volt


Well, and the Nissan Leaf, which goes further than the Volt, costs thousands less, and it's pure EV, no gas at all.
 
2012-11-13 07:15:41 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


$49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.
 
2012-11-13 07:15:59 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.


You're complaining that the better cars always get the award for best car? Maybe we could give your Tercel a participation ribbon. Would that make you feel better?
 
2012-11-13 07:17:03 AM
I heard that these cars will make you gay.
 
2012-11-13 07:18:32 AM

Honest Bender: AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.

You're complaining that the better cars always get the award for best car? Maybe we could give your Tercel a participation ribbon. Would that make you feel better?


What makes it better? If it dominates its class, should it be docked because it isn't a class higher?
 
2012-11-13 07:18:54 AM
OMG, want.
 
2012-11-13 07:19:31 AM
All that's needed are standardized battery packs and you could 'fill up' faster than with an internal combustion engine by swapping out packs. They already do this in Spain or Israel or something.
 
2012-11-13 07:21:11 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.


Actually, the civic won in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year
 
dp3
2012-11-13 07:21:49 AM
For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips, nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go... You can go to work, use 80% of your range, charge there while you're not using the car, and in 2-3 hours your car is back at 100%.

A guy just completed a trip from SF to LA in a day (400mi) in a BMW ActiveE that only gets 106mi of range on a good day. Practical? No. Feasible? Totally.
 
2012-11-13 07:23:27 AM

DSanchez: AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.

Actually, the civic won in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 07:26:03 AM
I need to drive 500 miles a day and pull 5 tons of concrete on a trailer so these cars are stupid. This is even dumber than the subway. Can you get 5 tons of concrete on a subway? No. Because it is stupid. Who would ever use that?
 
2012-11-13 07:29:17 AM

Rapmaster2000: I heard that these cars will make you gay.


No. That's weed.

i184.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-13 07:29:56 AM

Honest Bender: You're complaining that the better cars always get the award for best car? Maybe we could give your Tercel a participation ribbon. Would that make you feel better?


Luxury is not necessarily "better". Anyway, I'm thinking it's trollin you're responding to: The Civic won for Motor Trend in 2006, and close to half the time their choice is distinctly non-luxury.
 
dp3
2012-11-13 07:30:19 AM

dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips, nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go... You can go to work, use 80% of your range, charge there while you're not using the car, and in 2-3 hours your car is back at 100%.

A guy just completed a trip from SF to LA in a day (400mi) in a BMW ActiveE that only gets 106mi of range on a good day. Practical? No. Feasible? Totally.


For those interested:
Man attempts to drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles in a Day
 
2012-11-13 07:32:12 AM

abhorrent1: Rapmaster2000: I heard that these cars will make you gay.

No. That's weed.


That's awesome.
 
2012-11-13 07:33:05 AM
Meanwhile, off the car radar, several bike start-ups are getting better by the month.
 
2012-11-13 07:35:43 AM
knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

You must have a most impressive collection of both NASCAR and Git-R-Done hats, t-shirts, and belt buckles.
 
2012-11-13 07:36:42 AM
I wonder where TM would be if they named themselves "Smith Motors" rather than trade on the name of the most popular engineer in history.

The five letters "Tesla" are like an orgasmatron for nerds who understand engineering better than they do science.

/But his music rocked, I'll give him that
 
2012-11-13 07:36:43 AM

abhorrent1: Rapmaster2000: I heard that these cars will make you gay.

No. That's weed.

[i184.photobucket.com image 380x532]


Sooo hope that is satire.

Oh and the car looks sweet.
 
2012-11-13 07:36:59 AM
They were pretty much guaranteed to succeed after being called losers by Romney. Guy is a mush.
 
2012-11-13 07:36:59 AM
AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models. You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.

You mean like my Ford Mondeo, which won the UK equivalent 3 years in a row?
 
2012-11-13 07:37:10 AM
If I was wealthy, I would already have my order in on one of these.

I am not wealthy though... so $60k for a car is totally unrealistic for me.
 
2012-11-13 07:39:32 AM

abhorrent1: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

$49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.


I'd say that the vast majority of Americans don't drive that in a normal day. A quick Google shows that the average American commuter drives 32 miles a day round trip. Even if that number is doubled for some metropolitan areas, 200 miles per charge is way more than enough.

The Tesla S is going to be a HUGE status symbol for those that would normally buy a new BMW or Lexus.
 
2012-11-13 07:40:31 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: You mean like my Ford Mondeo, which won the UK equivalent 3 years in a row?


They renamed that car the "Contour" here in the states. The Contour SVT was closer to the Mondeo than the other variants of it though.
 
2012-11-13 07:46:25 AM
I'm in. I'll tool down the road. My horn will blare "I PAY NO ROAD USE TAX SUCKERS!" I'll tell the SUV fatass in the cube next to me "Kindly, fatass, perchance thee to fill your tank tonight. There's an awful pothole on my commute and I desire it filled. My car, lamentably, pays naught a cent of tax for such trifles."

Then I would push the company to set up a charging station near the entrance. Like a Handicapped parking but without all those gimpy overtones. When I walk past it, I'll say something like "Look that person is making a difference. Reducing our reliance on terrist oil and pushing U S American technology forward. What a real American hero he must be. Not like those lazy get blowed up soldiers in AfgahnIraq."
 
2012-11-13 07:46:36 AM
Other Motor Trend "Cars of the year?" The Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Maverick. Mighty fine company you are keeping there, Tesla.
 
2012-11-13 07:54:10 AM
Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?
 
2012-11-13 07:55:10 AM

Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?


The Chevy Volt does that.
 
2012-11-13 07:58:49 AM

enry: Mrbogey: Ingenuity would be making one of these for the price of a standard car. If costs aren't a factor, you can build damn near anything.

And yet the major car companies and all their years and billions in research gave us...the Chevy Volt


Yea, but there is no range issue in the Volt. If you need to cruise on the interstate, get gas. Just like you do now. GM can blow me for collapsing and requiring that bailout, but the Volt is a great concept. I'll give them that.
 
2012-11-13 07:58:50 AM

swingbozo: Other Motor Trend "Cars of the year?" The Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Maverick. Mighty fine company you are keeping there, Tesla.


I hate Motor Trend..

But...

The Corvair was and still is awesome, and the Maverick was one unkillable sob, my grandparents had one till like '88-'89
 
dp3
2012-11-13 07:59:56 AM

BigBooper: abhorrent1: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

$49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.

I'd say that the vast majority of Americans don't drive that in a normal day. A quick Google shows that the average American commuter drives 32 miles a day round trip. Even if that number is doubled for some metropolitan areas, 200 miles per charge is way more than enough.

The Tesla S is going to be a HUGE status symbol for those that would normally buy a new BMW or Lexus.


^this.

Both Audi/VW and BMW are working on EVs, because I think that they've noticed that some of the market is headed this way.

BMW Born Electric
Audi E-tron
 
2012-11-13 08:00:09 AM

Rapmaster2000: abhorrent1: Rapmaster2000: I heard that these cars will make you gay.

No. That's weed.

That's awesome.

 
2012-11-13 08:00:20 AM
Tesla won Motor Trend's Car Advertiser of the Year award? Just how much taxpayer money are they getting that they can afford to buy an award like that?

And what do these multipage ad spreads look like?


/Doesn't read Motor Trend
 
2012-11-13 08:00:20 AM
Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..
 
2012-11-13 08:02:51 AM

Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.


Or you could still just buy a BMW (yes it does still use a little bit of fuel) but doesn't have that distance limitation if you want to have a good day's country highway driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i8

IMO it looks better too. 

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-13 08:03:29 AM

Harry Freakstorm: I'm in. I'll tool down the road. My horn will blare "I PAY NO ROAD USE TAX SUCKERS!" I'll tell the SUV fatass in the cube next to me "Kindly, fatass, perchance thee to fill your tank tonight. There's an awful pothole on my commute and I desire it filled. My car, lamentably, pays naught a cent of tax for such trifles."

Then I would push the company to set up a charging station near the entrance. Like a Handicapped parking but without all those gimpy overtones. When I walk past it, I'll say something like "Look that person is making a difference. Reducing our reliance on terrist oil and pushing U S American technology forward. What a real American hero he must be. Not like those lazy get blowed up soldiers in AfgahnIraq."


That was beautiful.
 
2012-11-13 08:04:41 AM

ThunderPelvis: The price will go down after infrastructure and production start ramping up. You think Joe Sixpack was driving the first production models of gasoline-powered cars?


Maybe you should ask Henry Ford?
 
2012-11-13 08:05:47 AM

ryarger: I wonder where TM would be if they named themselves "Smith Motors" rather than trade on the name of the most popular engineer in history.

The five letters "Tesla" are like an orgasmatron for nerds who understand engineering better than they do science.

/But his music rocked, I'll give him that


girlboxer1970.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-13 08:10:54 AM

Icetech3: P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..


Can we use your property as a landfill?
 
2012-11-13 08:14:10 AM

abhorrent1: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

$49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.


FTFA:

2013 Tesla Model S (85); SP85

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
BATTERY TYPE 85 kW-hr lithium-ion

CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $78,950; $107,350*
PRICE AS TESTED $84,050; $107,350*
CHARGE TIME, 240 4 hrs (std range)/ 6 hrs (extended) V/80 AMPS 265 mi (extended charge)
RANGE est 240 mi (std chg)
RECOMMENDED POWER SOURCE 240-volt electricity



From the Edmunds buyer guide:

Powertrains and Performance

Tesla will sell the Model S with three different lithium-ion battery pack choices. The base Model S features a standard 40 kWh battery pack good for a range of 160 miles. (For reference, the Leaf has a 24 kWh battery pack.) It can be upgraded with a 60 kWh pack that Tesla claims will be good for up to 230 miles of range, or an 85 kWh pack that the EPA has rated at 265 miles of range. Tesla won't get EPA ratings for the two smaller packs until the models that use them are launched. The Performance, Signature and Signature Performance models come standard with the 85 kWh pack.

Driving Impressions

Tesla has been stingy with seat time in the Model S, limiting reviewers to just 10 minutes on a tightly proscribed course in the just-released production versions of the Signature and Signature Performance.



So it's a bit more than $49K or $60K for the model that has a claimed (not tested) range of > 200mi
 
2012-11-13 08:19:02 AM
Didn't Rmoney say that Tesla was a waste of money, ala Solyndra?

And definitely want!
 
2012-11-13 08:22:03 AM

Greymalkin: Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

Or you could still just buy a BMW (yes it does still use a little bit of fuel) but doesn't have that distance limitation if you want to have a good day's country highway driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i8

IMO it looks better too. 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]


...and is twice the price, and isn't available.
 
2012-11-13 08:26:09 AM

Honest Bender: But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...


The amount of roof area for solar panels is tiny, you might have a single square meter of area on top of your car. At 100% efficiency that's about 50 watt hours in perfect sunlight. The Tesla S battery is 85,000 watts. The models of Prius that have a solar panel on top use it to run a fan to keep it cool when you park in the sun, its more efficient to just park in the shade.
 
2012-11-13 08:28:46 AM
I'll have two, please.
 
2012-11-13 08:29:49 AM
So it impressed a few organizations that only exist to fellate the auto industry. I'll wait to see what Consumer Reports says about it.
 
2012-11-13 08:30:43 AM
Other Motor Trend "Cars of the year?" The Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Maverick. Mighty fine company you are keeping there, Tesla.

chrysler k cars. amc/reliant alliance.
 
2012-11-13 08:32:04 AM

Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...


This is, of course, entirely bullshiat. The typical lifespan for these batteries is about 10 years and they are typically recycled because the rare earth materials in them are valuable. Those that aren't are often repurposed as purely energy storage to, as an example, create arrays of battery backups for equipment.

And your recycling rant is also mostly bullshiat as well in that it relies upon strictly focusing on the problems with recycling - which are almost entirely caused by the behaviors of the recyclers and consumers - and then blaming those failings on the process itself.

1. It is ALWAYS better to reduce consumption than increase recycling. This is obvious and nobody disputes it
2. SOME materials SOME of the time have a higher environmental cost through recycling either through energy expenditure or pollutants released than simply creating new virgin materials, however, this usually happens where the recycling is being done for economic rather than environmental reasons
3. The fact that consumers can't figure out that they shouldn't throw farking pizza boxes in the paper bin doesn't mean recycling is bad, it just means consumers are stupid and lazy and won't do it right
 
2012-11-13 08:32:14 AM

Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?


http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/bmw-i-drive-electric-vehicles/
 
2012-11-13 08:33:58 AM
Why does everyone feel they need a full-lane four seat vehicle for their solo daily commute?
 
2012-11-13 08:35:56 AM
I hope people realize where mercantilism (aka our current economy, sadly) fits in with ingenuity: it prevents it.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/10/154211/tesla-motors-sued-by-c a r-dealers

People don't want Tesla to exist, because it could *GASP* compete with the oil industry and the automotive industry.

/fark the dealerships
 
2012-11-13 08:38:42 AM

ph0rk: Why does everyone feel they need a full-lane four seat vehicle for their solo daily commute?


I have a wife, kids, and a dog. So we actually have a need for a full size vehicle. I also have a 250cc maxi-scooter that I drive when weather permits. I would love to get an electric vehicle though. I'm tired of gas engines... well... more to the point I'm tired of gas stations.
 
2012-11-13 08:39:18 AM

farkingatwork: I hope people realize where mercantilism (aka our current economy, sadly) fits in with ingenuity: it prevents it.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/10/154211/tesla-motors-sued-by-c a r-dealers

People don't want Tesla to exist, because it could *GASP* compete with the oil industry and the automotive industry.

/fark the dealerships

 


i116.photobucket.com 
 
2012-11-13 08:40:04 AM

Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..


The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.
 
2012-11-13 08:42:39 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?

The Chevy Volt does that.


But the Chevy Volt has no place to haul a ton of feed and doesn't look like it could pull a 5th wheeler with four one-ton drafters aboard. Are there plans for a locomotive on rubber tires that can go down the freeway or down a rutty two-track with nary an electrical outlet in sight?
 
2012-11-13 08:44:27 AM
Only you pretentious metrosexuals living in craphole known as California complain about the range. Living in Philadelphia my work and everything else I need is within a 10 mile radius, I could drive all week and only need to charge it 1 time.
 
2012-11-13 08:44:40 AM

Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff, this car is not for me.

 
2012-11-13 08:48:53 AM

DSanchez: AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.

Actually, the civic won in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year


Hell the Ford Probe won in 1993
bonanzleimages.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-11-13 08:49:10 AM
Definitely a step in the right direction.
 
2012-11-13 08:51:42 AM
And yet the major car companies and all their years and billions in research gave us...the Chevy Volt

That's because their big brother OIL Company doesn't want an electric car.
 
2012-11-13 08:52:10 AM

Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?


A key thing to consider is that railways are by their nature the most energy-efficient means of transportation in existence (except maybe for the bicycle, but those don't carry thousands of tons of goods at a time). That's more a function of steel wheels on steel rails, rather than the specific drivetrain, and if the wires are available, straight electrics are more efficient than diesels. Diesel-electric locomotives are a thing because it's one of the better methods for large-scale torque conversion. There are diesel-hydraulic locos around, but that's mainly done in Europe where the freight trains are shorter. There have also been hybrids with batteries, first tried in the 1930s with some Alco/GE/Ingersoll-Rand units, but they have generally been switchers rather than road locomotives.

What works for trains isn't likely to work well for cars; a car has a vastly better power-to-weight ration than a train. It would take a hefty engine to make a Model S perform well when the batteries were drained (at least during acceleration).
 
2012-11-13 08:56:18 AM

Harry Freakstorm: I'm in. I'll tool down the road. My horn will blare "I PAY NO ROAD USE TAX SUCKERS!" I'll tell the SUV fatass in the cube next to me "Kindly, fatass, perchance thee to fill your tank tonight. There's an awful pothole on my commute and I desire it filled. My car, lamentably, pays naught a cent of tax for such trifles."

Then I would push the company to set up a charging station near the entrance. Like a Handicapped parking but without all those gimpy overtones. When I walk past it, I'll say something like "Look that person is making a difference. Reducing our reliance on terrist oil and pushing U S American technology forward. What a real American hero he must be. Not like those lazy get blowed up soldiers in AfgahnIraq."


Would Real American Women be fighting over which of them gets to ride shotgun? Cause they really should be.
 
2012-11-13 08:58:22 AM

MindStalker: Honest Bender: But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...

The amount of roof area for solar panels is tiny, you might have a single square meter of area on top of your car. At 100% efficiency that's about 50 watt hours in perfect sunlight. The Tesla S battery is 85,000 watts. The models of Prius that have a solar panel on top use it to run a fan to keep it cool when you park in the sun, its more efficient to just park in the shade.


I belive the Origina poster meant to put the solar panel on top od the garage, not the car.
 
2012-11-13 09:00:41 AM
hacknmod.com

/Only reason I clicked the link...
//Disappointed to see it was just a car...
 
2012-11-13 09:00:53 AM

Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..


clutch those pearls, environmentalist.

I love how you guys have convinced yourselves the earth is dying, when any evidence of human beings would be gone in 2000 years, tops.

And thats nothing to natural history. A blip.

Kind of like how fast things like asteroids or super volcanoes can really kick-start Climate Change.

Meanwhile we putz around arguing about plastic bags or battery disposal. LOL. Just, LOL.
 
2012-11-13 09:03:21 AM

ph0rk: Why does everyone feel they need a full-lane four seat vehicle for their solo daily commute?


So the asswit in the other four seat full lane vehicle doesnt plow me over when he/she's distracted-driving.

Also, so I don't look like those smug douchebags on bikes thinking they're better than everyone.

Also, good heavens, I might actually need to give others a ride to and from someplace, or carry some purchased goods home from the local suburban retail outlet.
 
2012-11-13 09:04:46 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


To anyone who has this kind of negative gut reaction to Tesla Motors and the Model S, I offer a question: Have you found that your gut reactions have been wrong an awful lot lately? I mean, it turns out Apple made billions off the iPad, the auto bailout was a smart move, and George W really was a dick. You haven't exactly been batting 1.000 lately, have you?

And did you completely miss the whole last half of the article? Y'know, the part about the operational supercharger stations throughout California today, and the whole country in two years? The superchargers that give you 150 MILES IN 30 MINUTES VIA SOLAR FOR FREE?!?

Let me speak up for the cheap seats in here: Drive for five hours, eat a quick lunch, drive for two and a half hours more FOR FREE. For me (31 mile commute both ways at 38 MPG) this lands me 15k in savings over 8 years, which is how long the battery warranty lasts.

You can think with your lower intestines or you can think about the numbers with your higher brain. And here's a number for you: 2. That's how many cars Tesla Motors have developed to date. They've got good cash flow, happy enthusiastic customers, and a billionaire CEO who designs rockets in his spare time. These guys are just getting started.
 
2012-11-13 09:04:57 AM

Harry Freakstorm: I'm in. I'll tool down the road. My horn will blare "I PAY NO ROAD USE TAX SUCKERS!" I'll tell the SUV fatass in the cube next to me "Kindly, fatass, perchance thee to fill your tank tonight. There's an awful pothole on my commute and I desire it filled. My car, lamentably, pays naught a cent of tax for such trifles."

Then I would push the company to set up a charging station near the entrance. Like a Handicapped parking but without all those gimpy overtones. When I walk past it, I'll say something like "Look that person is making a difference. Reducing our reliance on terrist oil and pushing U S American technology forward. What a real American hero he must be. Not like those lazy get blowed up soldiers in AfgahnIraq."


And if these ever catch on, they'll just pass a tax on car batteries. Done and done.
 
2012-11-13 09:15:02 AM

Fubegra: Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?

A key thing to consider is that railways are by their nature the most energy-efficient means of transportation in existence (except maybe for the bicycle, but those don't carry thousands of tons of goods at a time). That's more a function of steel wheels on steel rails, rather than the specific drivetrain, and if the wires are available, straight electrics are more efficient than diesels. Diesel-electric locomotives are a thing because it's one of the better methods for large-scale torque conversion. There are diesel-hydraulic locos around, but that's mainly done in Europe where the freight trains are shorter. There have also been hybrids with batteries, first tried in the 1930s with some Alco/GE/Ingersoll-Rand units, but they have generally been switchers rather than road locomotives.

What works for trains isn't likely to work well for cars; a car has a vastly better power-to-weight ration than a train. It would take a hefty engine to make a Model S perform well when the batteries were drained (at least during acceleration).


Thanks for the info.
 
2012-11-13 09:16:50 AM
Tesla's technology will have a bright future under Toyota ownership.

if Tesla had used another car maker's platform for the Model S rather than insist on building its own, it wouldn't be teetering on the edge right now and have a much brighter future.
 
2012-11-13 09:19:06 AM

Cerebral Knievel: MindStalker: Honest Bender: But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...

The amount of roof area for solar panels is tiny, you might have a single square meter of area on top of your car. At 100% efficiency that's about 50 watt hours in perfect sunlight. The Tesla S battery is 85,000 watts. The models of Prius that have a solar panel on top use it to run a fan to keep it cool when you park in the sun, its more efficient to just park in the shade.

I belive the Origina poster meant to put the solar panel on top od the garage, not the car.


Facepalm, thanks ....
 
2012-11-13 09:20:09 AM

swingbozo: Other Motor Trend "Cars of the year?" The Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Maverick. Mighty fine company you are keeping there, Tesla.


I just saw a Ford Maverick on the road yesterday. It was the first time I had ever seen one. It was NOT in good shape.
 
2012-11-13 09:30:05 AM

GameSprocket: swingbozo: Other Motor Trend "Cars of the year?" The Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Maverick. Mighty fine company you are keeping there, Tesla.

I just saw a Ford Maverick on the road yesterday. It was the first time I had ever seen one. It was NOT in good shape.


You mean to tell me you saw one example of a car not produced for the American Domestic Market in 35 years, and it wasn't in great shape?

Say it isn't so.
 
2012-11-13 09:30:48 AM
Herp derp Solyndra!
 
2012-11-13 09:32:57 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The 'Car of the Year' awards are all slanted towards luxury models.

You'll never see the Toyota Tercel or Honda Civic winning one. The basis for judgment is skewed towards high end models.


1992 Golf was the European Car of the Year. And I think the Rabbit won once in the US.
 
2012-11-13 09:33:48 AM

Greymalkin: Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

Or you could still just buy a BMW (yes it does still use a little bit of fuel) but doesn't have that distance limitation if you want to have a good day's country highway driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i8

IMO it looks better too. 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]


Kinda looks like a TRON kitchen appliance.
 
2012-11-13 09:34:08 AM
With a base price of $58,570, obviously the people buying these are no paying their fair share if they can buy these.
 
2012-11-13 09:35:48 AM
Saw one of these at the Oregon electric vehicle association the other day. Probably the best car ever made. No, it is not cheap, and no you wouldn't expect the best car ever made to be cheap, especially when it is using emerging technology.

Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?
 
2012-11-13 09:38:49 AM

Mr. Right: Fubegra: Mr. Right:
...................
What works for trains isn't likely to work well for cars; a car has a vastly better power-to-weight ration than a train. It would take a hefty engine to make a Model S perform well when the batteries were drained (at least during acceleration).

Thanks for the info.


One also has to consider the energy efficiency of the distribution system. While our electric grid is inefficient it is way more efficient than tanker trucks hauling gas to your local gas station. One main efficiency of trains and power plants is that the fuels can be shipped at a high efficiency to a central location.
 
2012-11-13 09:45:29 AM

farkingatwork: I hope people realize where mercantilism (aka our current economy, sadly) fits in with ingenuity: it prevents it.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/10/154211/tesla-motors-sued-by-c a r-dealers

People don't want Tesla to exist, because it could *GASP* compete with the oil industry and the automotive industry.

/fark the dealerships


since you didn't bother reading the article that slashdot linked to:

In Massachusetts, franchise law 93B prohibits a manufacturer from owning a dealership

Massachusetts isn't the only state that has laws like this. Most states do. Tesla feels like it shouldn't have to abide by the law for some reason. Fisker doesn't have these dealer network problems, since it signed a deal with Penske.

car companies big and small have tried to get around these laws, and were sued into submission. More recently, Chrysler was forced to sell its Motor Village in Los Angeles rather than risk losing the ability to sell cars in the state, and the CA law wasn't as tough as the Mass. law.

Link
 
2012-11-13 09:48:50 AM
This is NOT American ingenuity. It doesn't use gasoline, and is therefore unAmerican.
 
2012-11-13 09:51:19 AM
49k starting price with a 7k federal grant price reduction? Just paid off my car today, so I just may look into getting one of these come this time next year if i could get one used for around 30!
 
2012-11-13 09:54:39 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.


I love how people who somehow try to argue, "enviromentalism doesn't work, because doing the same thing we've been doing since the car has been created is better for the enviroment than your hippy ideas" ("those hippy ideas" include breathing clearly or drinking from water sources untainted by harmful chemicals!).

Unless you have stock in an oil company, you shouldn't care that we're trying to find alternative methods to power vehicles. Batteries can be recycled and that car is made of metal that goes through the same industrial processes as building the battery! What we want to reduce is the "additional impact" that vehicle would make on the enviroment through reducing or hopefully eliminating the emissions it produces. Why do people like you act having an "well, it won't effect it quickly in the short term, so why bother doing it at all?" additude? What is the harm in trying!?
 
2012-11-13 09:56:59 AM
good, the closer we are to full electric cars the better, hydrids are just a stepping stone anyhow
 
2012-11-13 10:01:56 AM

dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips,


Yes

dp3: nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go...


Maine is 7 hours North to South and 5 hours East to West
Some people have really long commutes for our few crappy jobs.
 
2012-11-13 10:04:19 AM
Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

images.fastcompany.com

Aston Martin DB9:

www.sportscarcup.com
 
2012-11-13 10:07:04 AM

BHShaman: dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips,


Yes

dp3: nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go...

Maine is 7 hours North to South and 5 hours East to West
Some people have really long commutes for our few crappy jobs.


Renault and Better Place have an interesting solution for the range problem: battery switching stations, not battery charging stations.

Link
 
2012-11-13 10:08:30 AM
I like it. My commute to work is 7 miles each way, mostly 2 lane blacktop, that thing would be a hoot.

Current car is 11 years old now. If I still have a job in a year, I'd look into one.
 
2012-11-13 10:10:55 AM

BigBooper: $49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.

I'd say that the vast majority of Americans don't drive that in a normal day.


It's not a question of whether you do it every day. It's a question of whether you ever do it. Because the S cannot do it.

Basically, a Tesla can't drive from DC to NYC.
 
2012-11-13 10:11:48 AM

Hollie Maea: Saw one of these at the Oregon electric vehicle association the other day. Probably the best car ever made. No, it is not cheap, and no you wouldn't expect the best car ever made to be cheap, especially when it is using emerging technology.

Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?


They know about electric cars from reading the Drudge Report.
 
2012-11-13 10:13:01 AM
At $60,000, couldn't they make it a LITTLE lighter than 2.5 tons?
 
2012-11-13 10:13:37 AM

ThunderPelvis: If you'd RTFA, you would have noticed that their new Supercharger stations give the cars an extra 150 miles after 30 minutes of charging.


All six of them.

And you better stop at Harris Ranch, because you can't get from north to south CA without hitting that station.
 
2012-11-13 10:14:22 AM

This text is now purple: Basically, a Tesla can't drive from DC to NYC.


not yet, if the batteries were to become standardized, there could be swapping (or upgrade)stations
 
2012-11-13 10:19:01 AM
Love the styling, love the concept of never having to fill up on gas again.

I don't love the range, though. I'm also worried about how the car will handle driving in the Northeast, especially during the winter.

I'll definitely consider buying one once the range gets to 350+ miles and can perform well in most winter conditions. My car has 3-4 years left in it. Would LOVE to buy one of these in a few years if the styling and interior goes head to head with BMW, Mercedes, and Audi. The price tag would be somewhat justified.

You're almost there, Tesla!
 
2012-11-13 10:19:47 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle:
3. The fact that consumers can't figure out that they shouldn't throw farking pizza boxes in the paper bin doesn't mean recycling is bad, it just means consumers are stupid and lazy and won't do it right


Really?
 
2012-11-13 10:21:03 AM
Motor Trend has, in the past, also named the PT Cruiser, the Malibu, the Dodge Caravan, the AMC/Renault Alliance and the Mustang II the "Car of the Year"....Not sure that award is really all that special...

/Tesla is a good looking car, but 60K for a glorified golf cart?
 
2012-11-13 10:23:38 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


I guess this is your first experience with high-tech product launches. When you first make the product, your manufacturing process is naturally inefficient and you only have hopes of limited sales, thus the high price. If you can get enough early adopters to buy (either because of the status symbols or because they just like new tech), you can streamline your manufacturing process, improve the tech and start taking advantage of economies of scale.
 
2012-11-13 10:23:56 AM

chevydeuce: /Tesla is a good looking car, but 60K for a glorified golf cart?


Well, a Hummer is just a glorified lawn mower.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:50 AM

ajgeek: At $60,000, couldn't they make it a LITTLE lighter than 2.5 tons?


The weight is actually a huge advantage for this car. It carries the battery 12.5 - 17.5 inches off the ground depending on which active air suspension setting you choose, so the center of gravity is super low and it handles like a dream. And it can get away with being heavy because of how *clears throat* SUPERIOR a powerful electric motor is when it comes to delivering energy compared to a combustion engine. The standard model 85kw model has been tested to do 0 - 60 in 5.6 with 360 horsepower at ZERO rpm. The performance model does it in 4.0 seconds (3.9 by MotorTrend's testing) and hits 440 horsepower.
 
2012-11-13 10:32:15 AM
People complaining about the range... why not just move somewhere that doesn't suck?

I get about 300 miles per tank of gas (14 gallons). I get gas about once every 3 weeks sometimes 4?

I don't really understand how your daily commute is over 200 miles unless you're just too retarded to buy a house near your job.
 
2012-11-13 10:35:50 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.


It's too bad those metals wouldn't ever be used anywhere else except in Prius drivetrains.

[rolls eyes]
 
2012-11-13 10:38:20 AM

chevydeuce: /Tesla is a good looking car, but 60K for a glorified golf cart?


It's actually 60k for the 160 mile/slow version with nothing in it. You're looking at over 90k to get the "standard" version out-the-door. I'd take a serious look at it if I could get the loaded performance version for under 70k before the tax credit. That would put it on par with the Audi A6s, Merc E-Class and BMW 500s. Right now that's banana's selling that car for 90k. I've also read that you get murdered with your insurance rates because they are considered an exotic vehicle that almost nobody can fix.

What if you have an issue with it? I'm assuming you have to ship the car across the country to have anyone work on it?
 
2012-11-13 10:38:31 AM
My car gets around 200 miles on a tank of gas.

I've NEVER had to top off the tank twice in one day... NEVER.

Not even when i go to the lake.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:33 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.

I love how people who somehow try to argue, "enviromentalism doesn't work, because doing the same thing we've been doing since the car has been created is better for the enviroment than your hippy ideas" ("those hippy ideas" include breathing clearly or drinking from water sources untainted by harmful chemicals!).

Unless you have stock in an oil company, you shouldn't care that we're trying to find alternative methods to power ...


I'm not saying things like Tesla's doing aren't great and needed in this day and age, I'm just saying we should quit bullshiatting ourselves here. The claims of greenliness (I've got dibs on that term, I made it up and it's mine) are exaggerated to the point of blatant dishonesty when it comes to most hybrids and EV's. Batteries don't grow on trees, and neither does the electricity to charge them. The solar charging stations aren't "free", someone paid to manufacture the things, and maintain them, and I'm sure the land they occupy was donated purely out of the good of someone's heart.

I love how people somehow try to argue "if you take issue with how these products are marketed, you hate clean air and water" when all it really comes down to is "Keep up the good work guys, but quit lying to us about how advanced this new tech is so it will sell better".
 
2012-11-13 10:39:18 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.


So buy a H2?
 
2012-11-13 10:39:57 AM

Mentat: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I guess this is your first experience with high-tech product launches. When you first make the product, your manufacturing process is naturally inefficient and you only have hopes of limited sales, thus the high price. If you can get enough early adopters to buy (either because of the status symbols or because they just like new tech), you can streamline your manufacturing process, improve the tech and start taking advantage of economies of scale.


Tesla could have taken advantage of economies of scale by using another manufacturer's automotive platform and signing up with nationwide dealer networks. But no, it had to insist on doing everything from scratch.

so the car is done, and they need to sell at least 8000 cars in the US (plus an equal amount in international sales) to breakeven. But Tesla only has 20 dealers nationwide, less than 40 globally. Oops.
 
2012-11-13 10:41:30 AM

theorellior: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

It's too bad those metals wouldn't ever be used anywhere else except in Prius drivetrains.

[rolls eyes]


Yes, and I'm sure the recycling furnaces are heated with warm fuzzy feelings about baby seals and polar bears.

Is there something in your eye?
 
2012-11-13 10:44:47 AM

Bullseyed: I don't really understand how your daily commute is over 200 miles unless you're just too retarded to buy a house near your job.


3.bp.blogspot.com
Cars are sometimes driven for reasons other than the daily commute. Film at 11.

/e.g., when I was in school, I sometimes drove home to the parents' house over holidays -- happened on a quasi-regular basis and was over 200 miles
 
2012-11-13 10:46:21 AM

Hollie Maea: Why are people so terrified of progress?


They don't call themselves conservative because they are out there in the world making changes to better the future...
 
2012-11-13 10:46:57 AM

Bullseyed: People complaining about the range... why not just move somewhere that doesn't suck?

I get about 300 miles per tank of gas (14 gallons). I get gas about once every 3 weeks sometimes 4?

I don't really understand how your daily commute is over 200 miles unless you're just too retarded to buy a house near your job.


People DO take trips outside of their car's range. There's still little infrastructure to support vehicles like these right now. How many battery swapping stations exist right now? Are there any in your area?

Say there was a charging station on the way to wherever you were going that was outside the range of the Tesla. Are you going to wait 30 minutes to let your car recharge?

A car is supposed to provide flexibility. It's infrastructure is not flexible at all right now, unless you're not planning on taking trips more than 100 miles away from home, then you can charge it at home and it's 100% flexible.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you, but you're not thinking of the people that take long trips.
 
2012-11-13 10:48:04 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Batteries don't grow on trees, and neither does the electricity to charge them.


I'll put it to you this way... in my 7 years of driving a Civic hybrid, I saved approximately 1200 gallons of gas. Do I think that the environmental cost of mining, smelting, alloying and manufacturing that battery pack is less than the environmental cost of drilling, storing, transporting, refining and distributing that gasoline? Yes, yes I do. Additionally, those batteries were charged solely by the waste energy involved in stopping the car. This means that at 37 KWhr/gal, the battery pack reused 44.4 GWh of energy that would have been lost as waste heat. Does that offset the energy cost of their manufacture? Yes, I think it does.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:32 AM

jfivealive: 49k starting price with a 7k federal grant price reduction? Just paid off my car today, so I just may look into getting one of these come this time next year if i could get one used for around 30!


It's 49.9k AFTER the federal tax credit. It's not a grant. You still have to hand over $57k to Tesla to buy the car, you just pay $7k less in taxes next time.

Also, these are all custom orders now, and they take months to deliver. Those aren't going to depreciate more than 20% in a year. So best case, TWO years from now, you might get one for $32k, if there are dissatisfied owners selling them used.

For $30k a year from now it's going to have been in a wreck, or some old dude maybe kicked the bucket and shat all over the driver's seat and they can't get the smell out.
 
2012-11-13 10:51:46 AM

Hollie Maea: Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?


It's nice that these are cheap to refuel, but it seems like a step backward to go from a vehicle that can be refueled in 5 minutes to one that takes hours to "fuel". Electric cars are great in principle, but battery technology sucks, quite frankly, and its at the core of the design. Fuel cells or some kind of internal generator (similar to the Chevy Volt) would seem like a better idea.
 
2012-11-13 10:51:48 AM

ThunderPelvis: The price will go down after infrastructure and production start ramping up. You think Joe Sixpack was driving the first production models of gasoline-powered cars?


Considering that's who the Model T was built for, I'd say yes, yes he was.
 
2012-11-13 10:52:30 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Yes, and I'm sure the recycling furnaces are heated with warm fuzzy feelings about baby seals and polar bears.


Look, pardner, just because an environmentalist touched you in a bad place, doesn't mean you're right. I wasn't talking about recycling the batteries. I'm talking about the fact that nickel is a major industrial metal, used for many, many other things than just NiMH batteries for Priuses and Civics. If there were no Priuses anywhere on the planet, nickel would still be strip-mined in megaton quanitites. You can't pin the entire environmental impact of nickel strip mining on NiMH batteries, because to do that would be intellectually disingenuous.
 
2012-11-13 10:52:48 AM
I just bought a car a year ago (Mini Cooper, pretty good MPGs), but I fully expect my next one 5-10 years down the line to be electric. That seems like plenty of time for this technology to become wider spread, cheaper, and more efficient. And those pictures of the Tesla are droolworthy.
 
2012-11-13 10:53:46 AM
And they're based in Palo Alto / Menlo Park. I couldn't be prouder.
 
2012-11-13 10:54:31 AM

jshine: I sometimes drove home to the parents' house over holidays


I don't know where you live, but the meanings of "sometimes" and "holidays" are not the same as Daily...

The point, which you clearly missed, is that the bulk of most people's driving, daily, from day to day, not the occasional road trip or vacation, is less than 200 miles a day...

There, it's spelled out for you...

If you have a need for something OTHER than daily driving, then plan for it... rent a car... the money you will save in gas alone will pay for more than one of those occasional trips you sometimes took over the holidays...

Seriously... the amount of idiocy in this thread is beyond belief...
 
2012-11-13 10:55:11 AM
Kid in high school made a Tesla coil for science fair project. We all kept asking him why he would make a testicle. It was uproarious.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:23 AM

CeroX: jshine: I sometimes drove home to the parents' house over holidays

I don't know where you live, but the meanings of "sometimes" and "holidays" are not the same as Daily...


I know you're trying for some kind of sarcasm, but we both understand each other perfectly well. Reasonable people will have different ideas of what constitutes an acceptable compromise in design/performance.
 
2012-11-13 11:01:53 AM

jshine: Hollie Maea: Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?

It's nice that these are cheap to refuel, but it seems like a step backward to go from a vehicle that can be refueled in 5 minutes to one that takes hours to "fuel". Electric cars are great in principle, but battery technology sucks, quite frankly, and its at the core of the design. Fuel cells or some kind of internal generator (similar to the Chevy Volt) would seem like a better idea.


Jesus H Christ... You drive a mustang gt don't you? You have "American Muscle Cars 4life" tat'd on your penis? Because you are just a complete waste of farking conversation...

You realize that within a couple of years, they will come up with a magnetic charger pad like they have for your cell phones and toothbrushes, and all you will have to do is throw one down on the floor of your garage?

Park your car, and it charges... you won't even have to bother plugging it in, you just park your car and the next morning it's got a "full tank"...

But i bet your REAL issue, is that the car doesn't go RRRRRAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR when you rev the engine at a stop light next to the 18 year old with the fart can on his civic...
 
2012-11-13 11:02:03 AM
I love Tesla
 
2012-11-13 11:02:30 AM

dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips, nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go... You can go to work, use 80% of your range, charge there while you're not using the car, and in 2-3 hours your car is back at 100%.

A guy just completed a trip from SF to LA in a day (400mi) in a BMW ActiveE that only gets 106mi of range on a good day. Practical? No. Feasible? Totally.


For city dwellers and suburbannites (the paradigm for very rural exurbs and small towns is a bit different) 200 miles is all you'd resaonably expect to drive in a single day (its a LOT farther than it sounds) I just recently drove from DC to Hilton Head SC and that is only a 600 mile trip). If you are going much farther than that you are more likely to fly or take (in the NE anyway) Highspeed rail or a "dragon" bus
 
2012-11-13 11:03:33 AM

theorellior: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Batteries don't grow on trees, and neither does the electricity to charge them.

I'll put it to you this way... in my 7 years of driving a Civic hybrid, I saved approximately 1200 gallons of gas. Do I think that the environmental cost of mining, smelting, alloying and manufacturing that battery pack is less than the environmental cost of drilling, storing, transporting, refining and distributing that gasoline? Yes, yes I do. Additionally, those batteries were charged solely by the waste energy involved in stopping the car. This means that at 37 KWhr/gal, the battery pack reused 44.4 GWh of energy that would have been lost as waste heat. Does that offset the energy cost of their manufacture? Yes, I think it does.


"Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car."

Link

Keep thinking that.

Electric cars are something I support, but if you want a standing ovation from me, do something about the hundreds of thousands of 18-wheelers burning diesel at 4-6 mpg. At that point, I'll concede that saving 1200 gallons a year is awesome (my local station pumps that much in a hour on a Monday morning)
 
2012-11-13 11:04:18 AM

CeroX: The point, which you clearly missed, is that the bulk of most people's driving, daily, from day to day, not the occasional road trip or vacation, is less than 200 miles a day...

There, it's spelled out for you...


Oh, I didn't miss the point -- in fact, I readily agree with it. My problem with this design is that if one deviates from the normal plan, there's very little flexibility in this design. If one robotically drives back and forth to work, then there are no problems -- but if you want to drive longer for any reason (a weekend trip to the wine country, a family emergency, a trip to visit friends/relatives, etc., etc.), then you could end up stuck beside the freeway waiting for a tow-truck.

I'll agree that 99% of the time, these would be fine -- but that remaining 1% would be a real pain in the ass -- enough to (IMHO) prevent me from ever buying a pure-electric (except as a toy).
 
2012-11-13 11:04:47 AM

CeroX: But i bet your REAL issue, is that the car doesn't go RRRRRAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR when you rev the engine at a stop light next to the 18 year old with the fart can on his civic...


Fortunately, they'll probably include an IC-engine noise pack and external speakers in your sports car EV so you can play the muscle-car rumble-rumble at stoplights.
 
2012-11-13 11:05:45 AM

CeroX: Jesus H Christ... You drive a mustang gt don't you? You have "American Muscle Cars 4life" tat'd on your penis? Because you are just a complete waste of farking conversation...


I drive a Mazda 3 and have a doctorate in engineering. No tattoos. Stereotypes may save time, but they can lead one astray...
 
2012-11-13 11:10:33 AM

CeroX: But i bet your REAL issue, is that the car doesn't go RRRRRAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR when you rev the engine at a stop light next to the 18 year old with the fart can on his civic...

  

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-13 11:11:19 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: "Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car."


Good Lord, you're still not getting it. I'm not talking about paying off the damn car. I'm talking about the energy involved in making the damn batteries. That's what we're talking about, right? You say that batteries aren't environmental because nickel is strip-mined and the electricity has to come from somewhere. I'm telling you that nickel is not specific to battery manufacture and hybrid cars charge the batteries off of energy wasted from the gasoline.

A real-life empirical example, I saved 1200 gallons of gasoline with a 250 lb battery pack. My contention is that the savings of the former more than paid for the cost of the latter. Do you want it even more black and white? 1200 gallons of gas = $4800. A new battery pack = $2800. Enjoy.
 
2012-11-13 11:12:37 AM

jshine: but that remaining 1% would be a real pain in the ass


I think that's subjective to the person... Going to enterprise and renting a car for a long haul is as much of a pain in the ass as going to Valvoline and getting an oil change... But i do that every 3k miles...
 
2012-11-13 11:15:29 AM

theorellior: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Yes, and I'm sure the recycling furnaces are heated with warm fuzzy feelings about baby seals and polar bears.

Look, pardner, just because an environmentalist touched you in a bad place, doesn't mean you're right. I wasn't talking about recycling the batteries. I'm talking about the fact that nickel is a major industrial metal, used for many, many other things than just NiMH batteries for Priuses and Civics. If there were no Priuses anywhere on the planet, nickel would still be strip-mined in megaton quanitites. You can't pin the entire environmental impact of nickel strip mining on NiMH batteries, because to do that would be intellectually disingenuous.


Yes. I was sexually abused by an environmentalist. My opinion has nothing to do with the basics law of thermodynamics getting in the way of your tree-hugging circle jerk.

/Oh, look. I can ruin a perfectly good debate by making vague allusions to the sexual history/proclivities of my opposition, too!
 
dp3
2012-11-13 11:18:22 AM

Magorn: dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips, nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go... You can go to work, use 80% of your range, charge there while you're not using the car, and in 2-3 hours your car is back at 100%.

A guy just completed a trip from SF to LA in a day (400mi) in a BMW ActiveE that only gets 106mi of range on a good day. Practical? No. Feasible? Totally.

For city dwellers and suburbannites (the paradigm for very rural exurbs and small towns is a bit different) 200 miles is all you'd resaonably expect to drive in a single day (its a LOT farther than it sounds) I just recently drove from DC to Hilton Head SC and that is only a 600 mile trip). If you are going much farther than that you are more likely to fly or take (in the NE anyway) Highspeed rail or a "dragon" bus


Full disclosure: I'm involved with the ActiveE trial, so the limitations of electric vehicles are very apparent to me and there have been a few lifestyle adjustments I've had to make in order to go electric.
I don't think EVs are for everyone and we still have ICE cars for long trips where we want to travel reasonably far without having to stop in the middle for a charge.
As mentioned up thread, there are a few companies figuring out battery swapping, induction chargers on the roads and parking lots, etc.
Despite the caveats, driving electric so far in CA has been relatively painless and pretty cool when my $250/mo. in gas turned into $20/mo. of electricity. Especially as infrastructure keeps getting developed.
 
2012-11-13 11:18:27 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: My opinion has nothing to do with the basics law of thermodynamics getting in the way of your tree-hugging circle jerk.


Are you even reading my comments? The ones that talk about energy tradeoffs and suchlike? Or are you so invested in counting coup against an environazi that you're turning off your brain?
 
2012-11-13 11:21:08 AM

jshine: [i45.tinypic.com image 400x302]


Not anger, i just don't see why you would be pushing back on this as much as you are... though with that engineering degree something tells me it might have something to do with your employment...

Personally, i don't think the country is ready for EV yet... because they aren't ready to give up or change their habits...

That's the real problem with innovation and change... people... people just can't seem to wrap their brain around doing something different than they've been used to doing...

I see that attitude at my job all the time... people recieve a new policy and pitch a fit because "that's not how we did it before!"

Who cares? it's how you do it until it changes again, and again, and again...

It's not the "love" of oil that people have, it's the love of routine... the love of familiarity... some people (washington and new jersey for example) still don't even know how to fill up their own gas tank, asking them to plug a cord into a vehicle is like asking them to flay open an infant with a straight razor...

Then, to top it off, they work harder and do more research trying to NOT change their habits than spending it just learning the new system...
 
2012-11-13 11:29:51 AM
PSA: anyone talking about nickel based batteries is ignorant and should not be joining a discussion about electric vehicles.
 
dp3
2012-11-13 11:29:58 AM

BHShaman: dp3: For those talking about range issues, EVs are not at the stage where you can do a practical long-haul drive. They are for city commuting and smaller trips,


Yes

dp3: nobody realistically drives 100-200 miles daily in a single go...

Maine is 7 hours North to South and 5 hours East to West
Some people have really long commutes for our few crappy jobs.


I was speaking more towards urban/suburban cities (NYC/LA/SF) where you probably spend more time sitting in traffic rather than actually traveling.
If I lived in Maine I think that I would probably take a train or something like that just to avoid driving that long on a regular basis.
I don't think electric vehicles are a silver bullet, it's a mix of transportation methods to address our issues--but, if you can travel quietly, without concentrating emissions in the city, and produce some of your own electricity so we can use oil for other things, it seems like a good way to go.
 
2012-11-13 11:30:11 AM

xtragrind: chevydeuce: /Tesla is a good looking car, but 60K for a glorified golf cart?

It's actually 60k for the 160 mile/slow version with nothing in it. You're looking at over 90k to get the "standard" version out-the-door. I'd take a serious look at it if I could get the loaded performance version for under 70k before the tax credit. That would put it on par with the Audi A6s, Merc E-Class and BMW 500s. Right now that's banana's selling that car for 90k. I've also read that you get murdered with your insurance rates because they are considered an exotic vehicle that almost nobody can fix.

What if you have an issue with it? I'm assuming you have to ship the car across the country to have anyone work on it?


Actually 50k (after tax credit) for the 160 mile model (40kw battery). Then 60k for 230 miles (60kw) and 70k - 100k for the 300 mile (85 kw).
 
2012-11-13 11:33:28 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.


So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

But you obviously knew that.

Obviously.

/Retards
 
2012-11-13 11:34:55 AM

theorellior: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: My opinion has nothing to do with the basics law of thermodynamics getting in the way of your tree-hugging circle jerk.

Are you even reading my comments? The ones that talk about energy tradeoffs and suchlike? Or are you so invested in counting coup against an environazi that you're turning off your brain?


Wait... who are you again? Oh, I'm sorry... I'm sorry. You must be mistaken in thinking that I really give enough of a shiat about this thread to keep tabs on who I've responded to that responded to my response.

/I really should write down your names or something
//takes off my robe and wizard hat
 
2012-11-13 11:35:43 AM
Just to be absolutely clear.

If you think the Lithium in Lithium Ion batteries is harmful to the environment to mine, you are mentally retarded.
 
2012-11-13 11:36:06 AM

knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.


And those grapes are probably sour!

And that model has pointy knees!

And I'll always hate something I'll never be able to afford!

And other whining.
 
2012-11-13 11:50:50 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.

So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

But you obviously knew that.

Obviously.

...


My point:

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricity
Transport vehicles use fuel/electricity
Manufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricity
More transport vehicles use more fuel/electricity
Automotive plants use fuel/electrcity
Automobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricity
Automotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricity
Once again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricity
I'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.
 
2012-11-13 11:50:54 AM
Wait. People are complaining about being able to refuel your car for *FREE FOR LIFE* via solar power, just because It takes 30 minutes every 150 miles?

I don't know about you, I usually like to take a short break every ~3 hours of driving. Grab a snack, take a piss, get some fuel, etc. That usually takes 20 minutes. An extra 10 minutes to take a break isn't going to ruin any of my cross-country road trip plans.

www.hybridcars.com
/unless I'm wanting to visit N. Dakota.
 
2012-11-13 11:53:21 AM

CeroX: jshine: [i45.tinypic.com image 400x302]

Not anger, i just don't see why you would be pushing back on this as much as you are... though with that engineering degree something tells me it might have something to do with your employment...

Personally, i don't think the country is ready for EV yet... because they aren't ready to give up or change their habits...

That's the real problem with innovation and change... people... people just can't seem to wrap their brain around doing something different than they've been used to doing...

I see that attitude at my job all the time... people recieve a new policy and pitch a fit because "that's not how we did it before!"

Who cares? it's how you do it until it changes again, and again, and again...

It's not the "love" of oil that people have, it's the love of routine... the love of familiarity... some people (washington and new jersey for example) still don't even know how to fill up their own gas tank, asking them to plug a cord into a vehicle is like asking them to flay open an infant with a straight razor...

Then, to top it off, they work harder and do more research trying to NOT change their habits than spending it just learning the new system...


I work for a company that makes medical equipment, so I'm not in the automotive industry at all -- although I do live pretty close to Tesla, actually.

My attitude toward cars is that they should basically disappear. I have enough to think about in life, I don't want my transportation to take up any unnecessary thought. I certainly don't get emotionally invested in cars. I want to be able to get from A to B as quickly, cheaply, and reliably as possible -- without worrying where A & B are, how far they are apart, etc., etc. Right now, EVs can't really achieve that.

Gas is environmentally messy, but as a liquid fuel it does have some big advantages: it can be pumped out of a simple tank and into another tank very quickly. There's a lot of energy stored in a small volume, and it can be moved around & transferred easily.

If an EV could be recharged quickly enough, and stations were common enough, then I'd reconsider. As it is, EVs may already be suitable for some people, depending on their priorities & driving habits. So be it. I'm not out to rain on anybody else's parade, just to provide my own perspective. Like much of engineering, there isn't a "wrong" answer, just different solutions for different requirements.
 
2012-11-13 11:59:21 AM
Saw one driving down I84 on Saturday. Really attractive car. There's a showroom in the Washington Square Mall. Maybe I'll have to stop on by sometime.

/csb
 
2012-11-13 12:00:35 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.


So... you're going for a global definition of "green"? That all cars suck environmentally, even the hybrids?

This would make more sense, but since you started off with typical herpaderp about batteries and stuff, it became more confusing.
 
2012-11-13 12:02:27 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: My point:

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricity
Transport vehicles use fuel/electricity
Manufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricity
More transport vehicles use more fuel/electricity
Automotive plants use fuel/electrcity
Automobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricity
Automotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricity
Once again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricity
I'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.


How much electricity do you think it takes to:

- find crude oil
- drill for crude oil
- pull crude out of the ground
- transport crude to a refinery
- refine a gallon of gas (according to the DOE, this step alone consumes 7.5 kWh per gallon, enough to propel an electric car ~30 miles)
- transport that gas to a refueling station
- power the refueling station, waiting for a customer
- pumping that gasoline into your tank

Before an ounce of gasoline reaches your tank, a massive amount of energy has been put into creating and transporting that gas. And that doesn't factor in the gasoline's ~10% mix of ethanol, the fuel/fertilizer/water required to grow the corn for that ethanol, etc.

Considering fuel accounts for 85% of the lifecycle energy of a typical car, electric cars come out way, way ahead, especially ones fueled with non-carbon electricity sources.
 
2012-11-13 12:03:08 PM
People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.
 
2012-11-13 12:06:41 PM

theorellior: If there were no Priuses anywhere on the planet, nickel would still be strip-mined in megaton quanitites.


Why does my brain keep reading that as Pussies?
 
2012-11-13 12:07:10 PM

SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

www.motorward.com


Chrysler Concorde:

www.chryslercolors.info
 
2012-11-13 12:08:30 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

But you obviously knew that.

Obviously.

...

My point:

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricity - And gas mining doesn't?
Transport vehicles use fuel/electricity - And gas transport doesn't?
Manufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricity - And gas refineries don't?
More transport vehicles use more fuel/electricity - And transporting gas vehicles doesn't?
Automotive plants use fuel/electrcity - And gas automotive plants don't?
Automobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricity - And gas carriers don't?
Automotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricity - And gas automobile distributers don't?
Once again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricity - And gas trucks don't?
I'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale - Actually here again you are retarded since Tesla's aren't sold in a traditional dealership, the size required for a traditional dealership is much less energy efficient than the electric...so thanks for proving another point for me.

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining What strip mining, specifically, are you talking about, because it isn't for the batteries in the Tesla. itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.


So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...

-Electricity can be transported via already-in-place electric lines much more efficiently than gas can be trucked around
-Oil spills in the ocean and on land in places like Nigeria are HUGE environmental disasters...pumping brine and letting it dry in the sun...not much chance for a disaster there
-Electricity can be generated from a multidude of sources, gasoline comes from oil (biodiesel isn't gasoline, and it has its own problems)

And for the record, I am not saying "ZOMG, we need to replace all gas cars with EV's NOW!", having a diversified fleet of vehicle types is better for the country as a whole, and I see a typical family scenario where there are 2 cars (1 EV and 1 ICE) being EXTREMELY advantageous for day-to-day operations.

Also, I am not saying EV's are even better at all. Right now, they don't make a lot of economic sense unless you are in a small minority of people who have all the right conditions (can afford the initial cost/early-adopter risk, can live with the range, have a space to charge it, and drive enough that the gas savings are worthwhile).

But claiming that Lithium Ion batteries are a bigger environmental threat than gasoline production/storage is retarded. 

And you claiming that you just want "honesty" when you are being irrationally dishonest every step of the way is the most hypocritical ignorant douchebaggery I have seen all day.

/And I work in DC.
 
2012-11-13 12:10:37 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

[www.motorward.com image 500x278]


Chrysler Concorde:

[www.chryslercolors.info image 800x449]


Not even close, dude.
 
2012-11-13 12:11:48 PM

Honest Bender: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day?

A lot of people, actually. Now, obviously this is still a niche product. I don't know about you, but I live in an apartment complex so there's no convenient way for me to charge an electric car in the parking lot. So right away the bulk of your market is going to be people with a home/garage. But considering the price tag, most people in the market for a car like this probably already own their own home.

But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...

And as others have said, the electric car in general is still more or less in its infancy. I'll be interested to see where this leads the auto industry in 10 years.


does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol
//we need a new 'standard'
 
2012-11-13 12:12:12 PM

mainstreet62: Kraftwerk Orange: SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

[www.motorward.com image 500x278]


Chrysler Concorde:

[www.chryslercolors.info image 800x449]

Not even close, dude.


If you don't see the visual similarities, you're blind.
 
2012-11-13 12:18:18 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: If you don't see the visual similarities, you're blind.


Yes, both have 4 wheels, a windshield, and are made of metal. What's your point?
 
2012-11-13 12:21:53 PM

jshine: Hollie Maea: Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?

It's nice that these are cheap to refuel, but it seems like a step backward to go from a vehicle that can be refueled in 5 minutes to one that takes hours to "fuel". Electric cars are great in principle, but battery technology sucks, quite frankly, and its at the core of the design. Fuel cells or some kind of internal generator (similar to the Chevy Volt) would seem like a better idea.


there are other significant advantages to getting rid of the ICE component all together... think total cost of ownership... eliminate, oil changes, tune ups, anti-freeze, brake jobs (using the regenerative braking systems uses the motor rather than pad/caliper to slow/stop), exhaust and expensive catalytic converters, air filters... with electric only, your only real maintenance is tires (maybe wiper blades...)
 
2012-11-13 12:32:34 PM
Tesla Model S vs. Chrysler Concorde:

Similar grille openings.
Similar headlight placement.
Similar hood surface treatments over headlamp cluster.
Similar greenhouse.
Similar window groupings.
Similar plastic filler on rear quarter window.
Exact same door cutlines.
Similar bladed wheel design.
Both have wheels pushed to the extremities - the Concorde by design, the Tesla by necessity to fit the battery.
Both have short overhangs as a result; the Tesla arguably has too much front end, not really needed (no ICE) so they turned it into a second trunk.

The biggest difference, design-wise, is the Tesla has the all-too-common fender vents (why do they need fake vents that imply an ICE?), and the Tesla has flush door handles.


I actually think the Tesla is a great car, and that Elon Musk has really accomplished something huge in getting it made. OTOH, aside from aerodynamic concerns (which is one of the Concorde's more noteworthy achievements: cab-forward design)... why did Tesla let von Holzhausen be so lazy with the design?
 
2012-11-13 12:38:11 PM

inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol
//we need a new 'standard'


Despite the volatility of gasoline, on the whole it's actually remarkably stable at normal temps and Hollywood explosions are extremely rare even in the worst built cars of the 60's. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is one of the most reactive materials in existence. Yes, in liquid form it holds a lot of energy in a compact volume and is incredibly easy to manufacture, but the safety drop tends to outweigh the benefits in a world where accidents are common. They'll always be a niche.

That's not to say Li batteries can't explode, but that danger level is roughly similar to gasoline's.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...


You seem to be arguing with someone who feels we should abandon modern life and go back to farming our own food; it's the only premise any of his arguments make sense for.
 
2012-11-13 12:43:23 PM

inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential


No clue, dude. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells. Water for waste, nice dense energy storage medium, readily available.... It hits a lot of good points. But then there's the whole thing with it being explosive... You can't really produce it in any reasonable quantity without wasting a lot of energy...

Could be the benefits outweigh the detriments. Really, it'll probably come down to what the industry backs.
 
2012-11-13 12:45:31 PM

SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

[images.fastcompany.com image 850x566]

Aston Martin DB9:

[www.sportscarcup.com image 504x338]


We were too busy noticing Ford using the same look with the Fusion, Evos concept, and possible renderings of the new Mustang.
 
2012-11-13 12:47:03 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

[www.motorward.com image 500x278]


Chrysler Concorde:

[www.chryslercolors.info image 800x449]


If you saw them both on the road, or even looked at all of the pictures a little closer, you wouldn't make such a silly statement. One looks like a cross between a sedan and a muscle car, one looks like a sedan. The Tesla was intentionally designed to look sedan-ish and muscle-ish without being an overt copy of another car, rather than being a lazy recreation of other designs, because they're pandering to the luxury market, which is fairly conservative.

Much like the roadster, which was designed to pander to sports car enthusiasts by mimicking Italian designs. That's just what Tesla does; they're all about technology, while the style attempts to fit in with the rest of the road.

Personally, I think it looks like several Hyundai models on the road right now, rather than that ugly boat you saw.
 
2012-11-13 12:47:16 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Electric cars are something I support, but if you want a standing ovation from me, do something about the hundreds of thousands of 18-wheelers burning diesel at 4-6 mpg. At that point, I'll concede that saving 1200 gallons a year is awesome (my local station pumps that much in a hour on a Monday morning)


If ever there were a platform for something like the Volt, it would be semi-tractors.
 
2012-11-13 12:48:38 PM

Honest Bender: inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

No clue, dude. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells. Water for waste, nice dense energy storage medium, readily available.... It hits a lot of good points. But then there's the whole thing with it being explosive... You can't really produce it in any reasonable quantity without wasting a lot of energy...

Could be the benefits outweigh the detriments. Really, it'll probably come down to what the industry backs.


Well, the car makers are pretty solidly behind FCVs:

Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai have all expressed plans to sell HFCVs in the next few years.
 
2012-11-13 12:48:58 PM

foxyshadis: inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol
//we need a new 'standard'

Despite the volatility of gasoline, on the whole it's actually remarkably stable at normal temps and Hollywood explosions are extremely rare even in the worst built cars of the 60's. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is one of the most reactive materials in existence. Yes, in liquid form it holds a lot of energy in a compact volume and is incredibly easy to manufacture, but the safety drop tends to outweigh the benefits in a world where accidents are common. They'll always be a niche.

That's not to say Li batteries can't explode, but that danger level is roughly similar to gasoline's.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...

You seem to be arguing with someone who feels we should abandon modern life and go back to farming our own food; it's the only premise any of his arguments make sense for.


Woah, woah, woah there buddy. Farming food requires strip mining the topsoil, removal of acres of existing carbon-absorbing vegetation to make room for veggies, use of numerous fertilizers and pesticides, and don't even get me started on bovine methane production.

We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.

/Because everything but gasoline is bad
 
2012-11-13 12:50:56 PM

MrSteve007: Wait. People are complaining about being able to refuel your car for *FREE FOR LIFE* via solar power, just because It takes 30 minutes every 150 miles?


Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.

It also seems you're screwed if you're traveling through Chicago. But that's okay, Chicago isn't a major destination or crossroad.
 
2012-11-13 12:54:03 PM

Bullseyed: People complaining about the range... why not just move somewhere that doesn't suck?


Are...are you retarded?
 
2012-11-13 12:54:10 PM

Invisible Dynamite Monkey: SirTanon: Wow.. nobody else noticed this???

The new Tesla S:

[images.fastcompany.com image 850x566]

Aston Martin DB9:

[www.sportscarcup.com image 504x338]

We were too busy noticing Ford using the same look with the Fusion, Evos concept, and possible renderings of the new Mustang.


For that matter, IMHO the new Ford Fusion is a much better attempt at the same look:

www.blogcdn.com

www.motorward.com

www.chryslercolors.info
 
2012-11-13 12:55:27 PM
There is a store just west of Chicago in the Oakbrook Mall. It is really a stunning car in person. Plus, their store/showroom is just a beautifully designed space.
 
2012-11-13 01:01:01 PM

This text is now purple: Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.


They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid" Link 

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).
 
2012-11-13 01:06:12 PM
two words. Hydrogen.
 
2012-11-13 01:09:49 PM

MrSteve007: This text is now purple: Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.

They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid" Link 

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).


The power to recharge a Tesla is much more than what the solar PVs can provide in that same time frame, so there must be a grid connection to provide the power during recharging.

But, the solar PVs are constantly feeding power back into the grid, even when no charging is taking place. There may be periods where days or weeks pass when no charging occurs, so that the PVs - over time - provide an overall surplus of power relative the amount used for recharging.

As the chargers are used more and more frequently, the "surplus" created by the solar PVs will disappear entirely.
 
2012-11-13 01:13:25 PM

MrSteve007: This text is now purple: Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.

They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid" Link 

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).


One more example of why you are farkied as "Super Solar Steve", you have more useful, practical, real-world knowledge of solar installations than anyone else I have ever seen on fark...no real point to this post, just wanted to give you a shout-out

/Thanks
 
2012-11-13 01:28:48 PM

FeFiFoFark: two words. Hydrogen.


Hydrogen is WAY overrated. Volumetric power density sucks and will always suck, and it's hard to make.

And using it in fuel cells is a non starter. Fuel cells have VERY bad power density, are expensive and inefficient. Battery technology is taking a big lead in hydrogen, and that lead will only grow.
 
2012-11-13 01:29:12 PM

Rapmaster2000: People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.


Pfft. What if you have no water or flat land to move over? This is why I only commute by helicopter. You can't take the sky from me!
 
2012-11-13 01:39:53 PM
I'll never get one as I'd obviously be forced to sell my other car for long range trips and since I can't drive the Tesla from Seattle to Hawaii without a fueling stop then this is obviously the dumbest thing ever.
 
2012-11-13 01:43:53 PM

ajgeek: Rapmaster2000: People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.

Pfft. What if you have no water or flat land to move over? This is why I only commute by helicopter. You can't take the sky from me!


And what if you have to get to the moon, smartypants? This is why I only fly my replica Flash Gordon spaceship everywhere!

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.


I bet if you replaced "gasoline" with "solar-grown moss tofu" or some zero-carbon invention like that he would agree 100% with you.
 
2012-11-13 01:44:36 PM

Hollie Maea: FeFiFoFark: two words. Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is WAY overrated. Volumetric power density sucks and will always suck, and it's hard to make.

And using it in fuel cells is a non starter. Fuel cells have VERY bad power density, are expensive and inefficient. Battery technology is taking a big lead in hydrogen, and that lead will only grow.


Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries. That's why an FCV can get better range than a BEV, even though the BEV is more energy efficient.

www.blogcdn.com

They're also 2-3x more efficient than the ICEs that they'll be replacing. And they're getting cheaper all the time. Toyota will be selling a fuel cell powered sedan with almost double the $100K Model S's range for half the price.

www.rsc.org


BEVs and FCVs will coexist in the future automotive market. BEVs are ideal for smaller, short-distance vehicles. FCVs are much better for larger vehicles that carry bigger loads or travel long-distances. Consumers will have plenty of options to choose from utilizing both technologies.
 
2012-11-13 01:47:24 PM

Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.


People don't get that these are great daily drivers, but not yet ready for road trips. I guarantee you I would be nowhere near the 200 mile limit... closer to fifteen for me. Charge with solar panels, and suddenly you aren't paying for transportation, much less gas.
 
2012-11-13 01:51:35 PM
I'm going to get one. I have a 2001 Acura that just broke 50k miles (I bought it new). My commute is under 15 miles per day, and I can't remember the last time I drove more than 200 miles. Gas savings are about $1200 per year for my driving habits, so in ten years the cost of the car drops to most mid-level luxury cars. My only reservation is maintenance costs and procedures. I know how to change the oil and replace air filters, but I don't know the first thing about maintaining an electric motor.

/it comes in metallic green . . . which is apropos
 
2012-11-13 01:56:36 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries.


You are confusing a bunch of things:

1. Gravimetric energy density vs volumetric energy density. Hydrogen has the highest gravimetric energy density of any chemistry driven substance (as opposed to nuclear driven) in the universe. But it has poor volumetric energy density--the volumetric energy density is a function of how much it can be compressed, which is a metallurgical problem. Metallurgy is one of the most mature fields in all of technology, and so further improvements are likely to be minimal.

2. Energy density vs power density. Although hydrogen as a fuel has a much better gravimetric energy density and a comparable volumetric energy density with batteries, the POWER density of fuel cells (speaking nothing of the fuel) is inherently very low. So to get decent power out of a fuel cell, the stack has to be very large and heavy and expensive. And that's not taking into account the space used up to store the hydrogen. Fuel cells are ok for weenie cars, but the limitations make it unlikely that a robust hydrogen network is going to be produced. By the time one would be, batteries will be better in terms of volumetric energy density, their gravimetric energy density will be good enough that it's no longer an issue (this is almost true already), the price will be much lower than fuel cells (fuel cells have a harder uphill battery to bring costs down than batteries) and batteries will have greatly lowered the gap in the one issue for which hydrogen has a clear advantage--"refueling" time.
 
2012-11-13 01:57:57 PM

foxyshadis: ajgeek: Rapmaster2000: People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.

Pfft. What if you have no water or flat land to move over? This is why I only commute by helicopter. You can't take the sky from me!

And what if you have to get to the moon, smartypants? This is why I only fly my replica Flash Gordon spaceship everywhere!

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.

I bet if you replaced "gasoline" with "solar-grown moss tofu" or some zero-carbon invention like that he would agree 100% with you.


Pfffft, sure it can get you to the moon but what about when you want to load the whole family in the car and travel back in time? That is why for me it is a DeLorean or bust!
 
2012-11-13 01:58:19 PM

rga184: Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

People don't get that these are great daily drivers, but not yet ready for road trips. I guarantee you I would be nowhere near the 200 mile limit... closer to fifteen for me. Charge with solar panels, and suddenly you aren't paying for transportation, much less gas.


electriccar2013.com

The Model S is an excellent family car for around town, or a business commuter who car pools (come on, it's the right eco thing to do!).

Depending on how it's driven on the Interstate, owners may or may not enjoy the amount of time they have to spend recharging. Drive a steady 55mph and you'll do fine. OTOH, drive at 75mph (general average Interstate speeds) or gasp, 80-85mph (naughty!) and your range shrinks considerably.

Also, keep in mind the chart is figuring a spherical cow: flat road, no wind, no HVAC use, no cargo/passengers other than driver.
 
2012-11-13 01:59:45 PM

Mr. Right: Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?


That was the original design for the chevy volt, before some jackass focus-grouped it and had it be a regular hybrid. Your idea is not bad at all. You can run the diesel engine at its most efficient revs and tuning, and you save weight because you no longer need to gave a heavy transmission to transfer the power. Best of all, as technology becomes available, you can drop a hydrogen fuel cell in there, or a gas engine if there's not a lot of diesel available, or a mr fusion if you get it in 2015.
 
2012-11-13 02:08:15 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: BEVs and FCVs will coexist in the future automotive market. BEVs are ideal for smaller, short-distance vehicles. FCVs are much better for larger vehicles that carry bigger loads or travel long-distances. Consumers will have plenty of options to choose from utilizing both technologies.


I know, I learned all about how hydrogen cars are the future of transportation from Jack Nicholson! Link!

I have a feeling the reliable and affordable hydrogen car will be about the same year as "the Year of Linux" comes to be.

Kraftwerk Orange: The power to recharge a Tesla is much more than what the solar PVs can provide in that same time frame, so there must be a grid connection to provide the power during recharging.


I agree that the load during charging of *multiple* cars would likely exceed the current that can be supplied by PV, and of course during a cloudy day, the PV array would supply a fraction of the energy needed.

They claim the 30-min charge can give 50% to a nearly depleted 85 KW battery pack (so 42.5 kWh). That means the array size would be about 90KW to charge 1 car an hour during the day. (in reality, 90KW of panels would supply a total of 484 kWh per day in an area like San Francisco, enough energy to 50% charge 11.3 Teslas every day)

Each panel supplies roughly 220 watts (in a 3x5 area). That works out to be a bit over 400 panels, or 6,000 sq.ft. of roof space. That's pretty do-able. Most convenience store roofs are about that size, not including the area above the gas pumps.
 
2012-11-13 02:08:25 PM

Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries.

You are confusing a bunch of things:

1. Gravimetric energy density vs volumetric energy density. Hydrogen has the highest gravimetric energy density of any chemistry driven substance (as opposed to nuclear driven) in the universe. But it has poor volumetric energy density--the volumetric energy density is a function of how much it can be compressed, which is a metallurgical problem. Metallurgy is one of the most mature fields in all of technology, and so further improvements are likely to be minimal.

2. Energy density vs power density. Although hydrogen as a fuel has a much better gravimetric energy density and a comparable volumetric energy density with batteries, the POWER density of fuel cells (speaking nothing of the fuel) is inherently very low. So to get decent power out of a fuel cell, the stack has to be very large and heavy and expensive. And that's not taking into account the space used up to store the hydrogen. Fuel cells are ok for weenie cars, but the limitations make it unlikely that a robust hydrogen network is going to be produced. By the time one would be, batteries will be better in terms of volumetric energy density, their gravimetric energy density will be good enough that it's no longer an issue (this is almost true already), the price will be much lower than fuel cells (fuel cells have a harder uphill battery to bring costs down than batteries) and batteries will have greatly lowered the gap in the one issue for which hydrogen has a clear advantage--"refueling" time.


The illustrations I posted should have helped to clear up anything my words might have not.

You can store more energy in less space using compressed hydrogen gas than you can in a battery. That's why an FCV has greater range than a BEV.

I'm not sure why you mention metallurgy, indeed, we've known how to build tanks to store compressed hydrogen for a long time. We're getting better at it too, using carbon fiber tanks and impermeable plastic membranes to double tank pressure capabilities to over 10,000psi. Soon, there will be other methods of storing hydrogen in metal hydrides - great advances are happening there to store hydrogen without needing to compress it. Of course, ionic compression technologies are drastically improving as well...

The energy density/power density issue is easily overcome. Most FCVs carry a very small li-ion battery to manage the peak power draws of acceleration, and to capture peak regenerated poer during braking. Other than for those momentary instantaneous needs, why would you want to carry around a massively voluminous and heavy battery when you can store more energy in less space in a hydrogen tank?
 
2012-11-13 02:12:37 PM
Somehow this piece of shiat made it to Car & Driver's 10 Best List.
upload.wikimedia.org 
Former owner....still having nightmares since I put mine out of it's misery in 1991.
 
2012-11-13 02:16:22 PM
And yes, I did look at your pictures. Hydrogen has a slight advantage in volumetric energy density, but less room for improvement. This will end up being a wash.

And the Japanese car companies have been promising cheap high range fuel cell vehicles for the past 15 years. I'll believe it when I see it. And also note the very low efficiency of the fuel cell. Better than ICE but not much better, and this does not take into account the very low efficiency of producing hydrogen.

And look at the bad power density I was talking about! 240Kg for a small 93kW stack. This number is going to fall a lot slower than battery weights.
 
2012-11-13 02:20:56 PM

Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries.

You are confusing a bunch of things:

1. Gravimetric energy density vs volumetric energy density. Hydrogen has the highest gravimetric energy density of any chemistry driven substance (as opposed to nuclear driven) in the universe. But it has poor volumetric energy density--the volumetric energy density is a function of how much it can be compressed, which is a metallurgical problem. Metallurgy is one of the most mature fields in all of technology, and so further improvements are likely to be minimal.

2. Energy density vs power density. Although hydrogen as a fuel has a much better gravimetric energy density and a comparable volumetric energy density with batteries, the POWER density of fuel cells (speaking nothing of the fuel) is inherently very low. So to get decent power out of a fuel cell, the stack has to be very large and heavy and expensive. And that's not taking into account the space used up to store the hydrogen. Fuel cells are ok for weenie cars, but the limitations make it unlikely that a robust hydrogen network is going to be produced. By the time one would be, batteries will be better in terms of volumetric energy density, their gravimetric energy density will be good enough that it's no longer an issue (this is almost true already), the price will be much lower than fuel cells (fuel cells have a harder uphill battery to bring costs down than batteries) and batteries will have greatly lowered the gap in the one issue for which hydrogen has a clear advantage--"refueling" time.


I'm still trying to figure out why no one has attempted a "battery" usinghigh-temp superconductors. Liquid Nitrogen is cheap enough that even if you had to top off the holding tank once a week it wouldn't cost all that much and you can store huge amounts of energy in a superconducting battery (basically aloop of supercounducting material with current running through it) with almost zero loss
 
2012-11-13 02:20:57 PM

jshine: Bullseyed: I don't really understand how your daily commute is over 200 miles unless you're just too retarded to buy a house near your job.


Cars are sometimes driven for reasons other than the daily commute. Film at 11.

/e.g., when I was in school, I sometimes drove home to the parents' house over holidays -- happened on a quasi-regular basis and was over 200 miles


Guess the tesla wasn't for you. Doesn't mean it is useless for the rest of us. Actually, for me, a drive to the parents would also be limited by this cars range, but I would probably have another car that isn't pure electric.
 
2012-11-13 02:21:46 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Also, keep in mind the chart is figuring a spherical cow: flat road, no wind, no HVAC use, no cargo/passengers other than driver.


You'd be interested to watch this video, where a pair of Motortrend folks drove a Model S to Las Vegas from LA at 65mph (233 miles, over a couple good sized passes). They had no idea if they would make it, so they kept the A/C off for most the trip. Video Link

The writer of the article did a 285 mile trip back from Vegas, with the A/C on 72* at first and 65mph, but ended up driving slower without A/C towards the end and still had a few miles left over. That makes for pretty good real world testing and results!
 
2012-11-13 02:29:22 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: DarkSoulNoHope: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.

I love how people who somehow try to argue, "enviromentalism doesn't work, because doing the same thing we've been doing since the car has been created is better for the enviroment than your hippy ideas" ("those hippy ideas" include breathing clearly or drinking from water sources untainted by harmful chemicals!).

Unless you have stock in an oil company, you shouldn't care that we're trying to find alternative methods to power ...

I'm not saying things like Tesla's doing aren't great and needed in this day and age, I'm just saying we should quit bullshiatting ourselves here. The claims of greenliness (I've got dibs on that term, I made it up and it's mine) are exaggerated to the point of blatant dishonesty when it comes to most hybrids and EV's. Batteries don't grow on trees, and neither does the electricity to charge them. The solar charging stations aren't "free", someone paid to manufacture the things, and maintain them, and I'm sure the land they occupy was donated purely out of the good of someone's heart.

I love how people somehow try to argue "if you take issue with how these products are marketed, you hate clean air and water" when all it really comes down to is "Keep up the good work guys, but quit lying to us about how advanced this new tech is so it will sell better".


Certainly, I tell my sister that if she really wants to be environmentally friendly, she well continue to maintain her 13 year old civic and keep it ruining clean and on the road for as long as possible. It takes much more energy to manufacture any car than you save by booting a decent car and getting a hybrid.

That being said, a hybrid in the city is tons more efficient. The batteries do have heavy metals that are mined, but eventually those metals wil be recycled. Elements dont change unless decay, fusion or fission are involved.
 
2012-11-13 02:33:53 PM

Hollie Maea: And yes, I did look at your pictures. Hydrogen has a slight advantage in volumetric energy density, but less room for improvement. This will end up being a wash.

And the Japanese car companies have been promising cheap high range fuel cell vehicles for the past 15 years. I'll believe it when I see it. And also note the very low efficiency of the fuel cell. Better than ICE but not much better, and this does not take into account the very low efficiency of producing hydrogen.

And look at the bad power density I was talking about! 240Kg for a small 93kW stack. This number is going to fall a lot slower than battery weights.



How much does the Tesla 85kWh battery weigh? I see some sources quoting the weight at 1200lbs.

The tanks of hydrogen needed to store enough energy to travel the same distance only weigh 288 lbs, filled. Then, adding the FC stack for another 530lbs... that's 382lbs less

And tanks are getting lighter, and so are fuel cell stacks. Battery makers will have to bring down weight dramatically in order to approach the advantage that HFCVs have in energy storage.
 
2012-11-13 02:35:21 PM

Magorn: I'm still trying to figure out why no one has attempted a "battery" usinghigh-temp superconductors. Liquid Nitrogen is cheap enough that even if you had to top off the holding tank once a week it wouldn't cost all that much and you can store huge amounts of energy in a superconducting battery (basically aloop of supercounducting material with current running through it) with almost zero loss


This is hard to do at a small scale. There has been work done on this in large utility scale (read up on "SMES"). The advantage with this is power density--SMES is faster even than ultracapacitors. But they don't have very good energy density (on the same order as capacitors). The biggest challenge, actually, is that if you want to use "high temperature" superconductors (higher than around 5K) then you have to make the windings out of ceramics, and it is very difficult to make ceramic windings that can withstand the massive magnetic forces involved.
 
2012-11-13 02:35:32 PM

MrSteve007: Kraftwerk Orange: Also, keep in mind the chart is figuring a spherical cow: flat road, no wind, no HVAC use, no cargo/passengers other than driver.

You'd be interested to watch this video, where a pair of Motortrend folks drove a Model S to Las Vegas from LA at 65mph (233 miles, over a couple good sized passes). They had no idea if they would make it, so they kept the A/C off for most the trip. Video Link

The writer of the article did a 285 mile trip back from Vegas, with the A/C on 72* at first and 65mph, but ended up driving slower without A/C towards the end and still had a few miles left over. That makes for pretty good real world testing and results!


The MotorTrend results fit in pretty much with what Tesla's chart indicated.
 
2012-11-13 02:41:36 PM

CeroX: jshine: [i45.tinypic.com image 400x302]

Not anger, i just don't see why you would be pushing back on this as much as you are... though with that engineering degree something tells me it might have something to do with your employment...

Personally, i don't think the country is ready for EV yet... because they aren't ready to give up or change their habits...

That's the real problem with innovation and change... people... people just can't seem to wrap their brain around doing something different than they've been used to doing...

I see that attitude at my job all the time... people recieve a new policy and pitch a fit because "that's not how we did it before!"

Who cares? it's how you do it until it changes again, and again, and again...

It's not the "love" of oil that people have, it's the love of routine... the love of familiarity... some people (washington and new jersey for example) still don't even know how to fill up their own gas tank, asking them to plug a cord into a vehicle is like asking them to flay open an infant with a straight razor...

Then, to top it off, they work harder and do more research trying to NOT change their habits than spending it just learning the new system...


Yea, its not the 60k price tag or anything

/you sound like a 1%'er


//real future lies in gerbil power... until they over throw us and kill us all
t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-13 02:42:04 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Hollie Maea: And yes, I did look at your pictures. Hydrogen has a slight advantage in volumetric energy density, but less room for improvement. This will end up being a wash.

And the Japanese car companies have been promising cheap high range fuel cell vehicles for the past 15 years. I'll believe it when I see it. And also note the very low efficiency of the fuel cell. Better than ICE but not much better, and this does not take into account the very low efficiency of producing hydrogen.

And look at the bad power density I was talking about! 240Kg for a small 93kW stack. This number is going to fall a lot slower than battery weights.


How much does the Tesla 85kWh battery weigh? I see some sources quoting the weight at 1200lbs.

The tanks of hydrogen needed to store enough energy to travel the same distance only weigh 288 lbs, filled. Then, adding the FC stack for another 530lbs... that's 382lbs less. 

And tanks are getting lighter, and so are fuel cell stacks. Battery makers will have to bring down weight dramatically in order to approach the advantage that HFCVs have in energy storage.


I grant that hydrogen systems are much lighter. But this gap is getting smaller, and battery densities are getting to the point where it's not that big of a deal. And volumetrically, the advantage of hydrogen is much smaller, and the gap will close even more rapidly.

But like I said before, the bigger issues are inefficiencies, both of the fuel cell stack and in the production of hydrogen, and in the bad power density of fuel cells. A 400hp fuel stack would be huge.
 
2012-11-13 02:48:01 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: The MotorTrend results fit in pretty much with what Tesla's chart indicated.


Correct, but my main point is that they did use HVAC for a good portion of those drives, and by no means were they on flat roads (several 4,000' passes) - and on the first ride, there was a passenger; yet they pretty much matched the Tesla chart for perfect conditions.

Kraftwerk Orange: Have you seen an actual Tesla Supercharger station? They're nowhere near 6,000 sq.ft. of PV. I agree that it's *doable*, but Tesla hasn't done it.


Hey, that's a great picture. Looks like it's 6 parking stalls (typically 9' x 20', 180 sq.ft each) - so 1,080 feet of panels. About 72 panels, so somewhere between 16 & 21 KW of peak capacity.
 
2012-11-13 02:54:39 PM
I finally got around to RTFA'ing, and I found it very interesting (and appropriate) that it uses an AC induction motor - technology that was invented by Nikola Tesla himself. Aside from induction motors being very simple*, they also don't need rare-earth magnets. Scratch another naysayer talking point.

* of course, for variable speed they need inverters, but high-power semiconductors are fairly common now - AC traction motors can be found in locomotives these days
 
2012-11-13 03:11:01 PM

MrSteve007: Kraftwerk Orange: The MotorTrend results fit in pretty much with what Tesla's chart indicated.
Correct, but my main point is that they did use HVAC for a good portion of those drives, and by no means were they on flat roads (several 4,000' passes) - and on the first ride, there was a passenger; yet they pretty much matched the Tesla chart for perfect conditions.
Kraftwerk Orange: Have you seen an actual Tesla Supercharger station? They're nowhere near 6,000 sq.ft. of PV. I agree that it's *doable*, but Tesla hasn't done it.
Hey, that's a great picture. Looks like it's 6 parking stalls (typically 9' x 20', 180 sq.ft each) - so 1,080 feet of panels. About 72 panels, so somewhere between 16 & 21 KW of peak capacity.


Actually, they came in under Tesla's predictions for optimum conditions (65mph should have gotten them 260 miles), which is fine considering a passenger and AC use. Up and Down a pass pretty much evens out energy use.

Tesla could install as many panels as they want, but that's not how they've set up the current Superchargers. They rely on grid power for charging, and let the solar PVs repay the electricity over time. Nothing wrong with that strategy this early on.

Hollie Maea:
But like I said before, the bigger issues are inefficiencies, both of the fuel cell stack and in the production of hydrogen, and in the bad power density of fuel cells. A 400hp fuel stack would be huge.


Why on Earth would an FCV need a 400hp stack? That's just an absurd statement. A 85kW stack (120hp) is more than plenty.

I suppose you're envisioning the power needs for larger vehicles, like buses or commercial trucks. I will point out though, that the Mercedes Citaro Fuel Cell bus uses the exact same stack as the much smaller F-Cell commuter car. They just use two in the bus.

www.blogcdn.com

www.hydrogen-motors.com
 
2012-11-13 03:13:21 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Why on Earth would an FCV need a 400hp stack? That's just an absurd statement. A 85kW stack (120hp) is more than plenty.


Sure, it's as much as you need, but not as much as you want. Some people will want powerful cars.
 
2012-11-13 03:13:34 PM
Call me when they slap lights and turnsignals on this...

www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-11-13 03:22:29 PM

Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: Why on Earth would an FCV need a 400hp stack? That's just an absurd statement. A 85kW stack (120hp) is more than plenty.

Sure, it's as much as you need, but not as much as you want. Some people will want powerful cars.


You missed my point, and may also misunderstand the function of the fuel cell stack. The stack provides constant power. Any instantaneous power needs are supplied by a battery or a capacitor or some flavor. The stack only needs to be powerful enough to keep the battery/capacitor charged.

The fuel cell stack functions in exactly the same capacity as the range-extending ICE in a hybrid like the Fisker Karma or the Chevy Volt. It provides a source constant power to the vehicle, keeping the battery at a pre-determined level.

FCVs will still have the same capabilities for acceleration as any other EV, based on the power of their electric motor. That's where the hp you make reference to will be important.
 
2012-11-13 03:24:28 PM

moike: Call me when they slap lights and turnsignals on this...

[www.blogcdn.com image 630x365]


I'm at the second interview stage with the company that makes the inverters for that fine machine. So hopefully at some point I can be calling you about it.
 
2012-11-13 03:26:59 PM
Efficiency: gasoline/diesel
Not making me breathe in a bunch of toxic crap: electric.

I think that's simple enough for people to understand.
 
2012-11-13 03:27:19 PM
I'm more a middle right kinda guy but even with all the possible detractors mentioned above, this is the kind of vehicle the United States needs.

No, it's not suitable for every driving situation the same way a Ford F350 isn't suitable for every driving situation. You can drive it but that doesn't mean you ought to drive it. For those who commute from suburbs to city and back each day and currently do so in an Audi, BMW or Mercedes, this is an interesting and compelling counter option to continuing to do that when the time comes for a new vehicle.

When I commuted (up to 5 months ago) I was driving about 45 miles per day on average and getting 17mpg. I was filling up at a gas station three times every two weeks for anywhere from $40 - $50 each time. All told I was spending about $1800/year just on gas. Those savings don't make the difference with this car given its price (although the $7K gov't incentive helps). I suspect it costs an assload more to repair it and maintenance will be tricky because of the lack of mechanics in any given area who would know WTF they're doing. That all said, this car does indeed serve a niche that needs it: the moderately expensive, status symbol family sedan that gets driven everyday by people who'd like to do something for the environment.

To me, cars like this succeeding does many positive things like support an American company, cut down on demand for foreign petroleum products, cut down on CO2 emissions and so on. If you're hell bent on spending $80K for a car then why get what everyone else already has? You're already trying to own a status symbol...how about owning one that you can be at least a little proud of?

Just like with cellular phones, the costs paid by the early adopters (read: "rick folks") will eventually lead to lower prices across the board as the technology is more widely adopted.
 
2012-11-13 03:28:07 PM

moike: Call me when they slap lights and turnsignals on this...

[www.blogcdn.com image 630x365]


You can buy the street version of that bike's track competitor, the Brammo Empulse R today Cool promo vid link
images.gizmag.com
 
2012-11-13 03:29:57 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: You missed my point, and may also misunderstand the function of the fuel cell stack. The stack provides constant power. Any instantaneous power needs are supplied by a battery or a capacitor or some flavor. The stack only needs to be powerful enough to keep the battery/capacitor charged.


Out of the question, for batteries. While batteries are much better than fuel cells in terms of power density, they are nowhere near being able to do what you propose. Consider this: since you really have a fuel cell car, you wouldn't want a huge battery pack. But the ability for batteries to supply high power is a function of their size. You wouldn't want more than a 1kWh battery hooked up to your fuel cell. But to supply 200hp of power (150kW) you would be discharging the batteries at 150C. There is no battery on the planet that can come anywhere near those levels of discharge, even for a fraction of a second. The best batteries have peak discharge ratings of 15C. So you would need at minimum a 10kWh pack. But now you're essentially at the pack size of a Volt, and your car is getting filled with batteries, hydrogen tanks, fuelcell stacks and electric motors. Plus all the controls to talk between each system.

Capacitors could supply the peak power, but the energy density is so low that you would need a huge capacitor stack to be able to provide the several seconds of peak power you require.
 
2012-11-13 03:30:15 PM
Naturally, "rick folks" get rolled. I meant rich folks.
 
2012-11-13 03:36:37 PM

MrSteve007: moike: Call me when they slap lights and turnsignals on this...

[www.blogcdn.com image 630x365]

You can buy the street version of that bike's track competitor, the Brammo Empulse R today Cool promo vid link
[images.gizmag.com image 530x298]


Yeah, I've seen the Brammo in person, and I have friends that work at Zero. It's neat having both those companies in my own back yard.

I actually met Michael Czysz while racing out in Utah a couple years back. I even talked him into taking a ride on my fossil burning antique.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-13 03:47:43 PM

Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: You missed my point, and may also misunderstand the function of the fuel cell stack. The stack provides constant power. Any instantaneous power needs are supplied by a battery or a capacitor or some flavor. The stack only needs to be powerful enough to keep the battery/capacitor charged.

Out of the question, for batteries. While batteries are much better than fuel cells in terms of power density, they are nowhere near being able to do what you propose.


I'm not just proposing it. The automakers are doing it. The system I've described is already in use, in Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes, and GM applications, all of which use small batteries to supplement acceleration and to store regenerated energy from braking.
 
2012-11-13 04:23:59 PM
Only issue with a touch screen center console is how the hell would you be able to mess with anything without taking your eyes off the road? Unless the steering-wheel controls are top notch...
 
2012-11-13 04:45:28 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: You missed my point, and may also misunderstand the function of the fuel cell stack. The stack provides constant power. Any instantaneous power needs are supplied by a battery or a capacitor or some flavor. The stack only needs to be powerful enough to keep the battery/capacitor charged.

Out of the question, for batteries. While batteries are much better than fuel cells in terms of power density, they are nowhere near being able to do what you propose.

I'm not just proposing it. The automakers are doing it. The system I've described is already in use, in Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes, and GM applications, all of which use small batteries to supplement acceleration and to store regenerated energy from braking.


Totally different thing. I have to get a test started, but I will rebut a bit later.
 
2012-11-13 06:03:41 PM
No range, cost too much, and the UAW is trying to force their way in. It's doomed.
 
2012-11-13 06:30:16 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: You missed my point, and may also misunderstand the function of the fuel cell stack. The stack provides constant power. Any instantaneous power needs are supplied by a battery or a capacitor or some flavor. The stack only needs to be powerful enough to keep the battery/capacitor charged.

Out of the question, for batteries. While batteries are much better than fuel cells in terms of power density, they are nowhere near being able to do what you propose.

I'm not just proposing it. The automakers are doing it. The system I've described is already in use, in Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes, and GM applications, all of which use small batteries to supplement acceleration and to store regenerated energy from braking.


Ok, so these are fundamentally different things.

In the hybrid systems currently available in cars like the Prius, the role of the battery system not primarily to provide supplement power, but to capture and briefly store braking energy, and to allow initial electric power starting from a stop so that the engine can be turned off and not have to idle. These are not high power procedures. If you are in a Prius at a stop and gently step on the throttle, you will slowly accelerate on electric power and after a few seconds the gas engine will engage and take over. But if you stomp on it, the gas engine will immediately engage, and you won't experience significant acceleration until the gas engine is available to provide it. The key is that the electric motor (and the batteries) are never supplying high power. At no time will the car ever be accelerating dramatically with most or all of the power coming from the electric system. What you have here is a situation of the batteries supplementing a HIGH POWER system ( the ICE), and so a small battery pack is sufficient (remember, the power capabilities of the battery pack are a direct function of the pack size).

In the system you are proposing, the opposite is true--a small battery pack would be asked to supplement a LOW power system (the fuel cell stack). This is problematic. In the situations in which the highest power was required of the drivetrain, most or all of the current would have to come from the batteries. And like I explained earlier, you would have to have at least a 10kWh battery pack, at which time you basically have an electric car with a hydrogen range extender. Sure it would work, but really it would not be worth implementing a hydrogen fueling infrastructure just to add a crappy range extender option when a small diesel would be a much better option, especially considering that hydrogen powered fuel cells are actually less efficient well to wheel than a constant power range extender type diesel.

Fuel cells would work ok for low power cars (something about as powerful as a Prius) but again not worth putting in a national infrastructure when battery electrics can do weeny OR powerful cars, the one area that Hydrogen excels (fueling time) is rapidly becoming less and less of an advantage, and hydrogen powered cars are inefficient.

But yeah, Toyota and Honda will always have a fuel cell car "just around the corner" Governments and policy makers love them, as well as do people who want to be green but haven't really looked into the issues and are seduced by the promise of a green vehicle that they can fuel in a couple of minutes.
 
2012-11-13 06:42:21 PM
I do, however, envision a hybrid system similar to what you are proposing, but with batteries and capacitors, which are much better suited to each other than batteries and fuel cells. In such a case, the batteries would be the low power component instead of the high power component--a much more comfortable situation for batteries, which become inefficient and have a short lifespan when pushed to too high power levels. In this case, the main power difference would not be an issue during discharge, but during charge. A car that had a capacitor bank that could travel 35 miles and be recharged in 45 second would be pretty sweet if it was augmented by a battery pack that could travel 300 miles and be recharged at a rate of 10 miles of range per minute. That level of technology probably isn't too far off--maybe 6 or 7 years tops.
 
2012-11-13 07:43:55 PM

probesport: Hell the Ford Probe won in 1993


I had an '89 Probe. Awesome car. Got to over 300,000 miles before I got rid of it and never had to replace a single thing that wasn't maintenance. For under ten grand that was hard to beat.

greenboy: Really?


They're tainted. The grease and stuck food mess up the consistency of the recycled material if they get into the process in most places.
 
2012-11-13 09:02:27 PM

Hollie Maea: In the system you are proposing, the opposite is true--a small battery pack would be asked to supplement a LOW power system (the fuel cell stack). This is problematic. In the situations in which the highest power was required of the drivetrain, most or all of the current would have to come from the batteries. And like I explained earlier, you would have to have at least a 10kWh battery pack, at which time you basically have an electric car with a hydrogen range extender. Sure it would work, but really it would not be worth implementing a hydrogen fueling infrastructure just to add a crappy range extender option when a small diesel would be a much better option, especially considering that hydrogen powered fuel cells are actually less efficient well to wheel than a constant power range extender type diesel.


I'll repeat myself: I'm not proposing this system. This is the current design of most FCVs. They use a fuel cell stack to supply base power requirements, and supplement powertrain needs with either a battery or a capacitor.

Regardless, I will concede that some people may indeed desire a more powerful FC stack. There is nothing to preclude larger, more powerful stacks from being built as technology advances. The modular nature of FC stacks (remember the Citaro bus uses two stack identical to those used singularly in the F-Cell) allows multiple stacks to be run together when power requirements call.
 
2012-11-13 09:09:51 PM
www.hydrogencarsnow.com

It will be exciting to see the first FCV to run at LeMans this coming year. 

"The GreenGT is no slouch on the track either. Powered by two motors, combining to put out 537 horsepower and 2,950 pound-feet of torque.. all going to those two rear wheels, which will now be clad in high performance Dunlop tires. The car's fuel supply will propel it up to 186 miles per hour for about 40 minutes per tank. That's on par with most similar Le Mans cars. By comparison, the Audi R 15 TDI LMP1, considered one of the best recent contenders on the track, had a V10, 5,500cc diesel engine that outputs 590 horsepower and 775 lb-ft of torque (at peak)."
 
2012-11-13 09:53:41 PM

Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.


You can buy thousands of dollars worth of batteries every few years instead.
 
2012-11-13 09:58:23 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: theorellior: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Batteries don't grow on trees, and neither does the electricity to charge them.

I'll put it to you this way... in my 7 years of driving a Civic hybrid, I saved approximately 1200 gallons of gas. Do I think that the environmental cost of mining, smelting, alloying and manufacturing that battery pack is less than the environmental cost of drilling, storing, transporting, refining and distributing that gasoline? Yes, yes I do. Additionally, those batteries were charged solely by the waste energy involved in stopping the car. This means that at 37 KWhr/gal, the battery pack reused 44.4 GWh of energy that would have been lost as waste heat. Does that offset the energy cost of their manufacture? Yes, I think it does.

"Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car."

Link

Keep thinking that.

Electric cars are something I support, but if you want a standing ovation from me, do something about the hundreds of thousands of 18-wheelers burning diesel at 4-6 mpg. At that point, I'll concede that saving 1200 gallons a year is awesome (my local station pumps that much in a hour on a Monday morning)


When your car can haul 30 tons reliably for millions of miles, let us know. Also, the figure is often closer to 10+ mpg.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:33 PM
but, it's a bad product.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:59 PM

Greymalkin: Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

Or you could still just buy a BMW (yes it does still use a little bit of fuel) but doesn't have that distance limitation if you want to have a good day's country highway driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i8

IMO it looks better too. 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]


The i3 is cooler I think. And they both will have an optional "range extender" engine. Tesla is a joke. They will be bankrupt within 5 years. They are the Pets.com of the new car revolution. Cool but doomed to fail.

www.bmw-i.com
 
2012-11-13 11:41:55 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: [www.hydrogencarsnow.com image 455x255]

It will be exciting to see the first FCV to run at LeMans this coming year. 

"The GreenGT is no slouch on the track either. Powered by two motors, combining to put out 537 horsepower and 2,950 pound-feet of torque.. all going to those two rear wheels, which will now be clad in high performance Dunlop tires. The car's fuel supply will propel it up to 186 miles per hour for about 40 minutes per tank. That's on par with most similar Le Mans cars. By comparison, the Audi R 15 TDI LMP1, considered one of the best recent contenders on the track, had a V10, 5,500cc diesel engine that outputs 590 horsepower and 775 lb-ft of torque (at peak)."


Damn...
 
2012-11-14 01:47:54 AM

MrSteve007: Kraftwerk Orange: The MotorTrend results fit in pretty much with what Tesla's chart indicated.

Correct, but my main point is that they did use HVAC for a good portion of those drives, and by no means were they on flat roads (several 4,000' passes) - and on the first ride, there was a passenger; yet they pretty much matched the Tesla chart for perfect conditions.

Kraftwerk Orange: Have you seen an actual Tesla Supercharger station? They're nowhere near 6,000 sq.ft. of PV. I agree that it's *doable*, but Tesla hasn't done it.

Hey, that's a great picture. Looks like it's 6 parking stalls (typically 9' x 20', 180 sq.ft each) - so 1,080 feet of panels. About 72 panels, so somewhere between 16 & 21 KW of peak capacity.


Right, and they're planning on having 100 of them nationwide in two years. Using your numbers (which are a little low considering solar city's PV tech) that's 1.6 to 2.1 MW of electricity generated via solar alone. This means 24 individual 85 KW batteries could be filling up simultaneously at all times nationwide without having to draw power from the grid. It will be a couple years before Tesla has enough vehicles on the road to make that a reality and in the mean time they'll get paid for every electron they add to the grid. After they exceed that threshold they'll still only be paying 6 cents per milie of charge they pull from the grid. Not a bad cost to benefit ratio when it comes to offering customers free transportation compared to $4/gallon.
 
2012-11-14 03:05:41 AM
God. So many dicks in this thread. Hate for no reason. I don't even think it's trolling, just plain dicks is all.
 
2012-11-14 05:21:27 AM
very cool.

BUT... "If the battery is ever totally discharged, the owner is left with what Tesla describes as a "brick": a completely immobile vehicle that cannot be started or even pushed down the street. The only known remedy is for the owner to pay Tesla approximately $40,000 to replace the entire battery. Unlike practically every other modern car problem, neither Tesla's warranty nor typical car insurance policies provide any protection from this major financial loss."
 
2012-11-14 08:58:40 AM

washburn777: Right, and they're planning on having 100 of them nationwide in two years. Using your numbers (which are a little low considering solar city's PV tech) that's 1.6 to 2.1 MW of electricity generated via solar alone. This means 24 individual 85 KW batteries could be filling up simultaneously at all times nationwide without having to draw power from the grid.


Except that the individual Supercharger stations have no way to store their electrons, and their only connection to each other is the grid, so recharging a Tesla still requires drawing power from the grid no matter how much excess capacity other stations have.

It's not a bad plan - it's a very good one. But it relies on being able to draw power quickly from the grid, and repay it slowly from the PVs. The PVs (as currently built) simply can't provide enough power quickly enough on their own.
 
2012-11-14 09:36:11 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: washburn777: Right, and they're planning on having 100 of them nationwide in two years. Using your numbers (which are a little low considering solar city's PV tech) that's 1.6 to 2.1 MW of electricity generated via solar alone. This means 24 individual 85 KW batteries could be filling up simultaneously at all times nationwide without having to draw power from the grid.

Except that the individual Supercharger stations have no way to store their electrons, and their only connection to each other is the grid, so recharging a Tesla still requires drawing power from the grid no matter how much excess capacity other stations have.

It's not a bad plan - it's a very good one. But it relies on being able to draw power quickly from the grid, and repay it slowly from the PVs. The PVs (as currently built) simply can't provide enough power quickly enough on their own.


Your mistake is assuming the excess electricity has to be stored somewhere onsite in order for the economics to make sense. It doesn't. The supercharger is basically a power plant. When it isn't charging a car, it's dumping over 20 KW of current into the grid and it is paid per kilowatt hour generated. So if it charges one car every three hours (charging at 100 kilowatts and considering a 12 hour day) the cost is a wash. Now in California most of these stations will be much busier than that, but if they've got 100 stations nationwide, there would need to be 24 cars charging to 85 KW simultaneously at all time to match the electricity being generated (and bought by the power companies) at 100 individual 20KW stations. Now granted the cost of a kilowatt isn't universal and it won't be sunny everywhere at once, but this system is an awesome and highly profitable idea that is up and running already.
 
2012-11-14 09:43:00 AM
So I guess I should have phrased it differently in the initial post.

Instead of reading 'without having to draw power from the grid' my Boobies should have read '24 individual 85KW Teslas could be charging simultaneously without pulling more electricity than the other 76 stations are adding back to the grid.'
 
2012-11-14 09:45:22 AM
I don't know why that says 'Boobies' right there.
 
2012-11-14 09:48:47 AM

washburn777: I don't know why that says 'Boobies' right there.


It is a fark filter.

re-wording the phrase initial post, into a more common way of saying that will get you boobied
 
2012-11-14 09:58:31 AM

washburn777: Your mistake is assuming the excess electricity has to be stored somewhere onsite in order for the economics to make sense. It doesn't.


I never assumed that. I didn't get into the economics in my comments, but I do understand how it works. Along with the rather large tax breaks Tesla gets from installing solar PV capacity, you are correct that they are getting paid by the utilities for adding electrons to the grid.

washburn777: The supercharger is basically a power plant. When it isn't charging a car, it's dumping over 20 KW of current into the grid and it is paid per kilowatt hour generated.


That is how I described it. The solar PVs are continually putting power into the grid, and gradually repays the energy taken from the grid during recharging.

washburn777: Now granted the cost of a kilowatt isn't universal and it won't be sunny everywhere at once, but this system is an awesome and highly profitable idea that is up and running already.


I said several times that it is a good plan, and even posted a pic of an operational Supercharger station. (apparently that post got deleted, I now see)
 
2012-11-14 11:24:33 AM
I think top gear already answered the hype for these types of vehicles.
You drive it like a fun car = yer outta charge too soon and it takes a buncha time to recharge
the recharge has to come from something
this 'green' car takes a battery
which has nickel and other wonderful poisons the earth apparently loves when you mine and refine them
and that comes from somewhere + shipping across the planet

so you get a sporty, $60k car that runs out of power and takes half a day to fill the poisonous thing that makes you go...not far
we've had true, electric vehicles since 1842 and this is the zenith of american ingenuity?

pathetic
 
2012-11-14 11:40:25 AM

natas6.0: I think top gear already answered the hype for these types of vehicles.
You drive it like a fun car = yer outta charge too soon and it takes a buncha time to recharge
the recharge has to come from something
this 'green' car takes a battery
which has nickel and other wonderful poisons the earth apparently loves when you mine and refine them
and that comes from somewhere + shipping across the planet

so you get a sporty, $60k car that runs out of power and takes half a day to fill the poisonous thing that makes you go...not far
we've had true, electric vehicles since 1842 and this is the zenith of american ingenuity?

pathetic


You obviously didn't read the thread, and have no idea what on earth you are talking about. If you would like to prove me wrong, please explain to me what use "nickel and other wonderful poisons" perform in the battery for this car? Ya' know, the one with the Lithium Ion battery. The one that has no Nickel in it at all.

/Thank you for demonstrating exactly what "pathetic" means for everyone.
 
2012-11-14 12:26:11 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: washburn777: Your mistake is assuming the excess electricity has to be stored somewhere onsite in order for the economics to make sense. It doesn't.

I never assumed that. I didn't get into the economics in my comments, but I do understand how it works. Along with the rather large tax breaks Tesla gets from installing solar PV capacity, you are correct that they are getting paid by the utilities for adding electrons to the grid.

washburn777: The supercharger is basically a power plant. When it isn't charging a car, it's dumping over 20 KW of current into the grid and it is paid per kilowatt hour generated.

That is how I described it. The solar PVs are continually putting power into the grid, and gradually repays the energy taken from the grid during recharging.

washburn777: Now granted the cost of a kilowatt isn't universal and it won't be sunny everywhere at once, but this system is an awesome and highly profitable idea that is up and running already.

I said several times that it is a good plan, and even posted a pic of an operational Supercharger station. (apparently that post got deleted, I now see)


Looks like we're on the same page after all. Sorry I come off like I'm drawing it out in crayon sometimes. It's mostly fallout from banging my head against a wall trying to convince people that EV tech could turn into an amazing product very soon. The Model S is giving us hints of that potential becoming reality.
 
2012-11-14 01:02:32 PM

abhorrent1: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

$49K according to their website. And I doubt most people drive 200 or more miles a day. I probably do 60 with work and misc errands. I don't think they had cross-country road trips in mind when they came up with the idea. It's a shame they can't make them affordable enough that regular people could get one though.


Actually they're looking at a gen3 care shourly that will be more in the 20-30k range within the next couple of years. This does put this in the range of most new car consumers. Give them time. they are still making a name for themselves. If I could afford it, the Tesla x looks really nice too. Imagine an SUV that seats 7, and can 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Link
 
Displayed 249 of 249 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report