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.

(Jalopnik)   Hybrid cars don't seem so lame as of this week   (jalopnik.com) divider line 51
    More: Cool, hybrid cars, limiting factor, Porsche 918 Spyder  
•       •       •

6883 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Mar 2013 at 8:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-05 08:36:27 PM  
I swore I'd never read another Jalopnik article, so I'm off to Google this.
 
2013-03-05 08:46:34 PM  
Ferrari has included two electric motors -- one for the wheels and one for the electrics

wat
 
2013-03-05 08:49:13 PM  
I would really enjoy a hybrid sports car with a "White Zombie" launch mode.
 
2013-03-05 08:51:31 PM  
Wow, a Jalopnik article somehow even half-praising hybrid technology is amazing, even though it's all kind spun FTA as " In reality, Ferrari, McLaren, and Porsche are tech companies".  True, to an extent -- companies like Ferrari and Porsche etc are a LOT more about performance & weight than about environment, anyway, which is what you want when you buy those brands.  But I have one question: does the fact that they're even wanting to play in that arena, and demo their technical prowess, kind of mean Jalopnik will stop the snarky anti-hybrid rant BS on their site?   Nah probably not.   I stopped reading them a couple years back when they became the same way about hybrids that Gizmodo did about Apple products.
 
2013-03-05 09:11:09 PM  
I have a hybrid skateboard.
 
2013-03-05 09:40:36 PM  
Let me know when these go into production.
 
2013-03-05 09:43:10 PM  
Even if you don't agree with hybrids or electrics (expense) they do reduce the amount of fuel used by that vehicle so even if you don't make economic sense to you they do reduce the demand for fuel, en masse, thereby lowering the price you would have paid if those individuals had bought a regular ICE vehicle instead.
 
2013-03-05 09:48:07 PM  

imusingtehfark: I stopped reading them a couple years back when they became the same way about hybrids that Gizmodo did about Apple products.


Ray Wert is no longer the head of Jalopnik. I've been a daily reader for the past 4 years or so and since he left the site has been friendlier towards even Elon Musk. I think Ray might have had something personal against that guy.
 
2013-03-05 09:53:03 PM  

mrlewish: Even if you don't agree with hybrids or electrics (expense) they do reduce the amount of fuel used by that vehicle so even if you don't make economic sense to you they do reduce the demand for fuel, en masse, thereby lowering the price you would have paid if those individuals had bought a regular ICE vehicle instead.


Really......? So the 900 lb. increase in weight is offset by the hybrid system? I don't think so. Look up the latest Ford Fusion Hybrid for REAL WORLD fuel economy numbers.  It costs more per mile to drive it over the regular version. And it's slower, has less storage and a lower resale value.

Also, in the world most of us live in, a Fit gets better mileage than a Prius and costs ~$8k less to purchase.
 
2013-03-05 10:00:22 PM  

SpdrJay: I have a hybrid skateboard.


I want my hoverboard damn it.
 
2013-03-05 10:04:02 PM  
There was this Croatian kid on an electric car conversion forum that I frequent. I'm pretty sure this gy must have mob connections or something; at any rate he has money. Anyway, he did a standard el cheapo conversion on his old BMW, and then redid it with slightly more expensive components to achieve white zombie levels of performance. After that, he decided to start his own company and make the ultimate super car. You can get one for one million dollars (he has only sold one so far) but it will outperform any car on the road including the ones in this article.
 
2013-03-05 10:05:26 PM  
FTA: When you normally think of a hybrid, you think boring. You think heavy. You think slow.

No, i think "we don't want to piss off the oil companies, so we put a gasoline engine in your electric car" or "half assed electric with the weight of two engines".

FTA: Ferrari has included two electric motors.

Now 3 engines, apparently.

Will really be something when they make an all-electric supercar, and utilize the supreme torque of electric engines for neck breaking 0-60 times. This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.
 
2013-03-05 10:08:05 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: When you normally think of a hybrid, you think boring. You think heavy. You think slow.

No, i think "we don't want to piss off the oil companies, so we put a gasoline engine in your electric car" or "half assed electric with the weight of two engines".

FTA: Ferrari has included two electric motors.

Now 3 engines, apparently.

Will really be something when they make an all-electric supercar, and utilize the supreme torque of electric engines for neck breaking 0-60 times. This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.


That "neck breaking" torque runs out around 5200 rpms.
 
2013-03-05 10:13:54 PM  

majestic: That "neck breaking" torque runs out around 5200 rpms.


Not sure where you're getting your figures, and i'm sure if that is somehow true of every single one it will improve.

But the thing is, that is instant torque, unlike combustion engines. Hence the neck breaking acceleration.
 
2013-03-05 10:17:30 PM  

majestic: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: When you normally think of a hybrid, you think boring. You think heavy. You think slow.

No, i think "we don't want to piss off the oil companies, so we put a gasoline engine in your electric car" or "half assed electric with the weight of two engines".

FTA: Ferrari has included two electric motors.

Now 3 engines, apparently.

Will really be something when they make an all-electric supercar, and utilize the supreme torque of electric engines for neck breaking 0-60 times. This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.

That "neck breaking" torque runs out around 5200 rpms.


Probably not as effective on a high-revving Ferrari, but imagine an off-roader.  600 or so delicious, chunky pound feet of torque below 2 grand?  Get you some!

/there is no kill like overkill
 
2013-03-05 10:26:14 PM  
Actually did some looking around and rpms only really matter for combustion engines, because they have to hit high rpms to deliver torque, but electric apply the torque instantly so it's not so much of a factor.
 
2013-03-05 10:27:38 PM  

majestic: That "neck breaking" torque runs out around 5200 rpms.


No it doesn't.  A decent AC motor will have at least half its peak torque at 8000 rpm and will keep pulling up to at least 10,000 rpm.

The torque curve of an electric motor is really simple:  You have constant torque from zero rpm until you reach peak power.  Then torque gradually reduces at a rate such that power is constant.  This range generally lasts until you reach the mechanical limit (often 10,000 rpm).
 
2013-03-05 10:28:03 PM  

Twitch Boy: 600 or so delicious, chunky pound feet of torque below 2 grand at 0 rpm? Get you some!


FTFY.

J. Frank Parnell: This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.


Also this. All that needs to happen is a significant advancement in battery or power cell technology that vastly increases the storable power vs. weight. Realistically, it is FANTASTICALLY inefficient for cars to have their own power generation stations (engines) on board. Producing power centrally and distributing it makes way more sense from an engineering standpoint, will be far less wasteful, and actually effect a significant performance increase in all cars across the board.

I'm a self-described gearhead and I loves me some C16, but all-electric, with lightweight, high capacity batteries is the way to go, and how things will be in the near future. Just gotta get away from these "1000 rare-earth based cell" storage means.
 
2013-03-05 10:32:09 PM  

grinding_journalist: Just gotta get away from these "1000 rare-earth based cell" storage means.


No one has been using rare earths in batteries for several years (since the days of Ni-mH).

Actually, as far as energy density goes, batteries are already essentially far enough.  With lithium-ion, you can put a big pack in without it being terribly heavy.  The limiting factor these days as far as range is concerned is price, not weight.
 
2013-03-05 10:39:40 PM  

grinding_journalist: Twitch Boy: 600 or so delicious, chunky pound feet of torque below 2 grand at 0 rpm? Get you some!

FTFY.


If you end up at 0 RPM, that's a entirely different world of problems :-P

/potato, potahto
 
2013-03-05 10:43:56 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: When you normally think of a hybrid, you think boring. You think heavy. You think slow.

No, i think "we don't want to piss off the oil companies, so we put a gasoline engine in your electric car" or "half assed electric with the weight of two engines".

FTA: Ferrari has included two electric motors.

Now 3 engines, apparently.

Will really be something when they make an all-electric supercar, and utilize the supreme torque of electric engines for neck breaking 0-60 times. This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.


I'm sure lawmakers are working on laws to limit this.
 
2013-03-05 10:45:05 PM  
Ah, there are some better explanations. I don't fully understand the intricacies of the combustion engine let alone the electric, but from the sounds of things the latter would be easier to understand.
 
2013-03-05 10:50:21 PM  

majestic: mrlewish: Even if you don't agree with hybrids or electrics (expense) they do reduce the amount of fuel used by that vehicle so even if you don't make economic sense to you they do reduce the demand for fuel, en masse, thereby lowering the price you would have paid if those individuals had bought a regular ICE vehicle instead.

Really......? So the 900 lb. increase in weight is offset by the hybrid system? I don't think so. Look up the latest Ford Fusion Hybrid for REAL WORLD fuel economy numbers.  It costs more per mile to drive it over the regular version. And it's slower, has less storage and a lower resale value.

Also, in the world most of us live in, a Fit gets better mileage than a Prius and costs ~$8k less to purchase.


I looked up the vehicles you mentioned and found that are were full of crap. fuelly.com

no surprise there.
 
2013-03-05 10:58:35 PM  
Even better, you can drive them in the HOV lane too...

/ain't green wonderful?
 
2013-03-05 11:00:02 PM  

majestic: Also, in the world most of us live in, a Fit gets better mileage than a Prius and costs ~$8k less to purchase.


If you want to troll this thread, you should instead go with the argument of "why buy a hybrid when I can buy this $500 used car and compare it to a brand new car", yet ignore the time and maintenance costs required for the $500 car.
 
2013-03-05 11:15:18 PM  
I just bought a 2013 Camry Hybrid and love it.  It has way more horsepower than my 2002 Camry, gets 44 mpg when I drive normally to and from work, traction control (which came in handy today when it snowed), and will save me about $7,000 in gasoline over the POS Taurus I traded in.  And even though it wasn't a determining factor when I was looking for cars, the fancy Bluetooth phone interface and iPod dock kicks ass.

Yes, I have to shell out for a new car, but I tend to keep vehicles for 200,000 miles.  The new battery packs should last that long.  I hated the early versions of hybrid, like the Prius and Insight, because they made no financial sense to me, but now the technology has hit the common-sense arena.
 
2013-03-05 11:23:13 PM  

Hollie Maea: There was this Croatian kid on an electric car conversion forum that I frequent. I'm pretty sure this gy must have mob connections or something; at any rate he has money. Anyway, he did a standard el cheapo conversion on his old BMW, and then redid it with slightly more expensive components to achieve white zombie levels of performance. After that, he decided to start his own company and make the ultimate super car. You can get one for one million dollars (he has only sold one so far) but it will outperform any car on the road including the ones in this article.


I'm gonna say no on outperforming all the cars on the road. Outperforming in what aspects? Acceleration- it might be quicker than some but there are people with barely street legal drag cars that are likely quiker. Electric cars are heavy so I will get beaten on a road course. I'm pretty sure my car would easily beat it in a 1000 mile distance race.

All the cars on the road is a pretty big pool. I like electric and it's better in some ways, but not all.
 
2013-03-05 11:27:13 PM  
That popping sound is Jeremy Clarkson's a
 
2013-03-05 11:28:03 PM  
orta snapping.

/stupid submit button moving into my way!
 
2013-03-05 11:40:29 PM  
Subby here thank you whoever for finally approving my first link. I think i'm going to cry.
/Been following the Ferrari Laferrari launch for awhile.  Can't wait to see the rest of Geneva motor show. Feel so bad for Mclaren being outshined by Ferrari and that silly Aventador in a modified body kit.
 
2013-03-05 11:42:57 PM  

UsikFark: Ferrari has included two electric motors -- one for the wheels and one for the electrics

wat


British English.

In American English (the language Jesus™ spoke), it's: "Ferrari has included two electric motors -- one for the drivetrain and one for the electronics."
 
2013-03-05 11:52:13 PM  
LOL SMUG MANBEARPIG LEMMIWINKS
 
2013-03-05 11:53:58 PM  
Great. Bad enough to get behind some pious Prius ecodawdler trying to hypermile through business district traffic, creeping along and hitting every light as it turns yellow. Sure, you save an ounce of precious gasoline, but the forty other cars behind you are each burning twice that while at a dead idle. Now, some hybrid half-brain moneybags in one of these F1 clones starts crawling between red lights and I will have to hybridize my homicidal road rage with insane brand jealousy.
 
2013-03-05 11:56:23 PM  
475 lb motorcycle, 150 hp,  52 mpg on long highway trips, 36-42 giving it the nuts.  Much more fun than any hybrid.
 
2013-03-06 12:00:11 AM  

felching pen: Great. Bad enough to get behind some pious Prius ecodawdler trying to hypermile through business district traffic, creeping along and hitting every light as it turns yellow. Sure, you save an ounce of precious gasoline, but the forty other cars behind you are each burning twice that while at a dead idle. Now, some hybrid half-brain moneybags in one of these F1 clones starts crawling between red lights and I will have to hybridize my homicidal road rage with insane brand jealousy.


The P1 and 918 both have silent modes while the Laferrari doesn't. Its quite intimidating hearing both machines leave that electrical hum behind and transform into super car behemoths. As you can hear in this at the 3:18 mark  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNIqxTT_mw. It should take Douchebaggery to new levels.
 
2013-03-06 12:03:57 AM  
Official Ferrari video on Laferrari pretty good visuals and detailshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waZuJw27BuY
 
2013-03-06 12:08:58 AM  

King Something: UsikFark: Ferrari has included two electric motors -- one for the wheels and one for the electrics

wat

British English.

In American English (the language Jesus™ spoke), it's: "Ferrari has included two electric motors -- one for the drivetrain and one for the electronics."


An electric motor does not make sense for powering electronic devices- what are you going to do, hook it up to a generator? Why?

Yes, you would have motors or servos around the interior for windows and wipers, etc., but they would get power from the battery, not a PTO or whatever TFA's author had in mind.
 
2013-03-06 12:52:22 AM  
I'm sure the Ferrari's performance is amazing, and my opinion doesn't count since I'll never be a customer, but it doesn't look like it was designed by human hands. It's too sterile, too robotic. It's dramatic looking, but I don't see any emotion in it.
 
2013-03-06 01:37:47 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Will really be something when they make an all-electric supercar, and utilize the supreme torque of electric engines for neck breaking 0-60 times. This hybrid nonsense is just some kind of awkward transition period.


media.caranddriver.com

0-60 in 3.7 seconds That's a half-second faster than a 911 Carrera S, and only a tenth of a second slower than the current Ferrari California. It's about as fast as the best Ferraris and Lambos of a decade ago, and at a much lower cost than any of these cars I've mentioned.
 
2013-03-06 10:11:28 AM  

mrlewish: Even if you don't agree with hybrids or electrics (expense) they do reduce the amount of fuel used by that vehicle so even if you don't make economic sense to you they do reduce the demand for fuel, en masse, thereby lowering the price you would have paid if those individuals had bought a regular ICE vehicle instead.


Considering that these cars will make up about .000001 of the total cars onthe road, i'm not overly concerned about their fuel usage.
 
2013-03-06 10:26:56 AM  

NBSV: I'm gonna say no on outperforming all the cars on the road. Outperforming in what aspects? Acceleration- it might be quicker than some but there are people with barely street legal drag cars that are likely quiker. Electric cars are heavy so I will get beaten on a road course. I'm pretty sure my car would easily beat it in a 1000 mile distance race.

All the cars on the road is a pretty big pool. I like electric and it's better in some ways, but not all.


There are a handful of cars that can beat it in one metric or other.  The 0-62 time is 2.8 seconds, so a Veyron can beat it slightly there.  The top speed is limited to 190 so there are several cars that can outdo that.  Where it really beats the pack is at high speed handling.  With regenerative breaking and four wheel torque vectoring, each wheel can independently receive +/- 250 horsepower with no latency.

Yes, you could probably beat it in a 1000 mile race, but with a range of over 360 miles, it would only have to stop twice, for less than an hour each.  Not too bad.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:37 AM  

grinding_journalist: Also this. All that needs to happen is a significant advancement in battery or power cell technology that vastly increases the storable power vs. weight. Realistically, it is FANTASTICALLY inefficient for cars to have their own power generation stations (engines) on board. Producing power centrally and distributing it makes way more sense from an engineering standpoint, will be far less wasteful, and actually effect a significant performance increase in all cars across the board.

I'm a self-described gearhead and I loves me some C16, but all-electric, with lightweight, high capacity batteries is the way to go, and how things will be in the near future. Just gotta get away from these "1000 rare-earth based cell" storage means.


How about three times the range of current electric car tech with charging times of as little as 10 minutes?
 
2013-03-06 11:17:20 AM  

Mad_Radhu: How about three times the range of current electric car tech with charging times of as little as 10 minutes?


That's getting there, but it's still based on the same technology. I'm awaiting a breakthrough in batteries where you can power a car to a 1000 mile range with a single cell the size of a laptop battery. I have no doubt that technology will eventually get there, but I have my doubts as to whether it'll even resemble current batteries. I'm talking about an energy storage means completely different from anything that's been seen or done before.

Hollie Maea: No one has been using rare earths in batteries for several years (since the days of Ni-mH).


Ok, I shouldn't have said "rare earth" when what I meant was "less-than-common" materials, or "something we can't synthesize". If cost is a limiting factor, that means the materials used to manufacture it aren't the most common things around. This also doesn't get away from the sheer volume of cells needed to power a car; I'm also talking about having the energy density in a single cell be enough to handle all of the car's power needs, which is technology we don't currently have. Adding 500Lbs of batteries to a car to "make it electric" isn't my idea of a solution.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:54 AM  

majestic: mrlewish: Even if you don't agree with hybrids or electrics (expense) they do reduce the amount of fuel used by that vehicle so even if you don't make economic sense to you they do reduce the demand for fuel, en masse, thereby lowering the price you would have paid if those individuals had bought a regular ICE vehicle instead.

Really......? So the 900 lb. increase in weight is offset by the hybrid system? I don't think so. Look up the latest Ford Fusion Hybrid for REAL WORLD fuel economy numbers.  It costs more per mile to drive it over the regular version. And it's slower, has less storage and a lower resale value.

Also, in the world most of us live in, a Fit gets better mileage than a Prius and costs ~$8k less to purchase.


That and the Prius sucks to drive compared to the Fit.  I drove one a little while ago, it barely accelerates faster than my bicycle.
 
2013-03-06 11:39:29 AM  

grinding_journalist: Ok, I shouldn't have said "rare earth" when what I meant was "less-than-common" materials, or "something we can't synthesize". If cost is a limiting factor, that means the materials used to manufacture it aren't the most common things around. This also doesn't get away from the sheer volume of cells needed to power a car; I'm also talking about having the energy density in a single cell be enough to handle all of the car's power needs, which is technology we don't currently have. Adding 500Lbs of batteries to a car to "make it electric" isn't my idea of a solution.


The materials are plenty common.  The main materials that go into a battery are Lithium and Carbon.  Neither of them are "less than common".  They cost a lot because there is a lot of difficult engineering that goes into them, and the market is not yet at economies of scale levels.  Not because the materials are rare.

Also, you are grossly overestimating the "sheer volume and weight" needed for a battery pack.  Yes, we can and will make more progress on that front, but it won't make a huge difference.  For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that 500 pounds of batteries is a complete non starter, but it really doesn't hurt much, particularly since electric motors can be much lighter than the ICE counterpart.  Even at today's technology, a car with good range can be made that only weighs a few hundred pounds more than a gas car.  And the increased low end torque and the dramatic increase in efficiency more than make up for the hit you take on weight.  We are not going to develop a 1000 mile battery the size of a laptop battery.  And there is absolutely no need to do so.
 
2013-03-06 11:53:55 AM  

Hollie Maea: We are not going to develop a 1000 mile battery the size of a laptop battery. And there is absolutely no need to do so.


What?

I don't get how anyone could have this viewpoint. How would increasing storage capacity in a smaller package not ever be a good thing?

Also, seeing as batteries have only been around for a little over a century, and have increased in storage capacity vs. size by a factor of...well, it's hard to say, since early batteries were so huge, unreliable, and impractical, but suffice it to say that huge strides have been made in battery technology- how could you discount the possibility of a vast increase of storage capacity, when considering how useful such a thing could be? If you could have a phone or computer battery that could power your device for an operational year without recharging, or a cell that size that could give a car 1000 miles of range, who wouldn't want that?

If you're saying "we won't" because of the limits of chemical battery storage, sure, that's exactly what I'm saying too; there needs to be a complete revamp of battery technology, with very different methods of energy storage than we're used to.
 
2013-03-06 12:41:22 PM  

Hollie Maea: NBSV: I'm gonna say no on outperforming all the cars on the road. Outperforming in what aspects? Acceleration- it might be quicker than some but there are people with barely street legal drag cars that are likely quiker. Electric cars are heavy so I will get beaten on a road course. I'm pretty sure my car would easily beat it in a 1000 mile distance race.

All the cars on the road is a pretty big pool. I like electric and it's better in some ways, but not all.

There are a handful of cars that can beat it in one metric or other.  The 0-62 time is 2.8 seconds, so a Veyron can beat it slightly there.  The top speed is limited to 190 so there are several cars that can outdo that.  Where it really beats the pack is at high speed handling.  With regenerative breaking and four wheel torque vectoring, each wheel can independently receive +/- 250 horsepower with no latency.

Yes, you could probably beat it in a 1000 mile race, but with a range of over 360 miles, it would only have to stop twice, for less than an hour each.  Not too bad.


All that's fine on paper. But to recharge that much capacity in an hour would take a special charger plugged into a high voltage high current outlet. There aren't many of those around.

I've never seen anybody build a full electric with a long range like that be able to out handle a super car. Even with regenerative braking and applying torque to specific wheels there's still only so much grip to go around and electric cars are heavy when they have that kind of range. They do make for good drag cars.

You're pretty big into electric cars, and I think they're great too. It's just that saying it will beat anything isn't true. Nobody makes a car that will beat every car in every aspect. To be one thing means you compromise the others in some way.
 
2013-03-06 01:36:24 PM  
grinding_journalist:
I don't get how anyone could have this viewpoint. How would increasing storage capacity in a smaller package not ever be a good thing?

It's called diminishing marginal returns.  We certainly haven't yet reached the point at which an increase in battery energy density no longer provides a significant advantage, but that point would come FAR before "1000 miles in a laptop battery".


If you're saying "we won't" because of the limits of chemical battery storage, sure, that's exactly what I'm saying too; there needs to be a complete revamp of battery technology, with very different methods of energy storage than we're used to.

Chemistry itself has limits, and "revamping" or "rethinking" things cannot overcome these limits.  No substance can store more chemical energy than Lithium (Hydrogen alone has a higher mass energy density but has a very low volumetric density).  And the most energy that can be stored with lithium is about 60 MJ (or about 16.5kWh) per Kg.  An electric car uses about 250Wh per mile, so a 1000 mile range would require 250kWh of battery, which could never be lighter than 15Kg.  So no, we are not going to have 1000 mile range in a laptop battery.  If we wanted to go past the Chemistry limit we would have to move into nuclear storage.  No one is ever going to do that just to get your pack weight down from 15Kg to 0.5Kg.
 
2013-03-06 02:09:04 PM  

Hollie Maea: Chemistry itself has limits, and "revamping" or "rethinking" things cannot overcome these limits.


So maybe it won't be chemical battery? That's more what I'm driving at. Things that are currently firmly within the realm of science fiction, where things we have and take for granted today were 50 (20?) years ago.

Or maybe this will all become moot, as someone invents a solar array so compact and efficient that it makes car batteries entirely obsolete. I don't know, but my point remains the same.
 
2013-03-06 02:27:20 PM  
Hybrids/electrics will always be lame; the idea of riding a spinning magnet will always lose out to a tightly controlled and directed explosion.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report