Slashdot Mirror

Actually EV's (even working almost entirely on home brew old technologies and sealed lead acid batteries) can already hit the price-point, speed, looks, and power that you talk about.

In fact a vehicle converted from electric to gas is frequently _more_ fun to drive (and still looks the same from the outside) as your full torque is typically available through the entire power curve. Think EV's have to be wimpy golf carts or suppository shaped? Checkout the amateur monsters that race in the National Electric Drag Racing Association or the high performance electric supercar, the T-Zero.

Now there are two points that will most likely keep Joe Shmoe from buying one.

1) Limited range - the best EV's still get only slightly over 100 miles to the charge. Despite the fact that most Americans drive less than 40 miles a day 95% of the year, people feel more comfortable knowing that they can drive for 200-400 miles on a tank of gas. Most people are also used to gas vehicles that give little or no warning (save for the questionable accuracy of a fuel low, float gauge operated, warning light) before running out of fuel. When an electric hits the end of its pack charge performance begins to lessen giving the driver ample (and definitive) warning that they need to find a place to recharge. Oh and there is no need for fancy schmancy thousand dollar connectors to be installed to recharge, that's all about the auto manufacturer's wanting to reduce liability concerns. Most of the EVers I know running custom conversions use their standard 110v or 220v connectors to charge. Also charging does not have to be an 8 hour fiasco. Even on a 15-amp 220-volt circuit you can recharge most packs in less than half that time. Happen to have access to a 50-amp circuit? The time to charge improves greatly. Plus as you plug the car in every night your fully charged every morning ready for a full day of driving. You never have leave your normal route to use a gas station again. Run out of power somewhere? Generally you can find someone with an outlet willing to let you charge up for a little while so that you can make it home. There are more places with electrical outlets than there are with cans of gasoline lying around.

2) Noise - Now this is one that I think most people adjust to (and grow to appreciate), but electrics make little or no noise beyond the sound of tires on pavement. To a lot of gear heads this is a deal breaker. They (understandably) like the roar of a V-8. The turbine like whine of a high revved electric just doesn't quite do it for them. As a fan of all high performance vehicles I know where they are coming from and know that it is futile to argue a matter of taste so I won't spend too long on this. Basically I think most people will find the quiet of an electric appealing after they give it a chance. There is something addictive about being forced back into your seat as you rocket off the line to little more than the sound of the wind rushing bye.

A company called AC Propulsion built an all-electric car that can outrun a 'vette, and just about any other production car out there. 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The 30mph-50mph range is done in 1.4 seconds. The acceleration curve is linear, which also helps since there are no 'blips' during gear changes. This is one seriously cool car. Of course, if you're going 100 mph continuously, you'll probably only get 50 miles out of it. But it is an absolutely beautiful design.

A company called AC Propulsion built an all-electric car that can outrun a 'vette, and just about any other production car out there. 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The 30mph-50mph range is done in 1.4 seconds. The acceleration curve is linear, which also helps since there are no 'blips' during gear changes. This is one seriously cool car. Of course, if you're going 100 mph continuously, you'll probably only get 50 miles out of it. But it is an absolutely beautiful design.

A company called AC Propulsion built an all-electric car that can outrun a 'vette, and just about any other production car out there. 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The 30mph-50mph range is done in 1.4 seconds. The acceleration curve is linear, which also helps since there are no 'blips' during gear changes. This is one seriously cool car. Of course, if you're going 100 mph continuously, you'll probably only get 50 miles out of it. But it is an absolutely beautiful design.

A company called AC Propulsion built an all-electric car that can outrun a 'vette, and just about any other production car out there. 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The 30mph-50mph range is done in 1.4 seconds. The acceleration curve is linear, which also helps since there are no 'blips' during gear changes. This is one seriously cool car. Of course, if you're going 100 mph continuously, you'll probably only get 50 miles out of it. But it is an absolutely beautiful design.

A. Not that many people were buying them.

Nice to see you bought GM's explanation. However, while technically true, there's one problem with it - EV-1s didn't sell well because, as far as I know, no EV-1 was ever sold, only leased. And there was a very, very, very long waiting list to get a lease, despite the hefty price tag (something on the order of a thousand or so per month.)

The cars were leased with charging stations which were still considered GM property. Also, there were no aftermarket replacement parts

Magnachargers (the inductive paddle charger) was a standard forced onto the industry by GM, who used the EV-1 as a club to bludgeon everyone into playing fair with them. Then they took their ball and went home, leaving many public access charging stations empty, which were paid for by state and local governments, and are definitely not GM property. Plus, you can buy magnachargers on the market, so even if GM took theirs back, you can get one from a 3rd party manufacturer.

BTW, if the EV-1s had been sold, wouldn't you think some enterprising soul would decide to support them? You get people building mods and add-ons for the tiniest of markets for both cars and computers now, I'd be surprised if someone didn't supply parts for the very wealthy people who drove those things.

B. GM lost money on it. Even with all the gov't grants and tax breaks, they still lost money.

Not surprising given the EV-1 was a prototype writ large. Of course, GM probably included the cost of the ready-to-install NiCad packs that were supposed to go into the rev. 2 EV-1s, a plan that was scrapped when the EV-1s themselves were recalled and scrapped. How's that for a return on your investment?

And most importantly, GM had millions, probably hundred of millions of dollars of development in these cars. That's why you had to lease one from GM, they didn't want Ford or Honda to buy one, steal all their ideas

The same technology (AC inverter drive) could have been purchased from AC Propulsion, for about $40k. I think even the parts and the drivetrains were identical to the EV1s at the time. No need to buy one from GM.

To date, the only major commercial car manufacturer to sell a pure electric car (and by car, I don't mean a souped up golf cart) is Toyota, with the RAV4 EV, which costs $40+k AFTER rebates, is sold ONLY in California (if there are any left), and requires a very expensive battery replacement after 5 years (nicad)...

Basically, don't trust GM, their concept cars are nothing more than industry vaporware, designed to make people think that they're ahead of the curve, instead of reacting to companies like Honda and Toyota, which actually have hybrids on the stree right now. Hopefully by this time next year, Ford will have joined that club. I don't see GM with a hybrid (which will be a very lame attempt at boosting gas milage with a slightly oversized starter motor) for at least another year or two, and no REAL hybrids for probably another 4 or 5.

AC Propulsion makes a 200hp AC induction motor with peak efficencies of 93% and higher. Poke around the site a little, and you'll find their inverter/controller is also 90+% efficent.

NiCds are a poor choice of battery for electric vehicles in general because they have several undesirable properties: they get REAL hot when charging, they have a low energy density, and are especially more toxic than other batteries.

Anyway, the point to note here is that hybrid in general doesn't pay. Don't expect to ever see a hybrid vehicle make it into the marketplace on economics alone -- it will have to have a government boost to gain market share. Even if a car gets 20 MPG more than its gas-only sibling, most owners never realizes these savings over the increased overhead of the car in the time they own the car. Also, don't forget that the batteries in these vehciles DO go bad after 30-50,000 miles, which will be a $2000+ "repair" added onto your maintenance bill. Moral of the story is, the entire world is waiting on the "perfect" battery. That'll fix all of our problems.

A new spin off of the NHRA, NEDRA is the National Electric Drag Racing Association.

Nothing like an electric motorcycle hitting 152 mph in 9.4 seconds on the quarter mile.

Also amusing to see an old Mazda RX7 nearly stand pure vertical on its rear bumper on launch. They added wheelie bars to the car the next year.

Or perhaps you'd rather drive a nice 100 mile range electric sports car that can beat a Corvette off the line.

Electric vehicles are advancing rather impressively on the small scale with little or no R&D funding. Which makes the total lack of interest displayed by the major auto manufacturers all the more disheartening.

Acceleration:

0 to 60 mph 4.07 sec
1/4 mile 13.24 sec at 90 mph
Range: 100 miles at 60 mph

videos etc from http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home .htm

That would be the T-Zero

While the waiting list is pretty long and the price is high, you can get an electric car with a 100+ mile range that does the quarter mile faster than a late 90's Vette. Go see the T-Zero at A/C Propulsion's site.

Another way to go is to find an electric car conversion shop or individual. Purchase a cheap ICE vehicle, spend another $6-$10K converting it and you have a vehicle that will last as long as the body holds up that looks like everyone elses car, but needs far less maintenence and no gasoline.

Or you could just do the whole thing yourself. If done right your range will be between 40 and 60 miles per charge.

Remember Optima Yellow Top deep cycle batteries are your friends.

While the waiting list is pretty long and the price is high, you can get an electric car with a 100+ mile range that does the quarter mile faster than a late 90's Vette. Go see the T-Zero at A/C Propulsion's site.

Another way to go is to find an electric car conversion shop or individual. Purchase a cheap ICE vehicle, spend another $6-$10K converting it and you have a vehicle that will last as long as the body holds up that looks like everyone elses car, but needs far less maintenence and no gasoline.

Or you could just do the whole thing yourself. If done right your range will be between 40 and 60 miles per charge.

Remember Optima Yellow Top deep cycle batteries are your friends.

While the waiting list is pretty long and the price is high, you can get an electric car with a 100+ mile range that does the quarter mile faster than a late 90's Vette. Go see the T-Zero at A/C Propulsion's site.

Another way to go is to find an electric car conversion shop or individual. Purchase a cheap ICE vehicle, spend another $6-$10K converting it and you have a vehicle that will last as long as the body holds up that looks like everyone elses car, but needs far less maintenence and no gasoline.

Or you could just do the whole thing yourself. If done right your range will be between 40 and 60 miles per charge.

Remember Optima Yellow Top deep cycle batteries are your friends.

While the waiting list is pretty long and the price is high, you can get an electric car with a 100+ mile range that does the quarter mile faster than a late 90's Vette. Go see the T-Zero at A/C Propulsion's site.

Another way to go is to find an electric car conversion shop or individual. Purchase a cheap ICE vehicle, spend another $6-$10K converting it and you have a vehicle that will last as long as the body holds up that looks like everyone elses car, but needs far less maintenence and no gasoline.

Or you could just do the whole thing yourself. If done right your range will be between 40 and 60 miles per charge.

Remember Optima Yellow Top deep cycle batteries are your friends.

Slashdot mentioned the Tzero a while ago. I'm certainly waiting until I can save up the ~$70K to afford one (after they come to market, of course... :P )

Please mod the above message up. The T-Zero by AC Propulsion is the first electric vehicle that actually competes with gasoline automobiles in terms of performance. In fact, this vehicle has amazing performance. It goes from 0 to 60 is 4.1 seconds, which is faster than some motorcycles to say nothing of cars. It runs the quarter mile in 13 seconds, and has a range of 100 miles if you stay under the speed limit. By not attempting to be a hybrid, this vehicle can do away with all the extra weight of a conbustion power plant. And best of all it can be plugged into a regular house outlet. Still, the down side is the price and the battery pack. It only has a life of about three years, and then you have to purchase a new one for about $3,000. The end price is similar to a new Porsche since these are not made on an assembly line. Except for the price, this is it.

And the reasoning is somthing more sociological than scientific. Pure Electric is all fine and dandy in theory. However, lets through in the the human factor, and because California (read LA and Area)is pushing these vehicles the most, we will use that portion of the world. And for people, the DINC, because they are the most likeley to be purchasing an new car.

The Idea is that everyone will recharge at night and, drive to work, finish recharging, then go home and be used to fill local high deman areas. Unfortunaly, what happened almost all of the time is that people go home, at about 5 o'clock, and plug in their cars, and start charging them, so that they can go out that night and do the movie thing, the bar scene, or whatever. Now you have the largest peak consumption time in the day growing to an even higher peak. This ofcourse has made the power transmission/generation shith their collective nickers. This makes the problimatic california even more so. This is one of the reason the major companies have stopped pushing it.

This still dosent bother CARB, even though the most in-efficeint sources are used at peak loads. These sources would be coal-fired steam plants in wyoming. Which is fine for california, they have moved their pollution across state lines.

The key is using state of the art stuff and non petrolium sources in conjunction. Current market level stuff uses brushless DC drives...ICK! Now here is some truely cool stuff.

The company that makes the electric motor their using is AC Propulsion, and they make a kick ass 100% electric vehicle with that same motor.
-rr

A while back i stumbled across a company called AC Propulsion. They built an electric car that has better acceleration than a farrari, porche, and others.... and it's funny that this new car looks just like it, but with tiny body kit...

...what do you think?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home . tm

After having worked on several electric cars (conversions), and being 'into" electric/hybrid vehicles for well over two decades, I can say nice effort, nice lines, but when can we buy one that's affordable?

And speaking of un-affordable, here's something pretty darn sweet that's been around since 1997.

I like this TZero better because it can be a pure electric around town, and for long trips you just hook up their very cool 'Long Ranger' hybrid trailer, which allows for continuous highway cruising.

And it's quick too!

• 0 to 60 mph: 4.07 sec
• 1/4 mile: 13.24 sec at 90 mph
• Skidpad: 0.88 G
• Range: 100 miles at 60 mph

I want a TZero!

"We expect a price somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari."

Here is a better looking, better performing car, and it ain't no stnking "hybrid".

Consider the "need to know" shortcuts in this article. For example "1859, when the first lead acid battery was made in France". This was the first cell using Planté type plates which are still in use today, but the history of lead acid and other cells goes back a bit further than that. It's a reasonable shortcut, but it does illustrate that this kind of article only skims the very surface. If you want insights, you have to go and do your own research.

On the other hand, they do make an important point: "Of the billions [of cells and batteries] sold each year, most wind up in landfills and incinerators". Well, that's pretty much true of AA type alkalines and carbon-zincs, but actually clunky old automotive lead acids are now recycled 95% of the time. NiCad's though are death in a tube: nobody wants to touch the bloody things. NiMh's and Lithium Ions are a little nicer, if you can find a local recycler who will handle them. Power Express used to accept small amounts of NiMh's and LiIons by mail, but they've changed their site and I can't find any mention of it now, which perhaps indicates the volatility (ha ha) of the recycling market. If you want some sleepless nights, have a look here for a decent overview of what you can and should be recycling.

Oops, but then we slip into the land of delusions again: "Batteries, which have long been derided for polluting the environment, will soon do their part to clean it up, MIT's Sadoway said. The same research that is shrinking cell phones has a higher purpose: an exhaust-free electric car."

Uh huh. Like the T Zero? Again, the site has changed, and I now can't find mention of the technologies, but from memory, it's either 300kg of lead acids (shorter range or quicker death from deep discharges) or nickel metal hydrides (landfill ahoy) with quoted replacement costs and times of $3000 and 3 years for the lead-acids. Yes, that's 100kg of lead, acid and plastic to be recycled every year for every vehicle, or about half a pound (and $2.75) a day. OK, it can be recycled, and the problem is concentrated rather than distributed. But it's a lot of nastiness to deal with, and remember that rules only apply to nice middle income people. Scurrilous low income types are just going to abandon their twenty year old wrecks (complete with 200kg of lead) in the nearest ditch, street corner, or even front yard. We'd better be prepared to treat these things as environmental time bombs and have policies in place to collect and recycle them, with or without the owner's consent. Designing in a large recycling burden just makes less sense than investing in a clean and long lived internal power source.

I think that the intro sums it up: the problem is chemistry. There's only so much energy you can store in a sealed unit. If we want significant energy density from a renewable source and no ongoing recycling nightmare, then we have to go to hydrogen cells or even good old fashioned alcohol burners. Sealed cell technology is not the long term answer to our energy needs, and we can't just blame the manufacturers for that, seeing as how it's us that keeps buying their products by the billion then (mostly) throwing them in the trash.

The paper talks about a trailer mounted generator they designed that is hooked up to to the tZero to give it a much extended range over it's pure electric performance. They did some neat stuff to make the car drive the same as a car without a trailer (ie: for backing up!), and the trailer is actually rigidly attached with steerable wheels (linked to the cars steering). Neat concept... could be extended to be use fuel cells or anything else...

The paper talks about a trailer mounted generator they designed that is hooked up to to the tZero to give it a much extended range over it's pure electric performance. They did some neat stuff to make the car drive the same as a car without a trailer (ie: for backing up!), and the trailer is actually rigidly attached with steerable wheels (linked to the cars steering). Neat concept... could be extended to be use fuel cells or anything else...

To me, hybrid cars should be designed almost completely as electric cars, with an external interface to a charging system of some kind. That "charging system" is simply a source of electric power for charging batteries. This could then be anything you desire, ie: fuel cells, gas engine, diesel engine, etc.

The efficiency of eletric motors is much higher than gasoline engines throughout their entire operating range, and can provide smooth acceleration over a large range, avoiding the need for any transmission (typically, a single reduction drive will do). In fact, eletric engines are small enough and have high enough power densities that it is very feasible to have 4 small motors (one at each tire) to drive the wheels independently. In this way, differentials and full width axles are also avoided (the work of a differential being done in software instead). Plus, this configuration allows for a very powerful all-wheel drive type system.

To make such a vehicle a hybrid, let the "charging system" be a traditional ultra-low emission gasoline/deisel engine, that is fine tuned to run at one specific RPM and power output for maximum fuel efficieny. This motor's sole task is to recharge batteries, and need only be capable of providing enough power to keep the batteries charged when the car is sustaining a given top speed.

Most cars have hugely larges engines, where the full power output is only ever used in acceleration. By having the engine only act as a charger, you only need roughly 1/4 the horsepower for your typical car (ie: a 20 kW engine would be MORE than sufficient). The surges of power needed by the electric motors are handled by the battery, which is recharged while cruising and idling.

Rough calculations show that we should eventually be able to acheive 80+ mpg in such a configuration. In fact, there is a completely electric sports-car (built for doing the 1/4 mile in 13s!) called a tZero that takes this approach. You can buy an external engine for recharging the batteries, and it achieves a net fuel economy of around 40MPG (keep in mind this is purely a high performance sports car).

Also, a similar system using a diesel engine should get even better mileage, as diesel engines have a higher Carnot cycle efficieny.

As things progress even further, instead of using an ICE/generator system, we can move to pure thermal->electricity systems, such as ultra efficient Magneto-hydrodynamic generators...

Sorry for the rant, but I think that there are a lot of cool things that could be done with hybrid cars if people would invest a little more time and money...

With advances like the NEC proton polymer battery yet to hit the market, it's safe to say that the era of the muscle car hasn't even begun yet.
--

The problem with current electric cars is that batteries don't have enough range. The new fuel cells (like the ones in this story) may be able to change that
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Musashi

First off, you are probably confusing the power ratings of IC (internal combustion) engines and electric motors. IC engines are rated at peak power (the most they can produce, which is at a very limited speed range). Electric motors are rated at continuous power usually, which is anywhere between 7 and 8 times lower than their peak power.

If you check out AC Propulsion, they have a motor that produces 165 lb-ft of torque, and 200 hp. It weighs 110lbs. Unless you get into motorcycle engines, or some of Honda's high-revving wonders, you won't find a comparable power-to-weight ratio in an IC engine.

Electric motors are also much MUCH better at producing torque. If you look at the specs for any given motor, they will usually give two ratings, one from zero to a given rpm, which is its torque rating. How many IC engines do you know that can give 100 lb-ft of torque at zero rpm? None. You get a lot more grunt out of an electric motor than you could an IC engine, unless it's absolutely huge (Corvette? Mustang?).

As for reliability.... IC engines have, what 500, 1000 moving parts? How often do you have to change the oil? Spark plugs? Timing belts, fan belts, water pumps, etc., etc.? An electric motor has ONE moving part. DC motors have commutators, which are sliding contactors that can wear. But AC motors have none, just the rotor moving inside the stator. How is one moving part less reliable than 1000? Unless you have some good solid (or even believable generalized anecdotal) evidence to the contrary, I can't believe that any combustion engine is more reliable than an electric

Who says we need something bigger than a Honda CRX, anyways? How many people do you take to work with you when you drive? I don't take anyone... a 2 seater would be 100% too big! If you're thinking of using it as your primary vehicle, yes, you need something bigger. But right now the best place for EV's are as second cars, for commuting purposes.

Mr. Ska

I slit a sheet
A sheet I slit

Electric Motors are superior to piston engines -- weight, tourque curve, reliability...vastly superior.

Unfortunately, the energy density of batteries is only a fraction of the energy density of gasoline, drastically increasing the vehicles' weight (and thus lowering performance). Thus, after 60 mph or so the ferrari just takes off.

here's a link to more info. It's using Optima batteries...I hate to pee on the story but that "one hour" charge time requires a 240VAC@100A ac line...I don't think I'll be doing that at my house!!

Still, a little over three hours at something like 30 amps isn't too bad.

Better car performance is cool, but this doesn't have any environmental benefits.

Although the accelaration on this beauty is very impressive, I can't find any information on top-speed. The electro powered vehicles/hybrid cars I have seen in recent years, have done nearly ok in acceleration, are very economical, but the top-speed is always what seems to limit these kinds of cars. I wouldn't be too surprised if the tZero has a slight disadvantage here over other sportscars. Hope not.

-Kraft
----------------------------

If I was made Prime Minister of Canada (yes, that's where I live) my first order of business would be to ban all fossil-fuel burning personal use automobiles!!!

Then I, as an affluent and intelligent young Canadian, being forced to ride on public transportation...

The day is coming very soon when you won't even think of burning fossil fuels to get somewhere. You could get one of VW's 78-MPG cars today, and run it off of spent fryer grease (but you'd be a bit eccentric). Or, wait a bit and you'll be able to get something like the tzero, which already has acceleration better than anything made by Mopar. That's with current batteries, too. When you consider the performance potential with new batteries such as the NEC proton polymer battery, you could be talking 0-60 in 3 seconds. That's more fun than I've ever had.

Banning cars will cause the affluent to leave.

You say you're affluent and intelligent, why aren't you on this bandwagon already?
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.

A much more interesting hybrid would have a battery large enough to make most local trips without having to start the engine. It would be possible to charge this battery from the grid, avoiding the cost and pollution of the gasoline to do so. And when it did run the engine, it would do so at constant speed.

The AC Propulsion cars have generator trailers that work this way.

A company called ac propulsion is starting to produce a 200HP electric sports car, the t-zero.

Tell that to these people

You might want to check one of
These out. They have neat movies of it dusting 'vetts
and ferraries in a drag race
Of course if bought a 65 mustang for $4K and
spent the other $76K on the the motor, it
ought to be able to do 0-60 in well under 4 sec.
;-)

First of all let me say, to the few people who know what they are talking about, and posted correct information, thank you, and this obviously doesn't apply to you. For the rest of you:

I am amazed and sickened to realize how ignorant and myopic most of these posts are. I have been reading slashdot for a couple of years and researching electric vehicles off and on for about eight years. I never would have guessed that the usually intelligent, forward thinking, able to see through the BS- crowd here at slashdot would be so uneducated and unwilling to see the benefits of electric vehicles.

The idea that an EV is a greater environmental threat than any internal combustion engine (ICE) is ABSURD.

Yes, the electricity comes from plants, many of which burn coal, but those power plants burn cleaner and more efficiently than almost any ICE vehicle on the road. Think of it in terms of mass production- you can make thousands of ________ for a lot less than you can make one _______. And the same goes for kilowatts. The boiler in the power plant is always at OPTIMUM temperature, and the turbines are always spinning at OPTIMUM speed. Also, when you build a power plant in some wide open space it's easy to tack on another acre or 100 acres if you want, to install scrubbers to keep emissions in check.

For those of you who think that burning coal is so much dirtier than burning gasoline- where exactly do you think gasoline comes from? It comes from a filthy black sludge that is ostensibly liquid coal. And it has to go through extensive processing (i.e. refining) to become the "clean burning" gasoline. Do you really think that drilling hundreds of feet into the earth, pumping out sludge, using ocean freighters the size of a college and then 40 ton semi trucks to transport it to a refinery, then the refining process, and then more 40 ton trucks to get the fuel to a gas station so you can drive over there and pump it into your car, and spill some on the ground.... do you really think that's easier, cheaper, and more efficient than plugging your car into the wall at night?

Furthermore, one of the biggest problems with pollution isn't just the AMOUNT of pollutants, it's the pollution DENSITY. Using electricity from a one power plant out in the middle of nowhere to power hundreds of vehicles within a few hundred square miles is obviously going to distribute the environmental load more evenly, and the planet can process it more efficiently.

Worried about batteries as a source of pollution? Read this article. If you're to busy/lazy to read it- it addresses that specific issue, and the punchline is: batteries are better than fossil fuels.

For those of you that think electric drag racing serves no purpose- It does. With the exception of a few things that come from aerospace programs and crash testing facilities, almost every significant advancement in automotive technology has come from racing. In this case, efficiency, range, and performance are universal. Electricity obeys Ohm's Law, and that simple equation dictates that anything we learn about how to make a car go fast in a quarter mile can be directly applied to making a car go 100 miles, it just wont go as fast for that long.

"Electrical transmission has terrible efficiency, about 91% loss of energy in transmission. You're only getting 9% of an already poor energy conversion from fossil fuels, which is 3 times that of electric transmission. "

This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. That means that for 626 KWH of power that of energy that I used last month, the power plant had to make 6329 KWH. Times how many homes in a city? And how many businesses? Ohm's law is V=IR and power P=VI. Anyone who doubts that the person who posted this is wrong, please do some math. If the transmission system dissipated 91% of the energy, we'd have glowing wires running from pole to pole all over the country. Until they burst into flames.

"I haven't heard of any major advances in battery technology in years. Yes, new electronics is helping, but power density and cost are as unfavourable now as they were ten years ago."

Then you aren't paying attention. Check out evercel. They have a new Nickel-Zink battery with almost double the energy density of current lead acid technology. And this article talks about how the expense of Li-Ion batteries is based solely on it's incredible performance and politics; not on cost of materials or production. Li-Ion is better in every way than any battery currently available and will eventually be cheaper than all of them. The technology to make EVs viable is here today, you just can't get your hands on it because the people in the oil industry and people in the automotive industry are protecting their present interests.

"You have to wonder how long these motors last. That smoke you see coming out the back? No... it's not just the tires. :)

Uhmm, yes, Beavis, I think that was just the tires. Furthermore, and electric motor will survive a drag racing environment for orders of magnitude longer than an ICE engine.

"It's not about speed ...it's endurance. When I can jump into an electric car and drive from Akron to Detroit non-stop, heater, defroster, wipers, headlights and stereo all going full-blast, I'll take electric cars seriously. Until then they just don't cut the mustard.

Sorry, eco-geeks. But pound for pound, gasoline rules over batteries. I'd love to see a leap in technology that changes this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why not both? Check out the tzero built by ,ac propulsion. It has a 100 mile range (longer than the EV 1 built by GM) and is faster than a Ferrari (and Porsche, and Corvette, and everything else).

There are a lot of things that an EV wont be able to do for a long time. Like a cruise ship. But for MOST people, MOST OF THE TIME, an EV is a cleaner, quieter, cheaper (by far, on a daily basis) solution than an ICE powered car.

On the other hand there are lots of things that an ICE vehicle could never do that an EV can do. A good example of that is this hybrid electric hummer (which is discussed in more detail here) that can be operated off of it's battery pack and run in almost complete silence to sneak up on the enemy. And it outperforms it's ICE counterpart in EVERY other area (yes, even range) as shown in the graph on this page.

Normally when I read or hear about people dismissing electric vehicles, I let it pass, because most people don't have the technical knowledge to understand all of the energy conversion arguments and do the math (literally and figuratively). But I couldn't do that in this case because there are a lot of people from all over the world who consider slashdot to be a meeting ground for intelligent people, and a source of good information. Slashdotters aren't stupid, but some of you are ignorant about this stuff. Please educate yourselves before you spout fallacies. EVs have enough perceived and political problems to overcome without intelligent people propagating incorrect information about them.

Thank you.

First of all let me say, to the few people who know what they are talking about, and posted correct information, thank you, and this obviously doesn't apply to you. For the rest of you:

I am amazed and sickened to realize how ignorant and myopic most of these posts are. I have been reading slashdot for a couple of years and researching electric vehicles off and on for about eight years. I never would have guessed that the usually intelligent, forward thinking, able to see through the BS- crowd here at slashdot would be so uneducated and unwilling to see the benefits of electric vehicles.

The idea that an EV is a greater environmental threat than any internal combustion engine (ICE) is ABSURD.

Yes, the electricity comes from plants, many of which burn coal, but those power plants burn cleaner and more efficiently than almost any ICE vehicle on the road. Think of it in terms of mass production- you can make thousands of ________ for a lot less than you can make one _______. And the same goes for kilowatts. The boiler in the power plant is always at OPTIMUM temperature, and the turbines are always spinning at OPTIMUM speed. Also, when you build a power plant in some wide open space it's easy to tack on another acre or 100 acres if you want, to install scrubbers to keep emissions in check.

For those of you who think that burning coal is so much dirtier than burning gasoline- where exactly do you think gasoline comes from? It comes from a filthy black sludge that is ostensibly liquid coal. And it has to go through extensive processing (i.e. refining) to become the "clean burning" gasoline. Do you really think that drilling hundreds of feet into the earth, pumping out sludge, using ocean freighters the size of a college and then 40 ton semi trucks to transport it to a refinery, then the refining process, and then more 40 ton trucks to get the fuel to a gas station so you can drive over there and pump it into your car, and spill some on the ground.... do you really think that's easier, cheaper, and more efficient than plugging your car into the wall at night?

Furthermore, one of the biggest problems with pollution isn't just the AMOUNT of pollutants, it's the pollution DENSITY. Using electricity from a one power plant out in the middle of nowhere to power hundreds of vehicles within a few hundred square miles is obviously going to distribute the environmental load more evenly, and the planet can process it more efficiently.

Worried about batteries as a source of pollution? Read this article. If you're to busy/lazy to read it- it addresses that specific issue, and the punchline is: batteries are better than fossil fuels.

For those of you that think electric drag racing serves no purpose- It does. With the exception of a few things that come from aerospace programs and crash testing facilities, almost every significant advancement in automotive technology has come from racing. In this case, efficiency, range, and performance are universal. Electricity obeys Ohm's Law, and that simple equation dictates that anything we learn about how to make a car go fast in a quarter mile can be directly applied to making a car go 100 miles, it just wont go as fast for that long.

"Electrical transmission has terrible efficiency, about 91% loss of energy in transmission. You're only getting 9% of an already poor energy conversion from fossil fuels, which is 3 times that of electric transmission. "

This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. That means that for 626 KWH of power that of energy that I used last month, the power plant had to make 6329 KWH. Times how many homes in a city? And how many businesses? Ohm's law is V=IR and power P=VI. Anyone who doubts that the person who posted this is wrong, please do some math. If the transmission system dissipated 91% of the energy, we'd have glowing wires running from pole to pole all over the country. Until they burst into flames.

"I haven't heard of any major advances in battery technology in years. Yes, new electronics is helping, but power density and cost are as unfavourable now as they were ten years ago."

Then you aren't paying attention. Check out evercel. They have a new Nickel-Zink battery with almost double the energy density of current lead acid technology. And this article talks about how the expense of Li-Ion batteries is based solely on it's incredible performance and politics; not on cost of materials or production. Li-Ion is better in every way than any battery currently available and will eventually be cheaper than all of them. The technology to make EVs viable is here today, you just can't get your hands on it because the people in the oil industry and people in the automotive industry are protecting their present interests.

"You have to wonder how long these motors last. That smoke you see coming out the back? No... it's not just the tires. :)

Uhmm, yes, Beavis, I think that was just the tires. Furthermore, and electric motor will survive a drag racing environment for orders of magnitude longer than an ICE engine.

"It's not about speed ...it's endurance. When I can jump into an electric car and drive from Akron to Detroit non-stop, heater, defroster, wipers, headlights and stereo all going full-blast, I'll take electric cars seriously. Until then they just don't cut the mustard.

Sorry, eco-geeks. But pound for pound, gasoline rules over batteries. I'd love to see a leap in technology that changes this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why not both? Check out the tzero built by ,ac propulsion. It has a 100 mile range (longer than the EV 1 built by GM) and is faster than a Ferrari (and Porsche, and Corvette, and everything else).

There are a lot of things that an EV wont be able to do for a long time. Like a cruise ship. But for MOST people, MOST OF THE TIME, an EV is a cleaner, quieter, cheaper (by far, on a daily basis) solution than an ICE powered car.

On the other hand there are lots of things that an ICE vehicle could never do that an EV can do. A good example of that is this hybrid electric hummer (which is discussed in more detail here) that can be operated off of it's battery pack and run in almost complete silence to sneak up on the enemy. And it outperforms it's ICE counterpart in EVERY other area (yes, even range) as shown in the graph on this page.

Normally when I read or hear about people dismissing electric vehicles, I let it pass, because most people don't have the technical knowledge to understand all of the energy conversion arguments and do the math (literally and figuratively). But I couldn't do that in this case because there are a lot of people from all over the world who consider slashdot to be a meeting ground for intelligent people, and a source of good information. Slashdotters aren't stupid, but some of you are ignorant about this stuff. Please educate yourselves before you spout fallacies. EVs have enough perceived and political problems to overcome without intelligent people propagating incorrect information about them.

Thank you.

First of all let me say, to the few people who know what they are talking about, and posted correct information, thank you, and this obviously doesn't apply to you. For the rest of you:

I am amazed and sickened to realize how ignorant and myopic most of these posts are. I have been reading slashdot for a couple of years and researching electric vehicles off and on for about eight years. I never would have guessed that the usually intelligent, forward thinking, able to see through the BS- crowd here at slashdot would be so uneducated and unwilling to see the benefits of electric vehicles.

The idea that an EV is a greater environmental threat than any internal combustion engine (ICE) is ABSURD.

Yes, the electricity comes from plants, many of which burn coal, but those power plants burn cleaner and more efficiently than almost any ICE vehicle on the road. Think of it in terms of mass production- you can make thousands of ________ for a lot less than you can make one _______. And the same goes for kilowatts. The boiler in the power plant is always at OPTIMUM temperature, and the turbines are always spinning at OPTIMUM speed. Also, when you build a power plant in some wide open space it's easy to tack on another acre or 100 acres if you want, to install scrubbers to keep emissions in check.

For those of you who think that burning coal is so much dirtier than burning gasoline- where exactly do you think gasoline comes from? It comes from a filthy black sludge that is ostensibly liquid coal. And it has to go through extensive processing (i.e. refining) to become the "clean burning" gasoline. Do you really think that drilling hundreds of feet into the earth, pumping out sludge, using ocean freighters the size of a college and then 40 ton semi trucks to transport it to a refinery, then the refining process, and then more 40 ton trucks to get the fuel to a gas station so you can drive over there and pump it into your car, and spill some on the ground.... do you really think that's easier, cheaper, and more efficient than plugging your car into the wall at night?

Furthermore, one of the biggest problems with pollution isn't just the AMOUNT of pollutants, it's the pollution DENSITY. Using electricity from a one power plant out in the middle of nowhere to power hundreds of vehicles within a few hundred square miles is obviously going to distribute the environmental load more evenly, and the planet can process it more efficiently.

Worried about batteries as a source of pollution? Read this article. If you're to busy/lazy to read it- it addresses that specific issue, and the punchline is: batteries are better than fossil fuels.

For those of you that think electric drag racing serves no purpose- It does. With the exception of a few things that come from aerospace programs and crash testing facilities, almost every significant advancement in automotive technology has come from racing. In this case, efficiency, range, and performance are universal. Electricity obeys Ohm's Law, and that simple equation dictates that anything we learn about how to make a car go fast in a quarter mile can be directly applied to making a car go 100 miles, it just wont go as fast for that long.

"Electrical transmission has terrible efficiency, about 91% loss of energy in transmission. You're only getting 9% of an already poor energy conversion from fossil fuels, which is 3 times that of electric transmission. "

This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. That means that for 626 KWH of power that of energy that I used last month, the power plant had to make 6329 KWH. Times how many homes in a city? And how many businesses? Ohm's law is V=IR and power P=VI. Anyone who doubts that the person who posted this is wrong, please do some math. If the transmission system dissipated 91% of the energy, we'd have glowing wires running from pole to pole all over the country. Until they burst into flames.

"I haven't heard of any major advances in battery technology in years. Yes, new electronics is helping, but power density and cost are as unfavourable now as they were ten years ago."

Then you aren't paying attention. Check out evercel. They have a new Nickel-Zink battery with almost double the energy density of current lead acid technology. And this article talks about how the expense of Li-Ion batteries is based solely on it's incredible performance and politics; not on cost of materials or production. Li-Ion is better in every way than any battery currently available and will eventually be cheaper than all of them. The technology to make EVs viable is here today, you just can't get your hands on it because the people in the oil industry and people in the automotive industry are protecting their present interests.

"You have to wonder how long these motors last. That smoke you see coming out the back? No... it's not just the tires. :)

Uhmm, yes, Beavis, I think that was just the tires. Furthermore, and electric motor will survive a drag racing environment for orders of magnitude longer than an ICE engine.

"It's not about speed ...it's endurance. When I can jump into an electric car and drive from Akron to Detroit non-stop, heater, defroster, wipers, headlights and stereo all going full-blast, I'll take electric cars seriously. Until then they just don't cut the mustard.

Sorry, eco-geeks. But pound for pound, gasoline rules over batteries. I'd love to see a leap in technology that changes this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why not both? Check out the tzero built by ,ac propulsion. It has a 100 mile range (longer than the EV 1 built by GM) and is faster than a Ferrari (and Porsche, and Corvette, and everything else).

There are a lot of things that an EV wont be able to do for a long time. Like a cruise ship. But for MOST people, MOST OF THE TIME, an EV is a cleaner, quieter, cheaper (by far, on a daily basis) solution than an ICE powered car.

On the other hand there are lots of things that an ICE vehicle could never do that an EV can do. A good example of that is this hybrid electric hummer (which is discussed in more detail here) that can be operated off of it's battery pack and run in almost complete silence to sneak up on the enemy. And it outperforms it's ICE counterpart in EVERY other area (yes, even range) as shown in the graph on this page.

Normally when I read or hear about people dismissing electric vehicles, I let it pass, because most people don't have the technical knowledge to understand all of the energy conversion arguments and do the math (literally and figuratively). But I couldn't do that in this case because there are a lot of people from all over the world who consider slashdot to be a meeting ground for intelligent people, and a source of good information. Slashdotters aren't stupid, but some of you are ignorant about this stuff. Please educate yourselves before you spout fallacies. EVs have enough perceived and political problems to overcome without intelligent people propagating incorrect information about them.

Thank you.

Go to AC Propulsion's web site for the details.

I agree that a Ferrari or 'Vette isn't much (maybe not any) better in the 1/4 than a Formula Firebird, Mustang GT, or Z28. Again, I say the main problem is traction. Put some fat Mickey Thompson drag slicks on the Ferrari, and I don't think it would have much trouble beating a Formula Firebird or Z28. (Depending on what model Ferrari, of course... I think the one that raced the TZero was an F355...)

As for racing a Viper, that is the NEDRA 'nemesis of choice'. They routinely race their electric drag cars against Vipers, and routinely win. (The wheelie-pooping red Mazda featured on NEDRA's home page beats a Viper in the full 1/4 mile, and is streetable (barely) to boot.)

And, as a side note, a Viper only does low 12s in the 1/4 mile, which isn't all that impressive either, when I know guys who have built cars for under $10K that run in the 10s. But, you can't really drive such vehicles on the street, and certainly not with drag slicks mounted.

I'm sure that the TZero could beat a Viper in an 1/8 mile drag. Never in a quarter, though. Only because, as I've already mentioned, the TZero has a single-speed tranny.

I can explain how they get such amazing performance with one word: TORQUE

An electric motor produces maximum torque at ZERO RPM. That allows for some pretty interesting gearing. In fact, the Current Eliminator was only recently fitted with a suitable multi-speed transmission. Previous attempts at using a multi-speed tranmission were met with failure as the Eliminator would simply destroy them with the massive torque from it's twin GE motors.

That is why rail locomotives that pull 500 ton trains use electric for the motive power. Torque.

Also, I would like to say that, as an automotive engineer (well, OK, a sysadmin for a bunch of automotive engineers), I'm most intriqued not by the environmental aspects, but by the mechanical superiority of electric vehicles. How many moving parts in a internal combustion powertrain? How many moving parts in an electric powertrain? (Don't forget that the high torque allows fewer gears in the transmission too.)

For a look at a REAL interesting electric car, head on over to AC Propulsion and have a look at the TZero. 200KWs of power. Zero to sixty in just over four seconds.

They have a few quicktimes there of the TZero beating a Ferrari and Corvette in 1/8 mile drags. (Admittedly, both the Ferrari and the 'Vette would beat the TZero in a 1/4 mile drag, because the TZero's single-speed transmission limits its top speed to about 90 MPH. So it's beating a Ferrari without even leaving first gear. :) It's quite humorous to listen to the Ferrari revving and straining through four gears while the TZero silently whips its ass.