Slashdot Mirror

The Model S's range, rated by the EPA at 265 miles with the largest battery, finally fits the American conception of driving.

But at $78,500 before a $7,500 tax rebate that doesn't fit the American concept of pricing.

It doesn't have to fit every American's price range. It just has to fit the price range of its target audience, which is people who would be buying Mercedes and BMW sedans.

(Also, that $78,500 price quoted was for a model near the top of the line-- the base model is $49,990. http://www.rsportscars.com/tesla/2013-tesla-model-s/ Still a big chunk of cash, but not significantly more than other cars of its class.)

Italian Police? I'm not surprised at all.
Look what they drive =)

But Volkswagen has a 400 km/h Beetle... Ok. They call it differently.

Have you seen the Fetish by Venturi! A VERY fast electric car.

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/venturi_fetish .asp

(needs to be modded up)

Of course, Dell isn't Honda. Dell isn't even GM. Imagine if Kia led the car market and you have something close to Dell.

But Caddys are just so....eeewww. I'd much rather lust after one of these. At least it's theoretically attainable. Now where's that crowd of little people for me to crush ruthlessly to get one....?

*Or* you could just do what I did and build my own system for far less. With nearly all the parts built into the motherboard these days, it's pretty darn easy (and cheap!) to set up a system.

Flagship models should border on unattainable for all but the elite rich. The care put into the flagship model then reflects on the rest of a company's line and modify's the customer's opinion of the company. Unfortunately, I don't see anything about this particular machine that's so amazing other than the fact that it has a lot of hardware in it. Well, that and the fact that they picked my favorite board. ;-) But putting that aside, there simply isn't anything "unattainable" about this system other than the high price tag slapped on it. Especially since I chose my "favorite board" because it *is* highly affordable despite its array of powerful features.

To carry the car analogy a little further, this is the very definition of an unattainable car. :-)

Seems to me Opel uses a simpler solution Eco speedster

Biodiesel is much more significant than solar. With the energy density similar to normal diesel fuel, you can run a car with it

Hold on - you can already (should you have enough money) buy a practical, fully electric sportscar with a 220 mile range that does 0-60 in less than 5 seconds. Insufficient energy density for electric cars, my ass. The problem is one of mass producing batteries, and of generating and distributing electricity to charge those batteries.

We should be beyond burning things in our vehicles - and electric vehicles offer a great number of advantages. Besides running clean (and shifting power generation to larger, more efficient engines), electric cars promise to be simpler, quieter, lighter and safer than gasoline cars. And there's no silly messing around with hybrids to get regenerative braking.

The problem, of course, is in upgrading our electricity generating and transmission ability to cope with electric vehicles. It doesn't matter where the power comes from - coal, gasoline, biodiesel, nuclear, baby seals - once cars are clean, the rest is back-end infrastructure that can be upgraded slowly behind the scenes as technology changes.

My point is that if we're going to spend time and effort to change anyway, we shouldn't do it to biodiesel, we should do it to electric. Think about it:

* Electric motors are here (you can buy a 100hp electric motor off the shelf that's small enough so you can have one for each wheel - instant 4wd with no weighty driveshafts).
* The lightweight and safe rolling chassis is here - airbags, crumple zones, etc.
* Batteries are almost here (eg: lithium-ion), price is now the issue.
* Electric power generation is a huge issue. The US has problems when everyone runs their air conditioning during the summer, and that's before trying to run several hundred electric vehicles.

I've been watching the technology of electric cars and solar cells for several years now. First, solar cells:

About 5 years ago I priced solar cells for my usage. The price I was paying per month averaged 7 cents per kWh (or maybe that was per Wh...I don't have my notes). When I priced solar cells then I calculated that I'd get a return on 10 100W solar cells (with average of 7 hours per day of Georgia sun) after 20 years. This means that staying at my rate of electric use at the same cost it would take me 20 years of using solar cells to pay them off and then from there on I'd have free energy.

I ran the numbers again last year. Solar cells were getting cheaper and electricity prices went up to 10 cents/kWh. The return on my investment was just under 15 years. (Georgia doesn't have electricity buyback btw). If I lived in California the payoff would be less than 5 years with the cash incentives and the high cost of electricity.

I figure I'll buy solar cells when it hits the 5-10 year payoff point. Things that contribute to that payoff are electricity price are higher electricity costs and lower solar cell prices.

At one point it'll be economically viable for anyone with a home to go solar. Replacing as many gas using products with electricity helps make more use of that 'free' energy after the payoff time. That's why I replaced my lawnmower with an electric lawnmower, bought an electric edger and have been looking at the viability of an electric car.

When looking at electric vehicles the biggest problem has been the batteries. Mainly dealing with distance. The old batteries used were lead-acid. They'd only provide around 30-40 miles at less than highway speeds. With the popularity of cell phones and laptops smaller and lighter batteries have made some major advances with NiMH and L-Ion batteries. Though the biggest trouble right now is cost the price will come down. There are electric cars out right now that can travel over 200 miles at highway speeds with high acceleration and 100+mph speeds. Though in the prototype stage the cost is not for the average consumer, but the technology is there.

But the largest drawback that the average Joe consumer has been the idea of plugging in their car for some reason. This is why the hybrid manufacturers are so paranoid about giving any indication that their hybrids might have some plug in possibility, their main message "You don't have to plug it in".

My largest concern has been that I'd have to have a gas vehicle along with my electric car for long distance drives. The average daily mileage is 45 miles, but at times Americans like to drive for long distances. With this plug in hybrid it says the first 60 miles are all electric, and from the article I read they didn't even use the L-ion batteries which would probably triple that distance. This car would be able to provide decent daily driving without gas with the backup factor of a gasoline engine that can be used for long trips.

Plus these are production vehicles. The electric cars I've looked at are prototypes made by small auto-makers who mainly create the cars using manual labor on a small scale creating a huge http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/venturi_fetish .aspcost.

The plug-in hybrid has great potential and as the technology develops as new technology tends to do it will lead us down a road where the potential is a completely viable way for people to cut gasoline usage to a minimum and potentially use solar energy for their energy needs.

Is it necessarily here yet? Yes, for the early adoptors. Not yet for others. But this is a good direction.

"Hydrogen is a Boondoggle. The energy density is so low, that we might as well use batteries if we're going to power vehicles with it." -StCredZero

http://www.rfmsports.com/SWC/Photos/RS6_RB_3.JPG

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/m3gtr_4.jpg

(Ok, it's an M3 - I couldn't find any evidence that anyone seriously races a modern M5 - which is kind of sad. But also consider that the new M5 has underbody aerodynamics and a rear diffuser to combat rear lift, so in essence it does have a rear wing, its just hidden underneath the car, not something that can be easily re-engineered onto a car.)

On your other points, no one 'needs' anything other than maybe a pure utility vehicle. So as long as we are allowing people to choose their own vehicles, why not allow them to make their own choices in how to modify them as well? Does putting neon in a computer case make it run any faster? It's not a matter of need, or even of function, - it's individual taste, whether you or I like it or not.

Also, I don't know what you consider 'high speed', but wings can be effective at as little as 60mph. I agree that most probably don't do anything, at any speed.

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car.

Click Here

I actually, understand that pretty much over the whole life span of the Viper, it has consistantly turned in lower emission numbers that most cars of the same year...

Now, why can't they put that kinda fun car into production for a little more reasonable price??

Still...the older ones are not that expensive anymore...and many have very low mileage...

The maximum torque is about 350 Nm, that's the same torque as the maximum torque of a Ferrari sports car

Not true. The Ferrari 575M Maranello produces 588.6 Nm (434 lb-ft) at 5,250 rpm. See here.

A 2004 Dodge Viper SRT-10 produces 712 Nm (525 lb-ft) at 4,200 rpm. See here.