Slashdot Mirror
Electric Car Bests Ferrari F550 In 0-60mph
Mind Mage writes: "It finally seems that electric cars are becoming worthy of consideration for performance automotive enthusiasts. Here's a link to an L.A. Times article describing AC Propulsion's new electric 'sports car.' The T-zero does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds and pulls .88G on skid pad tests. The manufacturer's web side has some Quick Time movies of the T-zero drag racing a Porsche 911-4, a Corvette, and the F550. I wonder how many 1/8 mile drag runs the T-zero can sustain before having to recharge the battery?" Electric car racing isn't new, but seems to be making faster strides than ye olde (and formidable) internal combustion engine.
The biggest problems come from the smaller (relatively) oil companies that do the actual exploration/drilling/etc. They are not large enough to be diversified, and they must keep the "oil dependency" in order to survive. Ask George W. about it.
I'm not a fan of large corporations, but the big guys are well aware of the limited supply, and are putting a lot of money into other systems/fuels. They win either way, and so they're relatively neutral in the fight. We need to watch out for the 2nd tier corporations and their buddies. They're less well known, and consequently are able to avoid public scrutiny, while they pay off politicians and buy barrelfulls of lobbyists.
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
Yeah, until another dam is required, at which point another river is blocked and several more square miles of land are put underwater, etc
Hydro is nice and it doesn't pollute, but it has its drawbacks, make no mistake. Also, individual cars can still be more or less efficient in their use and storage of electricity (but wouldn't be as bad as gas)
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The car itself weighs 2400lbs ... which while light, isn't a mind bogglingly low weight. The Honda S2000 weighs 2600lbs for example.
Having an engine that can't be shifted isn't exactly what I'd call an advantage, unless you think that your car would work better in 4th gear all the time.
The reason it IS so fast is the powerband of the electric motor. Unlike petrol based engines that have a nice rounded powerband, electric motors reach their peak torque quickly. Not only that, but they hold that torque across the powerband. The other reason is that the drivetrain is more efficient than what'd you find on a typical petrol powered car.
Compared to an equal sized car with similar "paper" numbers, this car IS amazingly fast. The closest thing you can probably come to it on paper is the S2000, which makes 200hp and only weighs 200lbs more. It reaches 60 nearly 2 seconds faster.
The fact that the car can only be driven 100 miles at 60mph is rather prominately stated on their website. It's not like they try and hide that fact from you.
Range: No EV is going to deliver great range. They don't need to either, because you can't recharge them in a reasonable amount of time (5 minutes). What does this mean? No cross country trips. So you're "stuck" driving it around town. How many people in this country actually drive more than 100 miles in a day, around town. You'll find that people who do WON'T be driving this car (real-estate agents, for example). As a person who drives a LOT every day, a 100 mile range isn't unreasonable.
People also need to stop thinking about electric cars compared to normal gas cars. Just because you can go 2 weeks without stopping by a gas station doesn't mean you need an EV to do the same.
0.88g on the skidpad is also rather respectable. It isn't very good compared to the F550, but it's right there with most other cars in the "sport" class.
The reason why this car is a big deal is that it helps eliminate the stereotype that electric cars are slugs. If you want an EV that can give a Diablo a run for it's money you can have one.
Don't get too excited. All an electric car does is moves the power generation from the inside of your car to a powerplant outside your city, which probably produces more pollution by burning coal. Better car performance is cool, but this doesn't have any environmental benefits.
Please don't spread completely incorrect assumptions like this around here. You're wrong. Let's say you have a 100MW coal-fired generating station. The average output of a good-sized car engine is about 200kW or so (that might be a little bit on the high side). If you think that 500 large car engines running flat out are a better bet than a properly running plant with a turbine, I have a bridge to sell you. Not only from an emissions standpoint - but there's lubricants, replacement parts, lifetimes - that plant is probably good for 50 years - how many 1950's engines you going to run flat out for 50 years? This translates into bigtime savings in emissions and environmental pollution elsewhere. And that's coal - some of the messiest. There's lots of surplus hydro power in Canada - but you gotta get it from us Canucks. Keep suckin back the juice so my taxes will go down! :)
ELECTRIC CARS HAVE LOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. The problem is getting a battery technology that lasts long enough to be cost effective, or getting fuel cells to have the outputs required to make them cost effective. A properly designed electric motor will run as long as it's OWNER if it's kept within it's temperature specs - and you can overclock motors, too :) - compare that with your average ICE GM product.
I suppose you drive a SUV and think it's safer, too. (Sorry, couldn't resist. That was uncalled for :).
..don't panic
...I would just want: Reasonable acceleration/top speed. A good looking (if small) car. Reasonable range (say 300-500 Km on a single charge) Reasonable re-charge time from a normal home circuit (over night perhaps). A reasonable price tag. I don't think I can get all of that just yet.
BlackNova Traders
While I'm the first to agree this is cool, and shows off the strides that have been made in electric car systems, it's hardly more than a showcase for top systems rather than the real systems that are required for everyday use, which are still somewhat lacking when it comes to things like efficiency.
What we really need is for electric cars to overtake petrol based cars in terms of miles/gallon - without this there is absolutely no chance of them ever taking off as anything other than a curiosity for people with money and an environmental conscience. And given that the giant fuel companies are hardly likely to welcome such developments, it may take significant benefits to allow people to make the change.
Still, it's good to see that the state of the art is progressing so quickly - these developments will eventually filter down to affordable systems and bring electric cars onto the streets for normal people sooner.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
What's it like working at NASA?
that works out to about $500 per year
The batteries for the T-zero cost $3000, and need to be replaced about every 3 years.
that works out to about $1000 per year...
The comparison to a Ferrari is particularly ironic, imho. The Ferrari, as a massively expensive sports car, is not just a high-performance vehicle. It's also a status symbol. An expensive entrenched status symbol.
It won't be enough for electric cars to perform better than internal-combustion cars. We've had cleaner alternatives to gasoline for years now, and most have flopped. Part of that has to do with the economics of scale and the relative abundance of petroleum on our planet (more available and cheaper than milk), but part of that also has to do with image.
The dragracer is an important ideographic image in American culture. He is defined by his sleek car and fast speeds, but he is also defined by the clouds of smoke that trail behind him as he burns rubber. Will a "clean" electric car cast the same fiery clouds of masculine brimstone in his wake? Will manufacturers be able to overcome the perceived impotence of electric vehicles?
The trend has sadly been away from fuel efficiency. SUVs and diesel trucks hog the roads. Unless electric cars are fundamentally cheaper or better performance-wise, they will flop for sure. And it'll be years before the prices come down out of the stratosphere.
Actually thats a GOOD THING.
I'll Explain:
Pollution is bad in any form but what makes it worse is distributed pollution. The kind emitting from many sources spread out over a wide area. That type of pollution has farther reaching effects. Centralized pollution, while not necessarily GOOD, is better than spread out pollution. It is easier to manage, filter, process and monitor than say 5 million little pollution generators roaming all over the city.
Moving the combustion of the oil to the powerplants makes it much easier and cheaper to apply new future pollution reducing technologies.
Right now everyone has to buy a new car if something reducing pollution appears on the market. Applying the technology to a smaller number of oil powerplants would be much cheaper.
These powerplants would probably be able to use the fuel more effeciently also.
Bah. My Suzuki GSX-1300R Hayabusa will do it in 2.2, maxes out at just 17mph below the F1, and at a list price of $10,999, costs approximately 1% of your McLaren. And it looks about as cool, too.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Fianlly, as a Canadian I can say that it is not simply Americans who pollute Canada. Ontario, our most industrialized province, has rather lax pollution standards, and various American states are starting to complain. Of course, Ontario complains about American pollution too so no one really knows what is going on.
I couldn't have said it better myself! The petroleum cartel is a group of self-worshipping whores, nothing more.
Here's a true story that might interest you: (Americans, s/sulphur/sulfur/)
Recently, the Canadian government asked all oil companies doing business in Canada to submit their sulphur content data, and the gov't agreed to keep it secret. (Sulphur in gas is bad for engines and emission control systems.) A reporter found out about this and filed an FOIA request. The gov't took him to court, and lost.
The results (for fuel sold in Ontario, and probably Quebec) were shocking:
- Esso (Imperial Oil, a division of ExxonMobil): ~750 ppm sulphur
- Petro Canada: ~500 ppm sulphur
- Shell (Royal Dutch Shell Group NV): ~425 ppm sulphur
- Sunoco (div. of Suncor Energy): ~250 ppm sulphur
Comments from Esso's gov't submission were also published, including this (paraphrased) gem: "This information must not be made public to avoid possible consumer boycotts."Ever since that news broke (18 months ago or so), I have bought less than 120 litres of Esso fuel. Before then, I bought at least 75% of my fuel from Esso. This is fairly major, since I drive 60,000 km per year, so I buy a LOT of gas.
Sunoco now gets as much of my business as I can give it, with Shell second, PetroCan third, and Esso dead last. Even if I'm sucking fumes and the only gas station around is an Esso, I'll buy 1/4 or 1/2 of a tank to get me to the next Sunoco or Shell.
Incidentally, Honda Canada has issued a recall on all 1998 Accord V6 models to replace an intake manifold component with a freer-flowing version as a result of sulphur in fuel clogging the EGR system. Also, excess sulphur in fuel can foul up the fuel level sensor in your fuel tank by changing the resistance of it. Mine had to be replaced (under warranty, thankfully), and I think that's 100% due to my addiction to Esso fuel at the time.
I'll stop ranting now. (This is a subject that really gets me going...)
--
Several posts have mentioned that electric cars just move polution. They argue what used to be generated in cars will be created at power plants. This is true, but wrong.
The fact is, there will be LESS polution generated at the power plants. Besides being more efficient at converting fuels to power, not every power plant is poluting. For example, us drivers in hydroelectric rich British Columbia (Motto: Keeping California's Lights Burning) would be able to enjoy guilt-free driving right now.
The worst case is that some polution will still be generated at the plants, but at last there will be much less of it. More importantly, the the power is produced in centralized locations. This means if the power plants become 5% more efficient all of the EXISTING vehicles create less polution.
Not to mention that as more power plants shift away from nasty sources of energy like coal, every electric cars on the road will become truely polution-free almost overnight.
Check this out
h tml
;)
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/guynegre.html
and
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.
basically it's an air compressed car that goes at about 60mph top speed that can go for about 120 miles between charges. To charge it you basically plug it in an electrical outlet, and the compressor compresses the air to fill the tank.
It's also interesting that, due to some carbon filters, the exhaust air is cleaner than the air that goes in
I wonder why there's not more buzz about it, it seems really cool for short range movements, I know if I had one I would surely use it for the work/home commute...
-- the cake is a lie
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.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.