Slashdot Mirror
More on the Tango Electric Car
jj00 writes "Here is an interesting story about a father-son built car in Spokane, Washington. What is most surprising is its top speed (130 MPH) and its weight (about the same as a Camry), and it runs on batteries!"
It gets 80 miles per charge and has a pretty respectable top speed, but if it's just a small father-son venture then what wider scale impact will it have on cars? Don't take this the wrong way, I'm all for any kind of advancement in electric car mass production, but if this is just a two person personal project then there may not be much point in it.
Of course, I might just be missing the point completely and this is just a cool hack and not something practical.
Bash script for FP whores
I think the grand parent was aksing what is the lifespan of the batteries, not how far the charge will take you. In fact, I would like to know as that is the real problem.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
(The Smart is the Mercedes-built minicar you can see zipping around European cities).
Practical, easy to park, and completely disappointing sales.
Why? Most cars are not bought because they are economical or easy to park. They are bought because they are the meanest, biggest, fastest machines the limited budget will buy. Cars are as much, or more about conspicuous consumption as they are about getting from point A to point B.
It's a nice idea, but won't quite work as a "mine's bigger than your's" concept.
Perhaps they can steal some ideas from how Smarts are sold here: mainly rented out, plastered with advertising, since people love look at them, but hate the idea of doing the morning commute in them.
Make cities smaller, walk more.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Actually, it's probably quite stable. Most electric cars have 80% or more of their mass in the batteries that are down below the axle level. So from that standpoint anyway, they're pretty safe.
The first thing I thought of when I read the article was WHY? Why would anybody make an electric with that kind of performance? With an 80 mile range, it's obviously just going to be a commuter car. It'll probably spend 90% of its time in heavy stop and go traffic. I mean, that's supposed to be part of the appeal of the thing, right? It's small and maneuverable and you can park it just about anywhere. So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130? (and is anyone else wondering what the real numbers would be if someone took that thing out to a drag strip and timed it?)
Couldn't they put in a motor that's a little less beefy and knock the price down a few thou? Wouldn't that improve its range and make it safer?
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
Its not the design of this vehicle itself that has me so concerned - I think its a really nice design for short low-speed commuting trips - its just that it has to share the road with monsters. I feel like a roach on a sidewalk. It won't make much difference even if they pass laws making it illegal to step on a roach. Its gonna happen.
Which leads me to my favorite pet peeve of the people who regulate use of the highways... why isn't there some law that mandates a certain standardized height off the road for bumpers, so that in the event of a collision, the bumpers take the hit? Or having heights of headlamps standardized?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
"Safety? It has jet-pilot seat belts and a racing-regulation roll cage; it weighs more than 3,000 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Camry, including 1,100 pounds of Yellow Top batteries under the floorboards as ballast, so it's not tippy on turns." from the article
I don't know man, this 3,000 pound car weighs more than my Mazda Protege (approx. 2.6k pounds)
-mandalayx
And it's obviously much smaller. I wonder how it would do in a crash test. It looks like a dense bullet compared to other cars.
-SKPhoton
In terms of being able to survive a collision with another vehicle, I don't really think the weight of the vehicle is the important issue. Larger cars are safer than smaller cars not because they weigh more, but because they have more room to let the car crumple to absorb the energy created by a collision.
If you don't have this extra room, not only is the body of the vehicle more likely to collapse on you, but you also will have much higher g-forces during the crash. In a large car you might have a foot or 2 of 'crunch' space before the car becomes rigid and forcing you to a very rapid stop. In a very small car such as this, even if the body of the car maintained it's integrity during the crash (it doesn't crush you) you'd be much more prone to be injured by rapid deceleration because it lacks this 'crunch' space that would allow it a smoother deceleration.
Notably absent from the article is any mention of the energy efficiency of this beast. At one-and-a-half-tons, it hauls around a lot of mass for a single seater.
We seem to assume that because we can't see or smell it that electricity is 'free energy.' Electricity is not free; electrical energy generation and storage are horribly inefficient and not particularly environmentally friendly. Radioactive waste, diverted watersheds, burnt fossil fuels, or lead-acid batteries are friendly neither to your pocket book nor to your planet.
That said, I do acknowledge that the creators' original intent was to use fuel cells which may prove to be a superior energy delivery system. However, even if I subtract out 1000 lbs for the
batteries, the car is still very heavy for its capacity. Even worse than the new Mini, which weighs more than double the original.
I'd guess that part of the reason for the speed is "because we could". But also, electric cars are generally seen as toy cars. Mention that this 'toy' car accelerates faster than a Porsche, and suddenly it seems much less toy like.
So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130?
To make it fun to drive
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think it would depend on how you charge them. Stuffing an 80% charge into them in 10 minutes probably wouldn't do any favors for future cycles, nor will driving them to the point of death (deep discharge). If you treat them right, I read that most lead-acid batteries will last 2 or 3 years in an EV situation.
Alternatively, they could have used Ni-Mh or NiCads, which will last 5 times longer and have a considerably higher energy density and therefore range. If lead-acid batteries will take the car 80 miles, Ni-Mh's or Nicads would probably take it from LA to San Diego on one charge.
The speed and acceleration is there simply because they can.
The performance of the motor is due to the strength of the electromagnets in it, and that's very cheap to increase compared to a gas engine. Gas provides more staying power, but it can't touch electric for raw performance.
That's probably part of it, but weight matters also due to decelleration forces. If that energy isn't going into the mass of the car, it's going into you.
I guess there's a lot for me to understand. Its not a crash with another Tango that scares me, its the crash with the Ford Excursion that scares me... and its not the fact he just hits me, its that not only does he hit me, he then proceeds to drive OVER me. The law of inertia would make this scenario inevitable. I don't know if this car's roll bar was designed to dissipate the energy of a ton of mass heading my way. But then, thats true with any car - its just that if you are physically bigger, you have a higher probability of simply getting pushed out of the way in lieu of being run over.
I know. Call me paranoid. I am this way because I already drive a small car and am I intimidated by these monsters I see all over the road? Hell yes!
My only advantage is I get about 40 miles per gallon.. but the disadvantage is I probably will not survive any substantial accident, due to my much smaller size/mass.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
WhilstI would dearly love to end our reliance on fossil fuels (and as a side benefit other than the environment, America could come home and stop trying to rule the world to ensure its own fuel supply), the electric car won't take off because it has an image problem.
People don't want to buy a car because it's good for the environment, they don't buy it for its fuel efficiency, and they don't buy it because it'll seat half a basketball team. They buy a car mostly because they are a status symbol way of getting from A to B. So, to sell electric cars, here's a small list of how to make them DESIRABLE:
1. Make it FAST. 0-60MPH in 4 seconds minimum. (Doesn't matter if you actually USE that acceleration, it's street cred poser value, for the most part the "mine's bigger than yours" syndrome)
2. Make it STYLISH. Not your usual avant garde electric enviro-car. Take a look at rally cars and real sports cars for inspiration. Get Porsche or Ferrari to build one.
3. Get them seen in public, not as show cars, but being used to do things better than their petrol counterparts. Rally driving, motor racing etc. Give them performance in spades, ultra-low C of G, and watch them out-turn regular cars.
4. Get the racing fraternity (all types) to hold competitions. I mean REAL F1 or TOCA type competitions that use cars you'd be able to buy. Not the solar/electric challenge type competition that most people only see as the dead donkey story at the end of the news.
5. Finally, make them rechargeable through simple means ie. domestic power plugs or some other common infrastructure ALREADY IN PLACE. Chicken and egg scenarios are doomed from the get go.
Do those things, and you will sell electric cars. Until then, it's never going to take off.
Visceral Psyche Films
"You are probably one of those people who think motorcycles are to dangerous."
You're probably one of those people who hasn't seen the statistics lately. Do you know what the police and emergency services call motorcycle drivers? Donors. And don't give me this `it's only unsafe because of nasty car drivers`. So what? Danger is danger no matter who's fault it is.
Why do they hope to ask $20000 for the mass produced model when one could find much cheaper gasoline mass produced cars?
Electric engines are much simpler, smaller and cheaper than combustion ones and electric cars transmission systems can be much more simplified, thus cheaper. A good set of batteries cannot stand the huge amount of money saved by -not- using a combustion engine.
Plus, current sockets aren't widely available like gas stations.
I like that car, as did most people cited in the article, but they need a killer price to actually make people want to buy it now.
While the cost per mile of the Tango is impressive compared to theo ther cars on the list the TCO of the tango if driven long distances drops considerably. If your commute involves any freeway driving at all the TCO for the tango is downright horrible. If you've got a 64 mile commute (32 there, 32 back) your battery is only going to hold out for about 16,000 miles or about 250 commutes. That isn't even a year before your battery pack needs to be replaced. Over 100,000 miles the Tango costs you more to operate than a Hummer H2 if you live somewhere like California with low power rates easily topping 15/KWh.
The sweet spot for the Tango seems to be the "average" 20 mile commuter. This sweet spot quickly erodes if you're able to carpool or if you need to transport more than one person anywhere. The 2.6 per mile for the Tango is nice if you're alone but if the 3 per mile in a Prius gets four people to work or school you're getting way more for the penny.
The Tango is a neat idea but like many other electric offerings it makes too many sacrifices to utility. The gasoline or diesel hybrids have TCO ratings as low as the Tango and much lower than the average multipassenger electric. Getting one person somewhere for the same cost as a car that can get four people there isn't very useful nor economical.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
More mass means more kinetic energy when moving. This kinetic energy is transferred during a collision, and this is what kills the passengers of the Yugo, but it doesn't protect the passengers of the M1 much. If it were two M1s colliding, probably noone would survive.
These vehicles do nothing to solve pollution, to get energy you need to have it stored somewhere. Either in a liquid fuel or in a battery. Batteries need charging and so you need electricity, to produce electricity you need to burn stuff, start off some nuclear reaction or use loads of wind power.
:)
All you're doing really is relocating the pollution elsewhere or changing the form of the pollution.
Also the batteries and motors will have a limited life and will need replacing. A diesel engine can last around 200,000 miles, I don't think an electric motor will last that long. These cars do nothing to solve the waste that is used tyres, millions of tyres are used each year and there's no simple way of recycling them.
So guys, stop wasting your time and invent the teleporter!
That is absolute nonsense.
Consumers do NOT choose rationally - hence the huge market for trucks as family transport. Governments have a responsibility to enhance the lives of their electorate by legislating improvements in the efficiency and safety of vehicles on sale to the public.
That was classic intercourse!
The reason they're making it a sports car is so they can sell it! I mean, its fun to make it a sports car, but commuter cars have a huge disadvantage here in the U.S. Mainly, they look like they're for dorks.
I mean that will all due respect. They're funny looking. And the people with the most money to spend on cars are baby-boomers who saw a nation built on the automobile. Americans take pride in cars, which may not be the case in every nation in the world. To an American, a car is a status symbol, an emancipator (public transit in such a huge nation isn't always available), a work of art. It's hard to sell an audience like that on a car that looks tiny and goofy.
As an aside, I recently purchased a brand new car. I thought hard about what kind of car I wanted, and what I would need. I balanced fuel economy and size and functionality and performance. I bought a Subaru Impreza WRX. It gets 25 mph, is roomy, easy to park in boston, incredibly safe, and goes very fast.
I think in the future that as cars become more fuel efficent, construction projects free up more traffic jams (BIG DIG!), and alternatives become available, it will offset the pollution and road space problems.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I too would love to have an EV for short trips and around town driving, but not being numerically challenged, I find it tough to make a convincing case that even this Tango can make any practical sense, or indeed, even save any fossil fuel.
I agree SUV's are not the ideal urban runabout. Like many folks I have an SUV for heavy lifting and a smaller car for quick/short trips. I also have a motorcycle that makes many trips that would otherwise be in the two seater.
My gut feeling is that the electric car cannot compete with even the motorcycle, much less the two seater, in practical real-world use. And if I had one of these things instead of the two seater gas buggy, I would be forced to use the SUV a lot more, since the 80 mile range is too limiting.
I frequently take the two seater into SF (103 miles round trip) for quick trips, and these would then be necessarily be done using the SUV, as the range of the EV is just too short.
Let's do a few calculations.
Have you looked at what PG&E charges for electricity in California? Most people think because their residence bill averages 15 or 16 cents per kWh, that they can run an electric car from the same juice. But they overlook the fact that electricity is sold in tiers, where the more you use the more it costs. Drive that car very much and you could be paying up to 52 cents per kWh, depending on what zone you live in. Top tier is minimum 32 cents/kWh almost anywhere in PG&E space, higher in many places. And it doesn't take a lot of electricity usage to bump you into the top tier. Most users are buying at least a few kWh already at top rates because their usage is right on the edge of the zone boundry. Especially during the summer when they lower the tiers.
One Gallon of gasoline has about 110,000 BTU, and costs about $1.70 here and now. (actually, my last tank was $1.61) $1.70 worth of electricity at the residential tier is about 10 kWh, give or take a bit. 10 kWh delivers 34150 BTU. At the rate of $.52 per kWh, the number of BTU delivered is more like 11,000 for the same money.
So to be viable, your electric car must be 3x to 10x more efficient at extracting motion from BTU than a car.
I usually drive an older two seater for trips around town. I also frequently take my motorcycle. The two seater gets 30+ mpg, or about 3600 BTU per mile. The motorcycle does a bit better than this. Do we have a comparable number for this car?
No. But let's speculate a bit.
He says 3 hours to recharge in a dryer socket. Ok, I assume we're talking 30 amp service here, so 230V @ 30 amp or 6900 watts. Times three hours is roughly 20 kWh. Or 70,000 BTU. Assume 80 miles on this, that's 883 BTU/Mile. So let's assume there is some discount for hype, and assume 900 BTU per mile. Compared to 3600 BTU/Mile for an ordinary 12 year old two seater. So we have a base assumption that the electric is 4x as efficient as the Gas buggy. But electricity costs a lot more than gasoline per BTU.
So, let's change our calculation to cents per mile for fuel.
Two seater = 5.6 (assumes 30 mpg and $1.70 per gal), with a range of 3.3 cents/mile to about 6 cents per mile depending on gas prices and freeway/city driving. ($1.39 at some places in recent memory, and 42 MPG freeway)
EV = 7.9 (assumes 3.8 Miles per kWh @ 30 cents/kWh), with a range of 3.1 to 13.6 cents/mile depending on pricing tier and zone. But in most places, if you drive very much, you are quickly going to be in the top tier, and your cost will quickly approach 10 cents/mile or more.
I also frequently drive an SUV (Chevy Tahoe). It gets 16 MPG on average (I drive with a light foot, and usually only take it when I am going on a trip, thus lots of freeway use), or about 6800 BTU per mile. This translates to 10.6 cents per mile.
National average is that the utilities burn 10,242,000 BTU of fuel (mostly fossil fuel, but also includes nukes, and other sources) to deliver one megawatt to the consumer. One me
I think we are due for another 70s oil crisis and I will happily contend with my tank a month and 10 bucks a fill up attitude.
FUCK everybody who has an SUV!!!
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.