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!"
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.
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.
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
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!