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!"

30 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. "Golf cart on steroids!" by alwsn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Golf cart on steroids!"

    Hrm, how about Shiny, Fast, Red Coffin.

    I'm all for electric cars, and I understand that the creators wanted something to cut through traffic, but I don't think I'd really want to move one of these things through traffic next to insane soccer moms in their H2s.

    1. Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" by anubi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes.. I hate to be too critical of the design, bur you know inertia.. the thing that allowed a little piece of foam to do in our space shuttle. I am concerned about this inertia. Here you have half-ton of batteries traveling at some velocity with you right on top of them. Say, you collided with a SUV. I get the idea those batteries and their narrow wheelbase would go right under the SUV, leaving me with the SUV trailer hitch right in my mouth.

      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]

    2. Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" by alwsn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" by vanyel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      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.

    4. Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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."

      We could test that theory. You drive a Yugo and I'll give you the crumple "advantage" by driving an M1 Abrams tank. We'll drive into each other head-on each going 50.

    5. Re:"Golf cart on steroids!" by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Bullshit. You shouldn't take a Yugo and a M1 but a car with crumple zones and a car without crumple zones, each weighing the same.

      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.

  2. Safety by SKPhoton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looking at the car, one can't help but wonder about its 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."

    If they put air bags in the thing, it'd compress you quite well. They need pictures of the inside of the car as well. I would not like to see this car in an accident. Even the "bumper" if you would call it that, is virtually non-existant.

    So you have enough room for a passenger in the back? A comfortable passenger or tightly squeezed passenger?

    "A narrow car could or even travel between lanes, like a motorcycle." could it? sure. could it legally? uhh

  3. Re:Yes, but... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. YOU'D BETTER KEEP THOSE THINGS OUT OF TEXAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here in Texas, we believe in burning good old fashioned fossil fuels, and preferably lots of them. Electric cars have no place in our state. Houston is the #1 most polluted city in the USA, and we don't intend to give up the title without a fight.

    We suggest you take your electric car back to California where it came from and come back with a proper Texas sized pickup truck or SUV.

    Yours truly,
    Fmr Guvner of Texas George Walker Bush

  5. Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  6. Website has videos! by fmita · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out their website at http://www.commutercars.com . Under the gallery section, they've got a video of it in action. Pretty neat-o.

  7. Fantastic! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love it. It's small, efficient, fast, and has plenty range to get me around town. I'm first in line to get the 20 grand "peoples model."

    I rather doubt I'd do 130 in it, though. But having 1100 pounds of batteries under the floorboards it great for stability. But in terms of crash safety, something this small and dense (Just shy of a ton with NO batteries) looks like it would get crushed by it's own intertia in a crash with a structure.

    At any rate, it doesn't mesh very well with oil companies or automakers, and they will probably pay out the ass to make it fail. GE offered to do a small test run, then rescinded and sued California over the 10% ZEV requirement. I mean, for almost all practical purposes around town this could replace our Camry. Except for long-distance trips or visits to the hardware store, it will do just as well. But it doesn't feed oil companies nearly as much money, and automakers make a bigger profit selling Stupid Useless Vehicles (to most who buy them).

    I would have to agree that, for most people, it is indeed un-American to drive an SUV. Most of you don't need the damn thing, and by getting 8 MPG you just give middle-eastern oil theocracies more economic weapons to hold at our throats.

  8. Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Yes, but... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Yes, but... by amorsen · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is lifespan that much of a problem? This thing uses lead-acid batteries. They are dirt cheap and relatively easily recycled, and there is already a large industry built around them. Contrast that with about every other electric car using fancy NiCD/NiMH or even Lithium batteries.

    The only major problem I see with that choice is all that lead floating around. But the production of the fancy battery types is not exactly environmentally friendly anyway. Well ok, the other problem is the 80 mile range. That works out to a 10 minute stop every hour to hour-and-a-half or so, if stations are placed optimally. Such frequent breaks could easily help traffic safety.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  11. Don't let mass transit die by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article William Garrison, UC Berkeley professor emeritus and co-author of "Tomorrow's Transportation." "People want variety . . . They don't want people telling them what to do. We wealthy people with bleeding hearts say we need mass transit for the poor. The hell with that. The poor need money. If they had money, they wouldn't take transit."

    I'm sorry Mr Garrison, but people do want variety. I'm all for effective electric cars, but we should allow our already working mass transit systems be developed to be equally or more convenient to use at the same time. In paris, you don't need a train time table: the trains are always two minutes apart. In Australia, tramstops have little touchscreen kiosks which allow you to plan your route, buy a ticket and even optimise your time.

    I want my big SUV to go out bushbashing and hauling lumber in a trailer, I want to be able to rent/buy a small electric two seater so that don't get quashed in a road accident that would have killed a motorcyclist when I go shopping on my own and I want to be able to buy a ticket to a train that runs on time so I can read manuals or highlight meeting minutes or just plain sleep on my way to my tech job in the city where parking is a pain in the ass anyway.

  12. Okay I'm a pig... by gykh · · Score: 4, Funny
    Warning: You read this at your own discretion. Not politically correct. In the slightest. With bells on.
    "Cool," declares a 20-year-old strawberry blonde, snapping a paparazzi shot. "Can I borrow it and drive to California?" A silvery couple in matching pink polo shirts inquires about the nearest dealership. A woman with toddlers wants to know about safety. --emphasis mine

    Did anyone else scroll back up to check if the author was a woman?

    Don't call me chauvanist - any Real Man? would have written:
    "Cool," declares a hot chick, snapping a paparazzi shot. "Can I borrow it and drive to California?" A couple of homosexual seniors inquire about the nearest dealership. The hot chick (with encumbrances) wants to know about safety.

  13. Re:Center of Gravity - 160MPH? by vanyel · · Score: 4, Informative
    From their posts on the EV list, they're going for the fun exotic factor to justify the $80K price a limited production vehicle has to get. After the early adopters have gotten things going, then they can ramp up and lower the cost. At least that's my understanding of the plan...

    And if you look at the videos, you can see that it's *very* stable.

    The motor that's in it is a small fraction of the cost.

    They've had it at Woodburn, Oregon's annual EV drag races in earlier prototypes. Come to this year's (August 31) and if you're lucky, maybe they'll bring one this year.

    Come to the OEVA EV Awareness Day tomorrow (today? July 26) and if you're real lucky, maybe they'll have one here then too (they did last year).

  14. Re:economical or not? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recall this was worked out in an issue of Discover...

    Using fossil fuels in your car directly is at most 26 or so % efficient. Fossil fuels at a plant are turned into electric at ~40% efficiency, to battery charge at ~90%, and to motion at ~85%, totalling around 30% efficiency. So even with the losses in all the intervening steps, you will at worst break even and more likely still keep some pollutants out of the air. Of course, if it comes from a renewable source then it's already pollution-free. If it comes from Nu-Ku-Ler, then you're responsible for a few grams of radioactive waste out of around 2 cubic meters per year.

    There is also the fact that most fossil fuel plants are built where people are not there to inhale the fumes, while cars discharge their fumes exactly where people are: on the road.

  15. what happens to batteries in an accident by Barbarian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, with talk of electric cars, I wonder what's going to happen in a medium-speed crash with lots of batteries in a car. Sulfuric acid everywhere?

  16. How to sell an electric car by Quizo69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Obligatory Simpsons Quote: by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Funny

    -- Who holds back electric car?
    -- We do! We do!

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  18. Re:Electric is not a synonym for efficient by frenchs · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the manufacturer website:

    For that average commute of 20 miles and up to 24 miles per charge, the total cost per mile of the Tango is approximately 30% lower than that of a Honda Insight. This includes battery replacement, maintenance, and the cost of electricity at $.05 per kWh (as in the Northwest). The Honda Insight has an EPA rating of 56 mpg city and 57 highway.

    Link To Reference Here

  19. Re:efficiency compared to gas by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Yes, but... by CryBaby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what about hydroelectic cars? No batteries to replace. Unlimited range. All you need is lots and lots of fresh, clean water!

    No, seriously, this car is cool and everything but I'm far more excited by fuel cell vehicles. There are already production models with a > 200 mile range. Now if the government would just give us one of the tiny hydrogen convertors on those UFO's they have stashed away...

  21. Re:Yes, but... by kittenthief · · Score: 5, Funny

    why do I imagine... "requres 10,000 Double A NiCad batteries (not Included)"???

  22. Check out the Downloads page by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cost per Mile (ICE vs Tango)

    You'll get maximum mileage from your batteries if you only drive the car 20-24 miles per charge; the chart indicates you'd get ~80,000 miles from the batteries. If you max out and drive 80 miles per charge (the maximum range), you'd cut that total down to ~16,000 miles.

    At that point, the car really loses it cost effectiveness, as each battery pack costs $2,500. Driving it 80 miles per charge would probably make it as expensive to drive as the Hummer H2. Still, can you imagine what an improvement in battery technology could do for a car like this? It would push the TCO (total cost of ownership) of the car way down............

  23. Less pollution? by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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! :)

    1. Re:Less pollution? by Zouden · · Score: 5, Informative

      All you're doing really is relocating the pollution elsewhere or changing the form of the pollution.

      True, but in the end it works out more efficient: because a large power plant is designed solely to produce power, it is much more efficient and cleaner at doing it than a small combustion engine is, even taking power transport into consideration.
      We don't all have diesel generators in our back sheds to power our homes, because it is cheaper and cleaner to have a high-effeciency power plant supplying millions of homes.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  24. The batteries cannot leak. by 1337_h4x0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    SEALED, VIBRATION RESISTANT, AND LEAK PROOF, EVEN WHEN BROKEN

    In an OPTIMA battery, the lead plates and separator are wound and tightly compressed into a cell tube so they can't move, shed, or break, even in severe shock and vibration applications. In independent SAE tests, the OPTIMA kept working after being subjected to vibrations up to 5G for 12 hours. As in all AGM TECHNOLOGY BATTERIES, there is no "free acid" that can leak out or spill and the OPTIMA can be operated effectively in any position -- even upside down -- without any risk of leaking and because it is sealed, no corrosion can form on the posts, connectors, or cables.

    At DC Battery, we have been shown tests in which the a bullet is fired into an Optima leaving a huge hole in the center. Even with the battery's interior exposed, there was no leakage and when placed into a vehicle, it performed perfectly.