Grrrr
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
This NYTimes registration bullshit. Anyone else post an alternative link?
Yes but?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Does this kind of technology be used for something else than useless short bust? Electric engines for cars are going nowhere with this kind of experiment. It's like 8000hp Funny Car Drag Racers, completely useless for daily driving technology.
Laptop batteries aren't that reliable....
by
puppetman
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We have 12 laptops in the office, and in 3 years, all the batteries but one have died (they're Dells, and the Dell warranty doesn't cover the battery); and they aren't cheap to replace.
To replace all 6800 batteries every 2-4 years would be an expensive proposition (unless they can come up with a more reliable battery).
Re:Another article...
by
DrEldarion
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
... but why can't they be fuel efficient, have good performance, be good on the environment, and NOT BE UGLY?
What is the 1/4 mile time and trap speed for this car? The article neglects to provide this info, stating only that the electric car will perform better than a few high priced sports cars. Most car enthusiasts could car less about 0-60 times. The 1/4 mile times are a better measure of a car's straight-line performance.
I find it difficult to believe that this car could actually outperform many sports cars in the 1/4, considering that the car's top speed is only about 100 mph. Even a completely stock Dodge Neon SRT4 (about $20,000) will trap over 100 mph in the 1/4. A chipped VW GTI 1.8T (also about $20,000) will perform about as well.
Okay, so it can hang with Lambo's and Ferrari's. Can it handle something really quick? And before you nabobs twitter about safety, I notice that the Tzero doesn't meat crash specs either. And if you crash the bike, it won't leave you drenched in acid (yeah, yeah, Lithium Ion gel, whatever). Did I mention that you can buy about 20 of them for the price of the Tzero? The bike will also go 80 mph faster than the electric car. And you can fill it in less than 9 hours (3 at a 220 station:)
Nifty toy.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Right but do you have a Gas pump in your garage, so that you have a full tank every morning?
Now for long trips yes stopping to refuel is more of a hassle, but for daily commutes and going shopping it works very well.
Re:good news for environment
by
earthforce_1
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, the main reasons electric cars are not more popular are:
1) Lengthy refuelling time 2) Limited cruising range 3) Cost is not competitive - either the vehicle is prohibitively expensive (as in this case) or the batteries need to be replaced after a relatively small number of charge cycles, and the cost of electricity to charge the vehicle is not competitive with gasoline or diesel.
Solve all of these problems at the same time, and you will be wealthier than Billy G. (And less resented for your wealth) I won't hold my breath though, barring some revolution in battery technology, I put my best hopes for an alternative energy vehicle in fuel cells.
It has long been possible to get good acceleration out of an electric car, I remember a 1970's popular science article describing an electric vehicle with regular lead acid batteries that used an energy storage flywheel that recovered braking energy and fed it back into the transmission when you hit the accelerator for quick takeoffs. While you were idling at a stoplight, the battery would gradually be topping up the flywheel velocity, ready for a jackrabbit getaway on the green light.
-- My rights don't need management.
Re:Girlfriend's car is still faster...
by
eatdave13
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you mean like this:
..|..../ ..|.../ H.|../ P.|./ ..|/____ ....RP M
Then no.
If you mean like this:
..| ..|------- H.| P.| ..|_______ .....RPM
Then yes.
This car is a 1-speed with a top speed of 100MPH, so RPM limitations aren't really a worry. With a transmission, top speed could probably hit 200 pretty easy.
Oh, by the way, the lameness filter sucks a big fat wang. I really don't like it at all. Jesus, how many characters per line does this post need to have? What a stupid filter. Oh, and what use is a code tag if you can't put whitespace in it? Oh, and you also have a bug in it. There's no space between RP and M in the first graph.
-- "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Someone has to do it...
by
ThisIsFred
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...So I might as well bring up the negative points.
* It may do 0-60 in 4 seconds, but so can lots of vehicles if you do hairy modifications to the engine and drivetrain. The car is tiny and light, obviously, since it needs only 200 horsepower to produce those figures.
* Note the careful wording: "...Efficiency *to* 70 mpg." That tells me they are taking an average and counting when the motors are off while cruising.
* Good luck getting a charge when you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere. At least the AAA can bring you a 5 gallon container of petrol with a conventional vehicle.
* A 100 mile cruising range is less than one half of the range of a typical passenger car with an ICE, and that's taking into account that the motors can be shut off some of the time. What is the actual cruise range on the hilly terrain in my part of the country? 50 miles?
* The vehicle shown has less interior room than the Corvette (arguably one of the most uncomfortable cars to ride in) and is miniscule. Put the Corvette's engine in that chassis, sans the batteries, and you'll probably get sub-3 second 0-60 time, if the wheels can get a decent grip.
* Totally electric cars are less efficient in the winter, when power is drawn for heating.
* The emissions aren't "near zero," it's just that the extra pollution would be emitted from power generation facilities. Those power generators may be more efficient, but an increase in output (to supply these vehicles) is going to introduce tons (literally) more pollutants into small areas of the planet.
* The battery system is totally impractical, and a chemical nightmare after a collision.
Can we move the focus off of electric vehicles, and concentrate on better power generation and storage technology?
If they could just give this car six times the range at one eleventh the cost... then it would be competive with my new Honda Civic Hybrid for commuting to work.
The car goes 300 miles on a charge. You have an 1,800 mile round-trip commute???
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Both are VERY HEAVY though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Whether you use batteries or fuel cells both are extremely heavy, not to mention EXPENSIVE.
Fuel cells have that many weak points at the moment that they are not practical. Their most notable problem is their requirement of "pure" fuel. This makes storage and especially refueling tricky.
But at the end of the day, batteries suck. They have a very short life (3 - 7 years) at which point they become an extremly toxic environmental hazard (just like their manufacturing wastes) and have to be replaced, which costs a great deal of money ($2000 +).
Second gear?
by
foldedspace
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why on Earth don't they put in a second gear? The speed freaks could stop whining about the top speed being a lousy 100 MPH, like they spend more than 1 hour a year at that speed.
I'm guessing about the effeciency of it all but, don't you also get more range for the normal drivers with a second gear?
Re:good news for environment
by
sunspot42
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
>1) Lengthy refuelling time
There's a fairly simple solution to that problem, and it's the same one we use for portable electronics - when the batteries are dead, swap them out for a new set. It would require standardized battery designs and altering the general layout of cars slightly. Essentially a hatch to the battery compartment would be placed somewhere on the car - probably at the rear of the trunk in most sedan-style vehicles - that would pop open to reveal several perhaps circular bays, each containing cylindrical battery (think giant AA battery). You'd slide in some kind of counterweighted gadget - like a giant socket wrench - twist it to unlock the battery from its bay and lock it into the changer, then pull it out and swap it for a fresh battery. The bigger the car, the more cells it would take. There might even be a couple different sizes of cells (but not too many). You wouldn't "own" the batteries, and they wouldn't be a permanent part of your car. The batteries would belong to whoever runs the service stations - you'd just be buying the energy, and perhaps paying a large deposit on the batteries which would be refunded (or transferred) when you swapped 'em for a new set.
Storage of all those batteries would take up a lot of space, but it could be placed beneath the "battery stations" in the same way gas tanks are placed beneath gas stations, with dumbwaiter-like devices used to ferry batteries back and forth. And the fixed stations could afford to employ far more efficient, faster, heavier (and hence more costly) chargers than you could ever shoehorn into a car.
Battery technology isn't there yet, but thanks to advances in the computer and portable electronics industries, it's not outrageous to imagine a time when batteries will become efficient enough to make such a system possible.
Finally a 200 horsepower electric.
by
Wolfier
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now make it US $25000, the price point of most compacts that makes similar power (B20B, H22A, K20A, 1.8T)
Then we'll talk.
Re:Here's another article with picture . very nice
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
How much emissions will it take to repeatedly recharge the batteries? Support Nuclear power!
Re:Don't be silly
by
Ziller
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Tzero might do significantly better in Europe, but that depends a great deal on how much electricity costs there.
I'd say it depends more on the price of gas, which here in Finland is something close to 4USD per gallon.
On the other hand, here the car itself would probably cost double due to taxation.
-- One skilled in battle take a stand in the ground of no defeat,
and so does not lose the enemy's defeat.
Re:good news for environment
by
Spy+Hunter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're forgetting something: there are so many batteries, and they are so heavy, that they make up a significant portion of the weight of the entire car. Ever lifted a regular car battery? They are *really* heavy, and they're not even enough to power a car a half a mile. Us push-button Americans aren't going to be getting out of our cars to lug packs and packs of heavy batteries around. You would definitely need full-service stations for this. So it would cost more, plus it would probably take longer. Also, usually the batteries are in a very hard to access place (like underneath the passenger compartment or something) because they take up so much room. You'd have to give up your entire trunk just to store the batteries in an accessible place.
A super-breakthrough in battery technology that reduced both the size and weight of batteries by a factor of 10 might make this system reasonable. But at that point, your car could go 2000 miles on a single charge by putting 10 times the batteries in, which would take the same room and weigh the same as the batteries of today. At that point, it's better to just recharge the car overnight instead of worrying about swapping batteries.
Re:good news for environment
by
ces
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
you want to know why this thing will never sell? it looks stupid, and, imagine getting broadsided by H2 in this. no, don't imagine- here
Just about anything other than another HUGE SUV is not going to do to well after being broadsided by a speeding H2. In any case it is probably safer in a crash than either a motorcycle or bicycle.
I tell ya' we need $10/gallon gas just so we can get these SUV monstrosities off the road.
-- Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Re:good news for environment
by
thrillseeker
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Unless the power being used in the cars was produced by a nuclear reactor (or other clean source), we are just passing the pollution up the chain.
But that's one of the values of using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or a combustion engine.
In a gasoline or diesel engine, it takes a tremendous amount of effort to produce an exhaust that is clean - indeed, we don't do it completely because it would be prohibitively expensive- no one can go around breathing actual car exhaust for long.
In a hydrogen powered vehicle, the pollution is not generated in a billion locations around the world (that is, in the cars). Instead, it is generated in the production facilities.
Localizing the pollution allows a much easier control and clean-up of it - building large and very effective filters at a handful of locations is much easier to accomplish and maintain than doing so at the numerous end points. Additionally, there are techniques of producing hydrogen from clean sources - Iceland is examining becoming an exporter of the fuel by producing it using their geothermal energy, for example. There are also many studies of producing other non-polluting hydrogen generation sources.
But, there are not enough people insisting that this happen and so we plod along with the idea that "it's not yet perfect so let's not bother".
Slashdot Mirror
This NYTimes registration bullshit. Anyone else post an alternative link?
Does this kind of technology be used for something else than useless short bust? Electric engines for cars are going nowhere with this kind of experiment. It's like 8000hp Funny Car Drag Racers, completely useless for daily driving technology.
We have 12 laptops in the office, and in 3 years, all the batteries but one have died (they're Dells, and the Dell warranty doesn't cover the battery); and they aren't cheap to replace.
To replace all 6800 batteries every 2-4 years would be an expensive proposition (unless they can come up with a more reliable battery).
... but why can't they be fuel efficient, have good performance, be good on the environment, and NOT BE UGLY?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
What is the 1/4 mile time and trap speed for this car? The article neglects to provide this info, stating only that the electric car will perform better than a few high priced sports cars. Most car enthusiasts could car less about 0-60 times. The 1/4 mile times are a better measure of a car's straight-line performance.
I find it difficult to believe that this car could actually outperform many sports cars in the 1/4, considering that the car's top speed is only about 100 mph. Even a completely stock Dodge Neon SRT4 (about $20,000) will trap over 100 mph in the 1/4. A chipped VW GTI 1.8T (also about $20,000) will perform about as well.
Okay, so it can hang with Lambo's and Ferrari's. Can it handle something really quick? And before you nabobs twitter about safety, I notice that the Tzero doesn't meat crash specs either. And if you crash the bike, it won't leave you drenched in acid (yeah, yeah, Lithium Ion gel, whatever). Did I mention that you can buy about 20 of them for the price of the Tzero? The bike will also go 80 mph faster than the electric car. And you can fill it in less than 9 hours (3 at a 220 station:)
Nifty toy.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Right but do you have a Gas pump in your garage, so that you have a full tank every morning?
Now for long trips yes stopping to refuel is more of a hassle, but for daily commutes and going shopping it works very well.
Actually, the main reasons electric cars are not more popular are:
1) Lengthy refuelling time
2) Limited cruising range
3) Cost is not competitive - either the vehicle is prohibitively expensive (as in this case) or the batteries need to be replaced after a relatively small number of charge cycles, and the cost of electricity to charge the vehicle is not competitive with gasoline or diesel.
Solve all of these problems at the same time, and you will be wealthier than Billy G. (And less resented for your wealth) I won't hold my breath though, barring some revolution in battery technology, I put my best hopes for an alternative energy vehicle in fuel cells.
It has long been possible to get good acceleration out of an electric car, I remember a 1970's popular science article describing an electric vehicle with regular lead acid batteries that used an energy storage flywheel that recovered braking energy and fed it back into the transmission when you hit the accelerator for quick takeoffs. While you were idling at a stoplight, the battery would gradually be topping up the flywheel velocity, ready for a jackrabbit getaway on the green light.
My rights don't need management.
If you mean like this:
Then no.
If you mean like this:
Then yes.
This car is a 1-speed with a top speed of 100MPH, so RPM limitations aren't really a worry. With a transmission, top speed could probably hit 200 pretty easy.
Oh, by the way, the lameness filter sucks a big fat wang. I really don't like it at all. Jesus, how many characters per line does this post need to have? What a stupid filter. Oh, and what use is a code tag if you can't put whitespace in it? Oh, and you also have a bug in it. There's no space between RP and M in the first graph.
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
...So I might as well bring up the negative points.
* It may do 0-60 in 4 seconds, but so can lots of vehicles if you do hairy modifications to the engine and drivetrain. The car is tiny and light, obviously, since it needs only 200 horsepower to produce those figures.
* Note the careful wording: "...Efficiency *to* 70 mpg." That tells me they are taking an average and counting when the motors are off while cruising.
* Good luck getting a charge when you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere. At least the AAA can bring you a 5 gallon container of petrol with a conventional vehicle.
* A 100 mile cruising range is less than one half of the range of a typical passenger car with an ICE, and that's taking into account that the motors can be shut off some of the time. What is the actual cruise range on the hilly terrain in my part of the country? 50 miles?
* The vehicle shown has less interior room than the Corvette (arguably one of the most uncomfortable cars to ride in) and is miniscule. Put the Corvette's engine in that chassis, sans the batteries, and you'll probably get sub-3 second 0-60 time, if the wheels can get a decent grip.
* Totally electric cars are less efficient in the winter, when power is drawn for heating.
* The emissions aren't "near zero," it's just that the extra pollution would be emitted from power generation facilities. Those power generators may be more efficient, but an increase in output (to supply these vehicles) is going to introduce tons (literally) more pollutants into small areas of the planet.
* The battery system is totally impractical, and a chemical nightmare after a collision.
Can we move the focus off of electric vehicles, and concentrate on better power generation and storage technology?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
If they could just give this car six times the range at one eleventh the cost... then it would be competive with my new Honda Civic Hybrid for commuting to work.
The car goes 300 miles on a charge. You have an 1,800 mile round-trip commute???
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Whether you use batteries or fuel cells both are extremely heavy, not to mention EXPENSIVE.
Fuel cells have that many weak points at the moment that they are not practical. Their most notable problem is their requirement of "pure" fuel. This makes storage and especially refueling tricky.
But at the end of the day, batteries suck. They have a very short life (3 - 7 years) at which point they become an extremly toxic environmental hazard (just like their manufacturing wastes) and have to be replaced, which costs a great deal of money ($2000 +).
Why on Earth don't they put in a second gear? The speed freaks could stop whining about the top speed being a lousy 100 MPH, like they spend more than 1 hour a year at that speed.
I'm guessing about the effeciency of it all but, don't you also get more range for the normal drivers with a second gear?
>1) Lengthy refuelling time
There's a fairly simple solution to that problem, and it's the same one we use for portable electronics - when the batteries are dead, swap them out for a new set. It would require standardized battery designs and altering the general layout of cars slightly. Essentially a hatch to the battery compartment would be placed somewhere on the car - probably at the rear of the trunk in most sedan-style vehicles - that would pop open to reveal several perhaps circular bays, each containing cylindrical battery (think giant AA battery). You'd slide in some kind of counterweighted gadget - like a giant socket wrench - twist it to unlock the battery from its bay and lock it into the changer, then pull it out and swap it for a fresh battery. The bigger the car, the more cells it would take. There might even be a couple different sizes of cells (but not too many). You wouldn't "own" the batteries, and they wouldn't be a permanent part of your car. The batteries would belong to whoever runs the service stations - you'd just be buying the energy, and perhaps paying a large deposit on the batteries which would be refunded (or transferred) when you swapped 'em for a new set.
Storage of all those batteries would take up a lot of space, but it could be placed beneath the "battery stations" in the same way gas tanks are placed beneath gas stations, with dumbwaiter-like devices used to ferry batteries back and forth. And the fixed stations could afford to employ far more efficient, faster, heavier (and hence more costly) chargers than you could ever shoehorn into a car.
Battery technology isn't there yet, but thanks to advances in the computer and portable electronics industries, it's not outrageous to imagine a time when batteries will become efficient enough to make such a system possible.
Now make it US $25000, the price point of most compacts that makes similar power (B20B, H22A, K20A, 1.8T)
Then we'll talk.
How much emissions will it take to repeatedly recharge the batteries? Support Nuclear power!
I'd say it depends more on the price of gas, which here in Finland is something close to 4USD per gallon.
On the other hand, here the car itself would probably cost double due to taxation.
One skilled in battle take a stand in the ground of no defeat, and so does not lose the enemy's defeat.
A super-breakthrough in battery technology that reduced both the size and weight of batteries by a factor of 10 might make this system reasonable. But at that point, your car could go 2000 miles on a single charge by putting 10 times the batteries in, which would take the same room and weigh the same as the batteries of today. At that point, it's better to just recharge the car overnight instead of worrying about swapping batteries.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
you want to know why this thing will never sell? it looks stupid, and, imagine getting broadsided by H2 in this. no, don't imagine- here
Just about anything other than another HUGE SUV is not going to do to well after being broadsided by a speeding H2. In any case it is probably safer in a crash than either a motorcycle or bicycle.
I tell ya' we need $10/gallon gas just so we can get these SUV monstrosities off the road.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
But that's one of the values of using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or a combustion engine.
In a gasoline or diesel engine, it takes a tremendous amount of effort to produce an exhaust that is clean - indeed, we don't do it completely because it would be prohibitively expensive- no one can go around breathing actual car exhaust for long.
In a hydrogen powered vehicle, the pollution is not generated in a billion locations around the world (that is, in the cars). Instead, it is generated in the production facilities.
Localizing the pollution allows a much easier control and clean-up of it - building large and very effective filters at a handful of locations is much easier to accomplish and maintain than doing so at the numerous end points. Additionally, there are techniques of producing hydrogen from clean sources - Iceland is examining becoming an exporter of the fuel by producing it using their geothermal energy, for example. There are also many studies of producing other non-polluting hydrogen generation sources.
But, there are not enough people insisting that this happen and so we plod along with the idea that "it's not yet perfect so let's not bother".