Slashdot Mirror
230mph Electric Car
An anonymous reader writes "It ain't cheap, but Hiroshi Shimizu has finally shown off his latest electric car 'Eliica'. It accelerates faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo, and will cruise for 200 miles on a one hour charge. Stories at drive.com.au, and an image video and tech video. Interestingly, Shimizu believes that the Japanese motor industry is deliberately ignoring his invention and instead focusing on complex hybrids, as a simple electric engine dramatically lowers the cost of manufacturing, and will lead to a flood of cheap, mass produced cars from Chinese factories." A UK auto site has a story as well, including a test drive.
Shimizu believes that the Japanese motor industry is deliberately ignoring his invention and instead focusing on complex hybrids
Of course they are. Electric cars may be more efficient and cheaper to build, but you have to plug them in and wait. That's not acceptable, if only once every year when your friend/family member needs a ride.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Presumably, the Chinese could license and start building these themselves, without waiting for Japan's lead? 200 miles is the critical value that I've been waiting for for a range, assuming that the recharge time isn't any longer than overnight....
The UK auto link in the submission text says recharge time is 10 hours not the 1 hour quoted above. So whos right?
Hmm...I wouldn't buy a cell phone that took 10 hours to recharge, the downtime would be too hurtful to its overall usefulness. Why on earth would anyone use a car that was out of commision for 10 hours, when one could go refill their hybrid in less than 5 minutes?
Of course they are. Electric cars may be more efficient and cheaper to build, but you have to plug them in and wait. That's not acceptable, if only once every year when your friend/family member needs a ride.
I disagree - I would happily have one. First, it looks wicked! And second, by far the majority of my driving is less than 50 km / day on weekdays. There would be no problem using it as a commuting vehicle for me.
What I think really needs to change, is in the insurance arena. I own a 1989 Toyota 4runner. Reliable, but hellish on gas. I own this vehicle, because there are occasions when I *NEED* the carrying capacity and 4WD (hiking, whitewater kayaking etc). Yes, I own a SUV, and I am one of the few with a legitimate use for it.
Having said this, I don't need an SUV to commute to work. If it were possible for me to switch my plates to a more fuel efficent car - without taking out a separate policy - and only use my SUV when I needed it, I would be saving myself money, and doing a great deal for the environment. As it is, here in BC, if you have two vehicles, you have two insurance policies, there is no sharing allowed.
An electric car would be perfect for that.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
sigs, as if you care.
If they can get electric cars to outperform others in Formula 1, that's when they'll break into public consciousness as legitimate vehicles.
How are you going to produce the electricity needed to power this 600kW beast? Diesel locomotives and fossil fuels? I am also sure the track version of the car has things like heater, AC, CD players, sound systems, power seats, all removed to reduce weight and power.
Also, in cold climate this car has to work to produce heat, where traditional cars have a natural heat source.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Why is there no transmission?
Don't you still have to balance power vs speed with gears? Or I guess with electricity you can supply power and speed on demand?
It'll be sad day when standard transmission dies out!
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Such a vehicle does not fit into the automotive industry's model of planned obselescence. Your car must wear out quickly so that you will buy a new car.
Another way of making electric cars easier to live with is to have an automatic charging station in the garage much like a digital camera dock at home. One that you wouldn't have to think about. Granted, you'd have to own a garage but you have to start somewhere.
Basically, you'd drive in and the car would attach to a charger. Given that many people aren't ultra precision drivers, there would have to be some sort of robotic arm that could connect to the car.
Yes, it would cost money but in mass, it shouldn't add too much to the price tag of an expensive electric car. For daily commutes to the office, shopping and to friends it should work just fine with the added benefit of not having to go the gas station. Now the negative (always have to charge) becomes a positive (never having to think about fueling).
Sunny
Be my Friend
You're close to having a good idea here...how about consumers keep another charged cell at home and swap it when needed (if the manufacturers make this as painless as swapping the battery on a phone?)
"it looks like they're all direct-drive too, so we're probably looking at DC Brushless Motors"
Brushless motors can only turn in one direction. Take a DC fan and reverse the polarity, what happens.. nothing. All of the current electric cars use series wound DC motors.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
The real threat to the existing car industry isn't this. It's the electric scooters that already come out of china for around $50 in bulk. They are light, easy to maintain and do around 20Kph.
But you can already get electric scooters that go up to 100kph, and just 1Kw of electric motor will get you up to around 50 to 60 Kph.
How long before a 5 to 10 Kw electric car, weighing around 300Kg, with a lightweight tube-steel frame for a single person comes out under $2000 using the same technology as they build into present bikes and scooters?
The biggest hurdle to this was cheap electric motors in mass supply. Battery technology was at the right level a few years back. Now the motors are available because of scooters with hub drives appearing. Mostly being built for use *in* China.
And the niche for a vehicle that carries a single person around at 80 to 100 Kph for daily commuting that could park in a MC bay still exists (Clive Sinclair's M5 was a realisation of this niche, but failed for a number of reasons, although they are still worth more than when new)
I'm waiting for the $2000 model.... Even if I do have to license it, it will actually make it cheaper to drive to work...
Besides, I have a much more serious car to drive for when I want to have fun, which is wasted on the daily commute trip!
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
An electric car isn't hard to make. An electric car that goes fast isn't hard to make. An electric car with a long cruising range isn't hard to make. And an electric car that goes fast *and* has a long cruising range still isn't too hard to make.
On the other hand, making an electric car that can go reasonably fast, has a reasonably long cruising range, has a reasonably long battery life span, and is reasonably affordable does seem to be pretty tough to do. If you want to do some good for the planet in the area of electric cars, work on that problem.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Not only does the motor have "torque coming out the ass" even at 0 RPM, but its torque output is actually at its maximum at 0 RPM.
In fact, the torque vs speed curve for a DC motor is a linear function that passes through the points (0 RPM, StallTorque) and (FreeSpeed, 0 ft-lb) where StallTorque is the maximum torque the motor can produce (the rotor is locked under load) and FreeSpeed is the speed of the rotor under no load.
Also of interest is the fact that at either of the extremes, that is, at stall or at no load, the motor is actually performing no mechanical work, despite consuming a (potentially large) amount of electricity.
At any rate, most performance EVs use AC drive systems. My '75 Rabbit conversion, however, uses a 20HP DC motor. And, yes, I can reach and maintain highway speeds (65-70 mph) in a reasonable amount of time.
http://www.eaaev.org/ for some EV info.
...If you use either fuel cells or hybrid motor arrangements to generate your electricity. Our existing transport infrastructure is almost entirely structured around the use of liquid fuels in vehicles, and it makes sense to leverage this to make electric vehicles more widely used.
It would be fairly straightforward to introduce ethanol/methanol liquid refuelling capacity, (gas stations could dedicate one or two bowsers to these fuels, much like they do with deisel (at least here in Europe)
And by using plant derived liquid fuels such as ethanol or methanol which ultiamtely derive their energy content from the sun, we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Using biomass derived fuels would seem to offer an alternative to all the worrying about batter lifespan and charge time etc.
In Soviet Russia, all our base are belong to YOU!
" This is especially true for Bush's "grandfathered" coal plants which can avoid pollution standards because they are really old (try to figure out the logic behind that reasoning)."
Don't know where you got that piece of info, but it is not correct.
The plants were grandfathered in because we can not pass laws that are retroactive - you can not currently be held to laws that will be passed in the future. That is in the constitution - the law had to have been made that way. That's the logic in that.
Bush did not pass the laws requiring cleaner emissions so they are not his laws anyway, they were passed well before Bush the Elder also.
You want to know fucked up logic? Here is how it stands now (and what Bush the Younger tried to change against the wishes of the "environmentalist"). If you have an old power plant you are grandfathered in - you have no need to follow current emissions guidlines. Current technology is also cheaper to produce power, if one could simply change them over then they would make back thier money plus in a few years (and thus, power companies prefer newer technology). But, should you take any of the grandfathered plants and put anything new on them the must, at that point, comply with all existing emissions standards. They can not comply with current emissions standards without putting new parts on them. See the deadlock? See why there *must* be something that gives - namely allowing them to maintain thier *current* level of pollution while installing new, clean, and cheap production facilities? It's not like they were saying "You can now produce 50% more pollution" - what problem do you have with "You can continue to pollute at your current rate while you switch to environmentally friendly equipment" given the "You can pollute at your current rate" is true otherwise?
It's not just power plants that have this. My family has worked on this project off and on since the 80's. Locally a river had raw sewage leak into it for over 20 years. In order to contain the sewage they needed to build a new sewage system, in order to get the EPA to allow them to build the new sewage system they had to contain the sewage. Again - deadlock. The person over our little section of the EPA saw nothing wrong with this, retired under Clinton's term, and the next one in immediatly recinded said laws. We saw the same type of rhetoric for a few years hear about how the EPA was allowing the utilities district to pollute the river (from a few environmentalist groups). In the end some people took a good deal of political heat but made the river capable of suporting fish again.
Instead of reading someone else synopsis go read the actual bill next time. You may very well find that someone has more of a political (vs actually improving the environment) agenda than you would think.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
You sign up and get a smartcard. You use the web to select what make/model car you want, and when you need it from/to. It gives you the pickup location nearest your house.
When you want to use the car, you go to the point at the right time, and place your smartcard on the windscreen. The doors and glove compartment open, giving you the keys. You then have full use of the car until your time's up. The cars are always gassed, always clean, and always available. You save money on taxes, congestion charge (toll), initial payment, maintenance, etc. Very, very useful. As I mentioned, you can select the type of car you want, so if you need an SUV, you select SUV. If you need to drive somewhere, you select a smaller car, and drop it off when you get to your destination, at the nearest car point.
The plants were grandfathered in because we can not pass laws that are retroactive - you can not currently be held to laws that will be passed in the future. That is in the constitution - the law had to have been made that way. That's the logic in that. But, should you take any of the grandfathered plants and put anything new on them the must, at that point, comply with all existing emissions standards. They can not comply with current emissions standards without putting new parts on them. See the deadlock?
That is correct, on its face. However, the devil's in the details, as always. If you have a power plant (or any significant source) that is grandfathered, you are exempt from new regs. However, once you modify that equipment, you must bring it into compliance. What the Bush Administration did was change the rules of what was considered a 'modification', allowing plant operators to continue to operate their old equipment where the purpose of the law was to force them to change to cleaner technology.
While there does appear to be a 'deadlock' in the regs, my experience in the air permitting business says otherwise. State DEPs and EPA are usually very willing to accomodate you, assuming the end goal is a reduction in pollution. If you just read regulations, you won't get this sense. However, there are many provisions in regulations for non-compliant sources, and being non-compliant is not an automatic sanction or fine.
State DEPs and EPA do *not* like you when you try to run around the regs for 10 years, and then come forward and try to make nice. If you're upfront from the start, they are extremely accomodating.
>Would you feel safe driving 80MPH down the freeway, >in a car that only weighs 400 pounds?
;)
Yes, actually, I would. It's called a "motorcycle", and it's two or three times as fuel-efficent as a car. Well, actually, maybe "safe" isn't quite the right word. Would you settle for "well, I'm not dead *yet*?"
>Suspicious is fine, but there is plenty of
>evidence to support that fact. Just look at the
>story of GM pulling their EV1 from the market,
>despite great demand, or the similar story behind
> every other major manufacturer's story.
Disclaimer: I'm 100% for the adoption full-electrics for daily transport. It makes monetary and statistical sense to me, at least in urban areas. Of course, I'm also for CarShare programs and mass transit, which I think are considerably more effective at reducing unnecessary driving, but that's a bit more challenging to Americans (I am one).
Anyway:
I worked at a company that helped design the EV1 (several years prior), and when I started there we had one as a company car. I hear the EV1 held up quite frequently as the example of all that is great and wonderful and yet being smashed down by the iron fist of GM, and I am highly skeptical. Why is this?
Prepare yourselves...
The EV1 was a poorly built, miserably designed junker of an electric car. I've seen nice EVs, which I would gladly own, like the little Honda and Th!nk cars, but the EV1 plain sucked. Build quality was below unfinished prototype, all the buttons and dash controls were mounted terribly and felt worse, it had the *worst* windshield in the history of automotive design (made me feel like I was wearing coke-bottle glasses [I'm 20/20]), and it was in the shop at least once a month to repair all the random stuff that kept breaking. The cabin was uncomfortable, the visibility poor, and the stereo sucked.
Driving it was similarly underwhelming. The narrow rear axle gave a very loose, sliding, tail-happy turn, but the drive was in the front wheels, preventing the driver from *utilizing* said tail motion for anything save sideswiping bushes. Acceleration was brisk, but kneecapped by the front wheel drive and poor tires -- you could probably keep up in a stock 4-cylinder camry.
Now, I understand that environmental soundness is not about performance. I am all for small, fuel-efficient cars. However, I also think that a small, fuel-efficient car CAN be fun to drive -- just as racing 50cc GP bikes takes incredible skill to maintain speed around a track, driving a small, efficient car to the limits is *way* more entertaining for me than having to rein in a 300hp monster.
To this end, the EV1 was a dismal failure. Sure, everyone who had one wanted to keep it, because it was neat and there *weren't any other options* for an electric. To some people it was worthwhile as a novelty, or simply as an environmental statement, both valid concerns. However, I personally watched the amount of time/money that went into keeping the thing running, and I am *quite* willing to believe that GM would have had a financial fiasco on its hands had it continued to build/sell them.
Not to bag on EVs in general -- they're great and becoming more viable all the time. But the EV1 is a poor choice of idols for the EV movement. Take a look at Th!nk if you want to see a cool little EV that's really been oppressed by The Man.