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
I think that it should be noted that electric motors always accelerate faster than their combustion counterparts. That is because their torque begins at it's highest during the beginning of the acceleration cycle, not the end like a combustion.
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....
All kidding aside, I'm not trying to troll, and I know that there's probably some merit to his claims. But for the love of god, why do all these new efficient cars have to be so damned ugly? The prius is hideous, so is the echo, and now this?
I know some people will disagree, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but come on...
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The UK auto link in the submission text says recharge time is 10 hours not the 1 hour quoted above. So whos right?
USA may have to invade to stop this.
Because it looks so damn cool. The designer appears to have overdosed on Thunderbirds during his youth.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
American hated the concept of Electric Motors in cars for one simple fact. Speed. They like to go fast and with the ones introduced to us, they did not. They were slower, hybrid animals that may have accelerated faster, but were not up to par by American standards. At least in a few years this car proposed will develop into something more hormone ravaged teens will dream and adult driving enthusiasts will utilize. Only now, to develop a ample charging device...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
One of my favorite jokes: "There are liars, there are damn liars, and then there are battery chemists."
Electric cars don't become economical until batteries do. Don't hold your breath either. People have been working on this for a long time and there doesn't seem to be a breakthrough in the offing.
... that wouldn't be an issue with a replacable cell station.
Consider the gas station. We pull in, refuel and leave. How could the gas station business model work with an electric car? Simple. No one wants to wait for a battery to charge. But what if there was a cell-swap activity involved rather than a recharge? Perhaps in the future we'll be pulling into a station and they swap out our battery cells instead of adding more fuel? They make a profit by offering bad cell insurance or whatever and they get to own the cells... I dunno... I haven't really thought it through to the detail but on the outside it seems like a good way to continue our general business model and to continue to provide convenience to the end user. And most assuredly, the daily work-commuter would plug his machine in to charge each night.
But as for the idea that current auto makers intentionally suppressing electric cars? I'll go in on that since there is still too much money at stake for the old ways and the pressure would come from too many sources to determine any particular "bad guys." We just have to wait for the fossil fuels to run out before we can really expect electric cars to really take off...and then we can expect the current oligopoly to find a way to lock up the electric car and fuel systems in some other way... somehow they'll make a privately owned windmill to charge your car illegal...
Someone actually made "The Homer" a reality !
Although it may goto 200 mph on a one hour charge, The only downsides, apart from the tiny cockpit, are that it takes 10 hours to recharge, and a production version would cost £170,000.
The slashdot post was a bit misleading I think, still pretty cool though.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
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!
If you watched or know the story of Tucker you'd see that you cannot challenge a market with powerful players without being squashed. Theres only one way around this and that is to go overseas and establish the technology in another country under the protective wing of the government and then introduce it as an import everywhere around the globe.
Tucker was unable to win against the big three auto makers, nor was Delorean.
Mark my words, the only way we will ever see a flying car or radically advanced automobiles or cheap diamonds is if another government does it first.
If you dont want the powerful companies that control the US to stifle what you're doing take your innovation overseas and develop it there. That is the only way you can become a real player.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
If they can get electric cars to outperform others in Formula 1, that's when they'll break into public consciousness as legitimate vehicles.
- Charging. You need to let these cars sit for a period of time between use to let the batteries top up. Without that, it's just a very expensive paperweight (and not a very good one at that.)
- Battery life. A typical Li-ion battery will lose twenty percent of its capacity every year, from the day that they are manufactured. With a pure electric vehicle, that means a 20% drop in range. Would you buy a car that ranges up to 200 km the first year; 160 km the second; 128 km the third; and 102 km the fourth? (ie: a 50% drop in range every three and a bit years.) Would you buy a new set of batteries (see next point) every three years, or even more often?
- Cost. How much will those Li-ion batteries cost? (Hint: they're not cheap. My PowerBook needs a battery that costs $US130. And that's just a tiny fraction of what a car engine would need...)
- Charge cycles. The more you use a Li-ion battery, the faster it degrades. (The above 20% is regardless of usage, btw -- so even if the car sits in the garage...)
Those are just off the top of my head. There's probably plenty more. Car manufacturers know damn well that with disadvantages like the above, consumers won't buy. That's why they're not interested. There's no conspiracy here, folks. Move along.One hour is definitely less than overnight, assuming you don't live close to the arctic circle
Generally competition helps the costumers, yet here it is, damaging a very good car
More correctly, here it is purportedly damaging a very good car.
The reality is that these things are seldom as straightforward as they seem, and whenever someone claims that the industry is in some giant collusion to keep an innovation down (rather that the more credible scenario that they are mercilessly looking for an opportunity to devastate their competitors and capture the market) you really need to look for the tinfoil helmets, and look deeper than the surface.
In this case very little is said, at least in the non-slashdotted article, about things like range, yet that has traditionally been the killer of electric cars. The motors and other basic element of designs are very well understood (putting many motors on a car is hardly innovative), but without sufficient power reserves it simply won't sell -- the whole reason why hybrids exist is that they allow them to leverage the tremendous power reserves of gas because batteries on their own are insufficient. Hence why the industry has been vigorously exploring fuel cells and electricity storage systems, but the technology isn't there yet. The car part of the equation isn't the problem.
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.
It's somewhat misleading to compare these to your car, because your car carries around a lot of extra weight for safety. The article doesn't say how much this weighs, but it wouldn't surprise me if the range were reduced by half by the time they made the thing safe enough to drive on a US road.
I'm sure I'll hear the usual arguments about how it wouldn't need all that if it didn't have to worry about splatting into a three ton SUV, but drivers (even electric car drivers) screw up and plow into things like trees. Cars have lots of extra metal to save passengers when that happens, and that metal is heavy. It's less heavy in a cleverly-designed Japanese car with crumple zones, as opposed to an American-built behemoth that depends on sheer mass to solve the problem, but it adds to the weight of every production car.
I'm not entirely certain what this car has that's new that allows it to be faster, and I hope whatever it is will scale to build a real car. Electric cars have a lot of potential to supplant gas and help break the dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But the figures can easily mislead you into believing that's closer than it is.
essentially have perfectly flat torque over their entire RPM range. They can keep spinning and making torque at really, really high RPMs so they dont need to be geared down as road speed increases.
ICE (internal combustion engines) really only produce torque in a VERY narrow range of revolutions, and are limited to a fairly low maximum rev count by mechanical issues..
an electric motor, comparatively, will spin as fast as you want it to, and make the same torque at any rpm (within reason)
as someone else pointed out, electric cars always out-accelerate ICE cars in these "electric sports car" tests for two reasons
1) instantaneous peak torque, held all the way up to V_max
2) car is a prototype with no basis in reality for production use.
The average ICE car engine is only usable from 1000 to 6000 rpm. Diesel truck engines are more like 500 to 2200 rpm. The enormous diesel ship engine everyone was sending the link to a few months back runs at _90_ rpm.
It is not uncommon for an electric motor to spin at 20,000 or more rpm. The only practical displacement motors going this fast are the Formula 1 3L V10s, which spin up to 19k rpm but need to be rebuilt after 1 weekend.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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?
Drive to work, drive home, and charge. Exactly what people did with older mobile phones. One could argue that something that "fills" overnight when you are sleeping saves you 5min at the pumps once a week.
I'm not going to say that this is better than a gas powered car. The range of a gas powered car is limited only by tank size, and the availability of fuel pumps along your path of travel. But for a daily driver this would be more than acceptable, esp. among those two car households.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Yeah but power produced at a power plant (as long as it is not coal) is much usually less polluting per unit of energy than the one produced at your engine. Power plants can use industrial strngth technology to remove pollutants from their exhaust. Also they can afford complex large reactors that capture more energy than car engines.
That does not work for coal powerplants as burning coal is just inherently dirty (and one could say poisonous). 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).
So the first thing we should do for the quality of our air is get rid of coal plants. Even if we replace them with nukes, it would be an improvement.
But after coal plants are done away with one can be reasonably sure that the plants will produce less pollution than cars' engines.
Vanadium Redox batteries solve a lot of these problems. You can fill them with charged solution in the same way you fill up a tank of gasoline.
These are already in industrial use. They are discussed here
I own a 1990 Honda Accord. I don't know what pieces of shit you are buying, but my nearly 15 year old car has had absolutely no major problems and I take no special car of it. Hell, I don't even know how to change my own oil.
Cars are not computers. When people buy a new car every 3 years, it is because they want to. If they are buying a new car every 3 years, it is because it is breaking down, then they are a god damn idiot because they keep buying crap.
There is no 3vil corporate consipracy to force people to keep getting new cars. Car companies get all of their parts from suppliers. The only thing a car company does is put the stuff together. If a supplier sells a car company bad parts that break down, then they lose their contract. If I buy a car and it turns out to be crap, I just don't buy from that same company again. Take off the tin foil hat. Car companies want to sell cars. If electric cars could be made cheaply and even come close to having the same characteristics as a combustion car in all areas, car companies would be killing each other to sell the most.
The reality is that these things are seldom as straightforward as they seem, and whenever someone claims that the industry is in some giant collusion to keep an innovation down (rather that the more credible scenario that they are mercilessly looking for an opportunity to devastate their competitors and capture the market) you really need to look for the tinfoil helmets, and look deeper than the surface.
You are just saying that because you are an industry mole. We all know that Detroit has a carburetor that will get 500 mpg on a gallon of tap water, but hasn't released it to the public because of the vast conspiracy with the oil companies, Saudi Arabia, and the global masonic conspiracy.
This is very similar to Chep pallets. You (as a company who ships stuff) simply reports who you shipped pallets to, and in the end, Chep has a good idea of what everyone has (also noting what breaks). In the end, you get a higher quality pallet than a standard wood one. Similarly, you 'subscribe' to the service, they always know which battery you have and what the life is on it (X charges), and you pay for each 'fill up'. At the end of the month, you get a bill for the number of swaps you made. Include some fancy monitoring gadgets on the top that measure their effeciency of their last few runs and you can easily see what you should expect out of this run (and even calibrate a fuel guage acurately). Think about it :)
What we really need is better battery cell technology that doesn't have these issues.
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
I work in the field of electric storage, including batteries, and there is absolutely no reason they cannot come out with a vehicle that can't use batteries that can be rapid-charged, nor set up the charger to do them. (Granted, you would still be looking at a charge time of roughly an half-hour to an hour, little longer than it takes to get gas.) The standard deep-cycle batteries used for applications like RV's and boats cannot be charged like this, but those like the Optima and Odyssey do have this capability.
This begs the question, then, why is there not a workable electric car out there? 200 miles is plenty for the average person's daily driving, and it would be a simple matter to charge the vehicle every night. (In fact, this is better for the health of deep cycle batteries than full discharge.)
Further, a half hour recharge would only be a slight inconvenience on cross-country trips, especially since recharging stations could be set up right along the interstate, or set up in rest stops, not requiring the underground tanks and the like that a gas station does. Generally, after driving 200 miles, I for one am ready to get out of the car for a little while anyway.
The biggest downside that I see is that the cost of replacing the batteries (especially premium batteries like the Odyssey or Optima) would be considerable, given that these cars would have to use banks of 10-15 batteries, at a current cost of about $160 per battery. Of course, the massive boost to production of these would probably create competition and an economy of scale, driving the price down, as more and more migrated to electric cars. The savings on gas (which will only get more expensive) would also be considerable, although a high volume of these cars would create additional demand on the electrical grid.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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?
You could have an awesome electric car for sale now, and nobody will buy it, for fear of being stranded.
I always knew that we've got "combustion lock-in" which always seemed a bit irrational to me. I guess I didn't think it might be because of a conspiracy to shut out emerging auto competition. But is that a crazy explanation? Not really.
But... here's a way China could really kick our ass if they wanted to: They set up the infrastructure in their own country to run electric cars, get good at making them, and laugh at us while we're sending billions per week to the Middle East. It's not like the Chinese market is small, and I bet they could export the tech to India, Thailand, etc. That's enough to get this caught on. China is beginning to realize that they have the luxury of giving the world the finger. They can make their own DVD format, their own fancy cell phones, etc., and just aim those things at the domestic market... and they do fine! It might not be easy for them to break through with auto manufacturing, but I expect them to try (I don't know, have they already? I know they had some Porsche engineers meeting with the government asking them to propose a Wagen for the Chinese Volk....) The Chinese government might still have enough power to "give incentives" to large numbers of people to buy domestic cars once they're made. Of course, they could do that more effectively still if they start taxing gas at $10/gallon and using the proceeds to subsidize electric cars. It's in their interest anyway; they don't have a lot of domestic oil either.
Another mistaken assumption is that batteries themselves are "pollution free". Just because it doesnt let out gaseous emissions from an exhaust doesnt necessarily mean it wont damage the environment. I'm sure even the first gasoline powered engine designers never thought the pollution caused by they're creations would be enough to impact global climate. But when you multiply these cars (and hence they're batteries) by a few million times you will eventually lead up to a pollution problem of some kind or the other. Hell even unused plastic computer cases these days are a pollution hazard, let alone millions of unused car batteries with all sorts of lethal pollutants in them leaking out into the environment.