Electric Car Faster Than A Ferrari or Porsche

jumpeel writes "CNN's Business 2.0 has photos and video of a Silicon Valley-made electric car with a 0-60 acceleration rate that's faster than a Ferrari Spider and a Porsche Carrera. From the article: 'In fact, it's second only to the French-made Bugatti Veyron, a 1,000-horsepower, 16-cylinder beast that hits 60 mph half a second faster and goes for $1.25 million.' The X1 is built by Ian Wright whose valley startup WrightSpeed intends to make a 'a small-production roadster that car fanatics and weekend warriors will happily take home for about $100,000 --a quarter ton of batteries included. The X1 crushed the Ferrari in an eighth-mile sprint and then in the quarter-mile, winning by two car lengths.'"

Comments

Interesting, but not new

[AKAImBatman]

a Silicon Valley-made electric car with a 0-60 acceleration rate that's faster than a Ferrari Spider and a Porsche Carrera.

Any engineer worth his salt can tell you that electric motors put out a hell of a lot more torque than gasoline engines. Gasoline engines are restricted by the tolerances of their mechanical parts, even if the engine is capable of producing more horsepower under load. That's why raw horsepower figures are often a poor indicator of a vehicle's acceleration.

Diesel Locomotives were making use of this fact long before the electric sports car showed up. By transferring the power from the Diesel Engine to an electric transmission, modern locomotives are able to smoothly apply power curves of well over 300KW without any of the slippage or rough starts associated with the Steam Engine.

Honestly, this entire story isn't anything new. The TZero was trouncing expensive sports cars long before the X-1 was introduced. The only difference I can see here is that the owner of the X-1 appears to be looking to build a replacement for Formula-1's rather than creating a slightly more practical Porche type of vehicle.

More info on TZero (The article has links to the TZero outaccelerating several fancy sports cars.)

Re:Interesting, but not new

[Catbeller]

"especially those willing to pay $100,000 for a car."

The racing car he built would cost 100 grand. That isn't the price of the commuter model he wants to build, which I assume would be around the cost of a new gasoline-powered car.

Give it thought: an electric car would have almost no moving parts in the drivetrain. No oil pump, no coolant, no fan, no radiator, no valves, nothing, nada. Motors are sealed and located in the wheel hubs, or just inside the car with transaxles linked to the wheels. The real cost is the batteries, the electronics, and the car itself. An electric car is *cheaper* to produce than a gasoline gar. And the act of mass production would drive the cost of the components down, reducing it further.

Exxon-Mobil holds the patents to the nickel-metal hydride battery, so there's why the price for NMH for cars is so damned high. They're not about to mass produce the batteries for electric cars and drive down the unit cost. They've their collective finger on the scale.

Here's a lovely thought: tax the American oil companies for their windfall profits. Nationalize the NMH patent portfolio. Exxon-Mobil didn't invent it anyway, they bought it to control the technology. Use the hundreds of billions to build a national battery industry to drive down the unit cost of NMH batteries for electric cars. Also, give out 10,000 dollar tax rebates to anyone who buys an NMH electric car.

Why? We've no problem killing almost 3,000 soldiers and over 30,000 civilians to, frankly, control the oil spigot, as it's a national security issue. Reducing the oil consumption is a critical national security issue. If killing our soldiers is an acceptable outcome, then Exxon-Mobil can lose its damned NMH patents and we can nationalize battery production. If that is too high a "sacrifice" (that Exxon-Mobil would be making) for us to make, cheap electric cars that we've already paid for, dammit, with the oil market gouging us for the last few years, than the only sacrifices we're willing to make are other countries' citizens and our soldiers. Which is it gonna be? Time is ticking: we're about to take on Iran for its oil as the Project fot the New American Century called for. How many millions will die so we don't nationalize existing tech to build transportation that costs less and doesn't require oil imports? And creates a cheap battery industry so we have something to *export* something for once, gawd?

Re:Interesting, but not new

[RocketScientist]

I've long thought that the electric/hybrid car marketing was completely stupid and backwards. Who do they market to? Two groups: environmentalist wannabees and a few gadget and tech obsessed folks.

This is stupid. For a couple reasons. How many upper-middle class folks are environmentalists or gadget obsessed geeks? Dozens!

How many upper-middle class folks are car nuts? Judging by the number of performance package BMW's I see running around, lots. A lot more than there are environmentalists, by a factor of 100 at least. Folks in that class of buyer are more likely to buy a fast car, they've got the cash to do it, and many many of them love cars.

Build me an electric car. Make it a simple 2-seater, along the lines of a nissan 350z. Seats with nice lateral support comfortable for long drives. Responsive suspension and steering, excellent brakes (regen's fine, if it can S-T-O-P stop, not "hmm...maybe someday" stop). A decent, but not ludicrous, stereo. Nice sight lines so I can see what's coming at me and get out of the way. Build me a car that can not just survive a crash, but avoid it. Because those are the cars that are FUN to drive.

Then give it so much torque that if I stomp the accelerator off the line it strains my neck, enough torque so it shreds the tires off the line.

Then design me some new tires and a better headrest.

I don't want a friggin minivan. I don't want a car that weighs 3000 pounds with batteries and has 90 HP. I don't want a big whale of an SUV, and I don't care how many horsepower it has, it'll handle like a cow through turns. I want a car. A fast car. A fast car that I can send into the nice twisty turns and come out the other end leaving that poor sucker in the BMW M3 wondering "WTF was that!".

Build me a 350Z, not a Previa. Build me an NSX, not a Civic.

Build cars for people who LOVE to drive. The folks who ignore their phones when they're driving, because whatever someone's calling about isn't as important as the road they're on. And don't apologize for it. Then your cars will advertise themselves. To other car people, and to wannabe car people. Then you'll be the company with that really hot car, that everybody wants to buy minivans and sedans from.

Start selling cars to people who love cars instead of people who tolerate them. The profit margins are much higher, and the coattails are huge.

I'm not impressed.

[JesseL]

I've got a vehicle that quick. It'll do 0-60 in 3.5, I've gotten 50MPG cruising on the highway at 80MPH (admittedly with a little tailwind), it goes about 200 miles on a tank of gas, and it cost me $2000 used.

It's a 600cc sportbike.

Acceleration Range

[ThosLives]

Sure, an electric motor can beat out a gasoline due to torque like we all know. However, I will not use any alternative system until:

The solution allows at least 350 highway miles per charge and can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less.

As far as I know, no current or on the horizon electric-only system can do this. Hydrogen / fuel cell are close, but that is something that just cannot be done with chemical batteries in the mass market (I have heard of research into areas of fast charging, but I know I don't want to have to stand near an electric supply that is transferring at over 6 MW (10 gallons in 3 minutes of gasoline is just over 6.3 MW equivalent energy transfer).

A car that could save the planet--fast

[llZENll]

"A car that could save the planet--fast"

BAHAHAHAH...

"II. Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles are incapable of replacing more than a small fraction (5 or maybe 10%) of the 700 million internal combustion engine powered cars on the road due to the limits of battery technology. Dr. Walter Youngquist explains:

. . . a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8 pounds has the same energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage batteries. Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour . . .

Some promising research into new battery technlogies using lithium is being performed, but even the scientists at the forefront of this research admit, "We've got a long way to go."

Assumming these problems away, the construction of an average car also consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water. Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. Scientists are already warning us to get ready for massive "water wars."

Thus, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids or electric vehicles is to seize control of the world's reserves of both oil and fresh water and then divert those resources away from the billions of people who already rely on them.

Even if were willing to undertake such an endeavor, the problem will still not be solved due to a phenomenon known as "Jevon's Paradox," whereby increases in energy efficiency are obliterated by corresponding increases in energy consumption.

The US economy is a good example of Jevon's Paradox in action. Since 1970, we have managed to cut in half the amount of oil necessary to generate a dollar of GDP. At the same time, however, our total level of oil consumption has risen by about fifty percent while our level of natural gas and coal consumption have risen by even more. Thus, despite massive increases in the energy efficiency over the last 35 years, we are more dependent on oil than ever. This trend is unlikely to be abated in a market economy, where the whole point is to make as much money (consume as much energy) as possible." - http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.htm l

Re:No Shit, Sherlock!

[AKAImBatman]

Here in the USA, most of your electricity comes from coal. We usualy use electricty to generate hydrogen. If we ever move to the "Hydrogen Economy" without some major production changes, we would be better off just creating a coal burning car.

I hate to break it to you, but the Hydrogen car is not about the environment. Sure, it's a nice side-benefit (large power plants are more efficient, hydro and nuclear help reduce pollution, etc.), but the real reason is economics. Oil is quickly approaching a price point to where it is no longer economically feasible to power our transportation infrastructure off it.

Shifting to hydrogen would change the economic equation, and free our infrastructure from a costly choke point. All the power would be consolidated at the power plant level where the government can more easily regulate the infrastructure and provide incentives for companies to provide cheap power.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but economic considerations tend to apply a lot more pressure than the toothless protests of environmental protection groups.

similar to another well-known adage

[rfreem]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." - Carroll Shelby