Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That's not a new car - that's the Ariel Atom with an electric motor in it. http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
The problem with electric cars was never performance, it's range. And this car doesn't solve that problem, although the range isn't that bad either (100 miles). Being an open car, it's not exactly a daily driver though.
Also, if you look at the pictures this is actually just an electric Ariel Atom, which is also faster than a 360 Spider or Carrera GT.
Don't get me wrong -- this is cool. It's just not nearly as revolutionary as the article writer thinks it is, and it certainly won't "save the planet--fast!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Maybe I'm just crazy... but I'm sick and tired of hearing about new and grand vehicles that could potentially reduce our dependency on foreign oil, or make the environment clean or run a bajillion miles to the gallon... I don't really care about the theoretical, research side or first builds that cost more than a single family house... I'd like to be able to find such a vehicle reasonably priced at my local car lot in sufficient shapes and sizes that I drive off with one without feeling crammed into a matchbox and as if I just shelled out far more than I could afford.
Wake me when they are affordable and widely available will you?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The chassis on that looks exactly like the Ariel Atom. The Atom is a very slick, road-legal, car fitted with a Civic Type-R engine that's then supercharged. It produces more power-to-weight than an Enzo, I believe. They're also very cheap (It think the basic model is around £20k here). That'll also do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds (faster than the Ferrari).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero
The original lead acid version was even earlier than 2003.
Deleted
Electric Car: "I'm an electric car, I can't go very fast, or very far.. and if you drive me, people will think you're gaaayyyyy...."
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
100 mine range and 4.5 hour recharge. I would own one, if the price was reasonable. I work a few miles from home and if I get the new job I am going for, it will be a about 30 miles back and forth to work. This car would be great. Come home, plug it in and voila, all charged. Imagine being able to have a small solar array in your backhard to charge it with too. Not bad for people that drive excessively far for work.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
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.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
It may be speedy, but is this car going to be of any practical use, or is it simply going to be a novelty item, used for racing or showing off your newest toy to the other bajillionaires?
Also, as an obligatory point... Where are they getting the electicity to run this thing? Most of the US still get's it's power from Gas run power plants. It's good to see improvement in the tech though, so when we do have other methods of power generation we'll be ablt to take full advantage of them.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
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).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
But the pragmatist in me goes, "Yeah, but they can make it burn a VW Golf in the quarter-mile for under $10,000?" Because that is the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, my friends.
Meh. It's cute, but as soon as you add airbags, side impact beams, rollover protection, 1500 watts of stereo with a subwoofer, make it pass US crash rules, etc. it will weigh 3000 lbs and have a range of 50 feet.
Umm, eletric motors provide instant torque with equals massive acceleration from 0. It takes a combustion engine time move to high rpms.
The best work truck you can get right now is a Dodge "Contractor" model with a 6 cyl cummings diesel and four electric motors. Instant torque combined with the long haul power of a diesel. It gets 24mpg and has an internal 20Kw generator that can power four 3000 sq ft homes. It can run on Biodiesel too. Now THAT is a hybrid.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Most people can't afford a $40,000 car, let alone something that's 2.5x as much. Plus, people feel that their car is less powerful if it's completely silent. Just look back to electic motorcycles, they had to add artificial noise-makers so people would accept them.
"A car that could save the planet--fast"
m l
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.ht
is its power cord?
I think you're being a bit unrealistic here. What you describe is the typical characteristics of a gas powered vehicle. However, how many people need to drive for 6 hours and then refuel in 5 minutes (so they can drive another 6 hours)?
Most people drive less than 100 miles a day commuting and have all night to recharge. This car meets these specs just fine.
If you're driving cross country, rent a gas car.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Dont forget the tango that came out in 2004, electric and does 0-60 in 4 seconds. Also kinda neat that it came out in Spokane Washington and not backed by a bunch of Silicon Valley money men.
The 5 minute charge seems to just be a requirement left over from mandatory trips to the gas station. Most people, I think, would be Ok with 4.5 hours-just plug it in when you get home and it is ready for use in the morning. I'd even be willing to go with a shorter range than the standard 300+ miles per tank (e.g. 100 miles for a commuting-only vehicle).
science is a religion
"I wonder at what point we're polluting more by plugging an electric sports car in and sucking energy from the power plant than we are just filling up our reasonably fuel efficient gasoline vehicles?"
n ode43.html). Power plants are wasteful, but generally more efficient. When you consider that it looks like we're on the verge of building a lot of new Nuclear power plants, whose waste is easier to contain, I think plugging in your car is a decent choice. Parking lots can be like old drive-ins with the radio wire, but with electrical outlets instead.
Automobiles aren't very fuel efficient at all. Car engines waste in excess of 30% of the energy from gasoline (http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
*electric bill for $400 arrives* Ah fuck.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
And they'll shit a brick when 30 nights of pulling volts in a row lands them a $500 electric bill. Way to save all that gas money.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Gas turbine engines also produce peak torque at stall (zero rpm). Too bad they're noisy and not really environmentally friendly because they'll burn damn near anything - alcohol, peanut oil, diesel, kerosene, unleaded gasoline - and all without recalibration.
;-)
Chrysler's A831 turbine cars (early '60s) produced 130 horsepower and 425 ft/lb or torque at zero rpm. Their fifth-generation turbine (1981) only made 105 hp but got 22 mpg in EPA fuel economy testing.
Now all we gotta do is figure out some way to clean up the exhaust from 'em
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
So many car companies are intent on making plug-in-abble cars, but if electric cars become the new thing, we'll have to stop fuding hydrogen engines and dump all of our money into a thousand new nuclear power plants or fusion research.
Computers that use more than 25W should also pay extra for electricity. You should pay a 30% surcharge on electricity for entertainment, or incandescent bulbs. Overclocked, noisy, water-cooled gaming machines should be banned. Those people should pay more and the rest of us that are responsible people that give a damn should not have to subsidize their selfishness. People shouldn't be allowed to run home machines 24h per day. There is no reason to be buying Alienware PCs other than to look retarted.
Congratulations on your new car purchase. Has it occured to you that you could've saved the environment even MORE by buying a used corolla? or by making sure your current vehicle is up to spec?
Probably this doesn't apply to you, but people who buy a new car every year have no right to criticize people who buy an SUV every ten, no matter how miserly the new car is with gas.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I can't help but be impressed. One of the difficulties with electric autos, is maintaining the power/torque nessisary to make them worthwhile. It looks like this Wright guy did it...now no one needs electric cars that preform quite so extream, yet why not take this technology, improve it just a bit, extend the range of the auto by 100-200% and viola! you have yourself a decent electric car for once.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
If the money buried in oil drilling, distribution and developing, manufacturing and distributing AND maintaining combustion vehicles were poured into electrics, we would be using cars like the one mentioned in the article for fun by now, or as 'classic'.
The combustion scheme went further than it was capable due to the fact that the governments and big money can control oil production and distribution - whereas any weirdo with the right equipment can produce electricity enough to charge a car - profit loss for big corps.
Read radical news here
When a hybrid is traveling on a highway for an extended period, 100% of it's power is coming from the engine. To push a modest car (honda accord) down the road a 55MPH requires about a 30-40 HP engine. You probably want a larger one so it does not wimp out if you want to go faster for an extended period.
The batteries in hybrid cars are only used for acceleration in city driving and short periods of excess speed on highways. They are NOT used for anything else because ultimately 100% of the average power comes from the gasoline.
Thus the sole benefit of hybrids is that it turns city driving inefficiency (stop and accelerate) into the equivalent of highway driving since the engine can run at a constant, efficeint, tuned point almost continuously. For people who actually stop and leave the engine running for long periods, the hybrid can save a few sips by shutting down the engine. Also the hybrid can make use of engine type not associated with sexy car performance, like diesel.
But anyhow it cant avoid getting 100% of the energy from the gas.
What about charging the batteries off the grid? That will not work if everyone tries to do it.
If you wanted to be able to pull your car into gas station and gas it up in under 10 minutes to a range of 300 miles like you can with gasoline then the gas station would have to deliver power to your car at a rate of a megawatts. Besides the absurdity of delivering that over the powerlines, any practical battery would explode when charged that fast.
Okey you say, well what about trickle charging it overnight or while you are parked for a long time at work. Well that would work, for you. But if everyone else in your neighborhood did it, then we are back to delivering many megawatts to every neighbor hood. that simply is impossible until we have underground superconduction transmission lines in every city in america.
Thus electric cars re nice show pieces but cannot replace gasoline on a large scale at this time.
Thus the only way to charge an electric car is to have distributed power production or distributed chemical fuel delivery.
So this can mean: 1) hydrids that burn fuel like now. 2) hydrids that burn hydrogen like fuel cells (make the hydrogen at nuclear plants and ship it as chemical energy not over wires)
or charge batteries at nuclear plants and ship them in trucks to refueling stations where you swap batteries.
Thus you can only transport the power needed for typical driving as chemical energy.
30 HP = 22,371 watts
300 miles @ 55 Miles/hour = 19,636 seconds
30hp for 19636= 43,9285,090 joules
delivering 24 mega joules in one minute requires
7,321,418 watts from "pump" at gas station to recharge one car.
If a gas station was a busy one and was processing one car per minute all day long then it would have continous feed of 7 megawatts.
The total capacity of the US for power production is 300 terrawatt hours. so that would mean that if we doubled the entire electrical capacity of the US we could build less than 10,000 gas stations, ignoring all the transmission problems.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." - Carroll Shelby
They leave out the fact that with that 100k$ price tag of the X1, you don't get a roof, or last I checked a street legal car. You don't get a stereo, or nice leather seats. You really don't get anything... you get a motorcycle with 4 wheels more or less. The other cars it's "competing" against are real cars, not glorified crotch rockets. Let's try apples to apples my good man.
The X1 is good as a track car and that's about it. That's definitely not the market bugatti is aiming for.
They could just electrify the track and run some bars overhead.
One step closer to true bumpercars....
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Don't forget about regenerative braking. That is a major reason why stop-n-go driving is more efficient in a hybrid.
Thus the sole benefit of hybrids is that it turns city driving inefficiency (stop and accelerate) into the equivalent of highway driving since the engine can run at a constant, efficeint, tuned point almost continuously.
None of the currently available hybrids use a setup where the gas engine can run at constant RPM.
The benefits of the current drivetrain designs are as follows:
1. Your engine is the same total power, but now has two pieces. You can turn half of it off when both are not needed, such as when cruising.
2. In stop-and-go traffic, regenerative braking turns your kinetic energy back into stored power you can use to accelerate.
3. The large electric motor acts as an "instant starter" making it easy to shut down at stoplights and start up again seamlessly.
4. The high-torque electric motor lets the gas motor be run on the more efficient but less torquey atkinson cycle.
Why do I have the feeling that car companies will standardize a mechanical interface for batteries some time after laptop manufacturers do?