Tesla Model S: 0-60 In 4.5 Seconds

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Model S: 0-60 In 4.5 Seconds

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 2, 2011 @09:41AM from the mind-the-headwinds dept.

thecarchik writes "We already know a lot about the all-electric 2012 Tesla Model S sedan — but at a press event ahead of tonight's exclusive VIP event at the former Toyota NUMMI facility in Fremont, California, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced Tesla was making a faster Model S for those with a sporty side. Cutting the brisk 0-60 time of the standard Model S from 5.6 second to under 4.5 seconds, the sportier version features the same 85 kilowatt-hour, 300 miles-per-charge battery pack found in the 2012 Model S Signature series. 'That's quicker than a [Porsche] 911 [Carrera],' joked Musk. 'Not bad for an electric luxury sedan.' But if you thought 300 miles was the maximum range a Tesla Model S could do, you'd be wrong."

321 of 426 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

320 miles by vlm · 2011-10-02 09:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Summary cut off right where it got interesting, announcing 320 mile range. The Tesla is of course useless because a 320 mile range means I can only drive for 10 continuous hours without a brake in 32 MPH stop and go traffic and I love having a five hour commute each direction. In fact, everyone knows that not only does the average american watch TV 8 hours per day, they also commute 10 hours per day.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:320 miles by colinrichardday · 2011-10-02 10:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can only drive for 10 continuous hours without a brake in 32 MPH stop and go traffic
  So how do you deal with stop-and-go traffic without a brake?
2. Re:320 miles by gmuslera · 2011-10-02 10:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you handle them a bit of plutonium maybe they could install on it batteries that hold 1.2gigawatts, and you'll never get late to work, in fact, you can get there too early.
3. Re:320 miles by ooloogi · 2011-10-02 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  By using an electric drive system to capture the energy, rather than dumping it in a brake?
4. Re:320 miles by colinrichardday · 2011-10-02 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  But how do you stop in stop-and-go traffic without a brake? Doesn't regeneration require a brake?
5. Re:320 miles by Rei · 2011-10-02 10:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, in 32 MPH stop-and-go traffic, you'd probably get more like 400+ miles range. Li-ion EVs excel in those conditions. The optimum steady-state speed for the Tesla Roadster is 15-20 mph. Stop and start causes loss of efficiency, but not nearly as much as highway-speed travel. The Roadster's nominal range would be met at approximately a steady-state of 55mph, if I remember the numbers correctly. Since most people drive faster than that on the highway, most people reported lower achievable ranges.
  Good to see they're offering an aero wheel mod. Go Tesla! :)
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
6. Re:320 miles by Teancum · 2011-10-02 10:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The mileage range is something determined by the U.S. Department of Transportation based upon "typical" driving conditions. Believe it or not, there are standards which apply in this situation which don't come strictly from some marketing executive.
  Your concern is legitimate, but the automotive business in America is so heavily regulated that there isn't much wiggle room for claims like this... especially if you have a production certificate from the D.O.T. for serial production. There is a lot of vaporware in the realm of electric vehicles, but eventually you have to put something out there to actually be tested in the real world. Tesla has done that.
  BTW, driving range also applies to internal combustion engine vehicles as well, although most automotive manufacturers usually don't make that a key selling point.
7. Re:320 miles by PopeRatzo · 2011-10-02 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  They also conveniently missed the $200k price tag.
  So what? They'll just make Apple users their target market.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:320 miles by Lennie · 2011-10-02 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Probably uses the same type of batteries as the iDevices too ;-)
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
9. Re:320 miles by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. In one out of ten trips you take with you car, you are driving over 300 miles? Even if it were 100 miles, I doubt that it would not satisfy 98% of your needs.
10. Re:320 miles by 0123456 · 2011-10-02 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. In one out of ten trips you take with you car, you are driving over 300 miles?
  This is a 'luxury sedan': why would you buy it just to drive to the supermarket?
11. Re:320 miles by Sduic · 2011-10-02 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  A cattle catcher?
  
  --
  *this space intentionally left blank
  "One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
12. Re:320 miles by volsung · 2011-10-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean "Apple management."
13. Re:320 miles by volsung · 2011-10-02 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because that's what he said?
  "The 300-mile range Tesla would suffice for about 90% of my driving. 90%, but not 100%, so I still have to own another vehicle for the remainder."
  I'm not sure how else to interpret that statement without stuffing words into the author's mouth.
14. Re:320 miles by realityimpaired · 2011-10-02 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  BTW, driving range also applies to internal combustion engine vehicles as well, although most automotive manufacturers usually don't make that a key selling point.
  Depends on the manufacturer and the market they're advertising to... the new VW Golf Diesel, for example, is being advertised quite heavily around here for having a 1100km range. I also remember an episode of Top Gear (the real one) where Jeremy drove over 800 miles on a single tank of gas in a Jaguar diesel. (London to Edinburgh and back. don't kid yourself into thinking the "challenges" they do on Top Gear are anything other than advertising for that particular car)
  Some cars are designed to go really fast. Some are designed to handle corners. Some are designed to have lots of torque. Some are designed to go really far on a tank of gas. Some are designed to be the seat of luxury. And some are designed to make the owner look like an idiot (like the guy up the street who has a 2011 Silverado with 24" rims... what better way to say that you're an idiot than to fit a utility truck like a Silverado -- the one with the 6.2L 400hp V8 engine -- with wheels that would preclude your doing anything utilitarian with it, like towing or carrying a load... I have to confess I don't have any inkling how or why the male mind works, but that isn't sexy, it's retarded).
  Usually, a manufacturer will advertise what the car is designed for... you're unlikely to see a 0-60 stat on an advert for a Chev Aveo (astonishingly quick worst-in-class 19 seconds), just as you're unlikely to see a mileage stat on an advert for a Bugatti Veyron (at top speed, you have 11 minutes of fuel with a full tank). For what it's worth, 320 miles is about what I get on my 2011 Subaru Impreza... I could probably get more out of it if I drove less vigorously, but that isn't a car that's designed for mileage, it's a car that's designed to handle corners and go reasonably fast. They're both about the same level of luxury; the main difference between the two is that the Tesla needs to return to a charging station and be plugged in overnight to fill up. The Impreza, I can pull into any gas station, and fill up in a few minutes. That, and the Impreza cost 1/10th as much.
15. Re:320 miles by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-02 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  >>No, regeneration uses the electric motors to shop.
  Damn, no wonder the Teslas are so expensive.
16. Re:320 miles by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-02 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Goddammit I just cleaned this laptop and now it's covered in spit!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
17. Re:320 miles by adolf · 2011-10-02 13:18 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, kind of.
  "Regenerative braking" is just another way to brake (ie: slow down) a moving vehicle, with the benefit of storing some of that energy as electricity. Other common methods using discs or drums lose dissipate all of the energy as heat.
  A similar braking system is used on the small(ish) AC-powered compound miter saw that I have, which rapidly stops the blade after releasing the trigger. But instead of using the stored energy of the forward-moving vehicle to charge a battery, it gets dumped through a resistor and converted to heat. It's simple, easy, and cheap: Compared to a saw which does not brake after use, it just requires a slightly fancier switch, a little more wire, and a resistor, since a common AC motor is just a generator running backward (and vice-versa).
  Just because it's not mechanically-operated and does not rely on friction to get it done does not mean that it is not a brake.
  The Tesla also has disc brakes, and I'm sure it can stop very quickly indeed if directed to do so, which is important on a car. My saw does not have a mechanical brake since it's just a convenience item, and it's OK if it takes a few seconds for it to stop spinning.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
18. Re:320 miles by yanyan · 2011-10-02 14:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not to split hairs, but that's a genuine off-by-0.01 error right there.
19. Re:320 miles by TooMuchToDo · 2011-10-02 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Good to see they're offering an aero wheel mod. Go Tesla! :)
  THIS! Now, to call the Chicago Tesla store tomorrow and find out how I can turn my $5K deposit into one for the faster "sports" Model S version.
20. Re:320 miles by zach_d · 2011-10-02 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  actually, the saw you have probably uses a plugging control circuit, that temporarily reverses the direction of motor, abruptly brining it to a halt.
21. Re:320 miles by jo_ham · 2011-10-02 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Then the range goes down. The amount drawn by the heater/AC system is much less than that drawn by the traction motor though.
  You can also get solar panels in some EVs that supplement the AC system to minimise the impact on the main battery.
22. Re:320 miles by Internetuser1248 · 2011-10-02 17:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, in 32 MPH stop-and-go traffic, you'd probably get more like 400+ miles range ... Stop and start causes loss of efficiency ...
  Right.... so a loss in efficiency causes the range to increase. Not to mention Tesla has consistently exaggerated the range of their vehicles. Not to mention headlights, heater, ac all subtract from range. Even then I really don't see how a $50,000 electric sports car is really the solution to anyone's energy crisis. Sure it will make rich California businessmen feel better about their carbon footprint, and thank god... wouldn't want them to feel guilty or anything. I don't have anything against Tesla specifically, I just don't like seeing a car ad on a news website, and then hear people cooing over it like a newborn baby as though it is the solution to the worlds woes rather than just an expensive and wasteful toy for rich people.
23. Re:320 miles by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-02 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you drive a sufficiently big car, braking is not your problem anymore. ~
24. Re:320 miles by Curunir_wolf · 2011-10-02 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  "1.21 gigawatts"
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
25. Re:320 miles by gordo3000 · 2011-10-02 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm wondering, how do you measure luxury? The impreza, at the top end, is more than 1/2 of the price of the 300 mile range model S but with what looks like a far lower quality navigation and enetertainment system, lower quality seats for a luxury sedan, is slower by a few tenths, with wheels that would cost about 5k to reach the same level. In my mind the Impreza adds up to a shadow of the other car, with every feature just slightly lower on the totem pole.
  of course, the model S isn't out there to be tested or checked so these numbers could be off. I am just taking what i can find from multiple sources and it is unclear what the faster model S will cost. the impreza has the unfortunate requirement that it exists, and so it is quite obvious in what ways it may be lacking compared to a paper car.
26. Re:320 miles by ianare · 2011-10-02 21:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Expensive and useless toy for rich people like ... the first cars, the first motor boats and the first airplanes. Give it a few years. We'll all be driving electric cars soon enough.
27. Re:320 miles by Inda · 2011-10-02 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  I had "regenerative braking" on my 1/12 scale model cars over 20 years ago.
  
  I do wonder why such a big fuss is made about it.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
28. Re:320 miles by vlm · 2011-10-02 23:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A cattle catcher?
  I don't drive thru walmart parking lots, thank you
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
29. Re:320 miles by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-03 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  One of the main benefits of electric cars is how cheap they are to run. Someone doing 12000 miles a year (a bit above average in the UK) would only spend Â£250-300 on charging the car, far less than the cost of putting petrol into an engine that gets 50MPG. There is also no road tax to pay on low emission cars at the moment.
  The barrier is the up-front cost. If the cost could get down to the 10-15k mark I'd get one because it would save me money. As it is Â£23k seems to be average for a small electric car and although in the long run it will still be cheaper than a petrol engine dealers are not offering much in the way of 0% finance on them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
30. Re:320 miles by Andy+Dodd · 2011-10-03 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  The torque curve of electric motors (effectively constant torque from stop up to peak horsepower) makes CVTs irrelevant in all-electric cars.
  In fact, Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive effectively implements a CVT using the electric motors and a fixed planetary gearset.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
31. Re:320 miles by Qzukk · 2011-10-03 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  It can fail to suffice for 10% of his needs for reasons unrelated to trip length
  But a "10 HP range extender" would fix problems unrelated to trip length? Hmm.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
32. Re:320 miles by Teancum · 2011-10-03 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  The "regenerative braking" in this case is using the electric motors to generate electricity in the braking process and to feed that energy back into the storage system. Technically, if you are driving down a steep hill using this brake system, it could add a substantial charge to the batteries. Somehow I doubt your 1/12 scale model car could do this kind of braking.
  It isn't unique to Tesla, however, and many of the "high performance" electric vehicle manufacturers are doing this because it is "free energy" in those situations where it is useful. This is pretty much like trying to use an engine air brake for an internal combustion engine (or "downshifting" on a manual clutch), but in the case of an electric vehicle it can do something useful instead of just heating up the engine even with the fuel cut.
33. Re:320 miles by networkBoy · 2011-10-03 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  A quick calculation shows I spend roughly $4K/year on fuel.
  I can charge an electric for free at work, but I don't think this car will run for 12 years without needing a battery pack...
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
34. Re:320 miles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-03 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Things like $50,000 toys for rich people tend to be the start of the innovation food chain. These people can afford to fund the R&D that leads to the little innovations that will eventually make their way into cheaper vehicles for the masses. Racing is the same way - few can afford the cost of purchasing and maintaining a race car, but a lot of great innovations come from the track.
  I'll probably never drive or own a Tesla, but I believe they are solving problems that will lead to more viable and practical vehicles in the future. I hope they sell a lot of cars - it will accelerate the process.
  I support the space programs for similar reasons. I will never set foot on the moon. The closest to space I'll ever get will be on a commercial airliner. The research that supports space exploration has contributed to so many areas of my life.
35. Re:320 miles by CubicleView · 2011-10-03 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was "1.21 jiggawatts"
36. Re:320 miles by SecurityGuy · 2011-10-03 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Not missing the point, this is just not the car for you. This is something a lot of people (including me, formerly) get wrong when decrying a product as a bad idea. Sometimes you're just not the target market.
  For me, the 300 mile range is good enough for 99.9% of my trips. A few times a year I have to drive farther than that, and I wouldn't mind renting a car for those times. Then again, I own 4 cars anyway, so it's not really an issue.
  Everything Tesla makes is not intended for mass market. Yes, one factor or another rules their products out for a great many people. That's really not relevant to its future success. It just has to be a good fit for enough of a market to be profitable. That market doesn't have to include you.
37. Re:320 miles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-03 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  The guy with the truck is probably happy with it whereas you seem bitter and upset about something which is none of your business.
  Who's the retard again?
  Get over yourself.
  
  I can pull into any gas station, and fill up in a few minutes.
  
  Yes, we're in the early stages of the electric car era. We all know that. You said nothing here that is not common knowledge.
38. Re:320 miles by operagost · 2011-10-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  All we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthy. Then the government can buy these $58,000 cars (plus a solar electric system, of course; wouldn't want to built any dangerous power plants) for every home. ENERGY CRISIS SOLVED
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
39. Re:320 miles by networkBoy · 2011-10-03 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I mis-read paper as proper and thought WTF? I don't own one, but I'm pretty sure the Impreza is a "proper" car...
  made for a nice self directed morning laugh.
  I would argue that the Impreza is not at all targeted at the same market demographic as the Tesla, so is not really a shadow of the Tesla S. I'm not all to sure what the Tesla S target market is (I want one, but can not afford it).
  As to GP about Top Gear being paid shills. Of course they are. It is the most enjoyable advertising I watch. When the challenges are not advertising for a given car they use old cars, if it is a new car (or set thereof, like finding the "best" road in Europe) the cars are provided by the manufacturers. I would guess that there were more than three manufacturers lining up, but Aston, Ferrari, and Lambo made the cut.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
40. Re:320 miles by marnues · 2011-10-03 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting you own a car that hasn't needed significant repair in 12 years?
41. Re:320 miles by i_b_don · 2011-10-03 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Some people (mainly the old engineers) pronounce "giga-" as a "jiga-" sound for some reason. Always sounds funny to me, but I've heard that pronunciation. Obviously Dr Brown was one such old engineer.
  d
  
  --
  all language nazi's will burne in heil!
42. Re:320 miles by m50d · 2011-10-03 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Right.... so a loss in efficiency causes the range to increase.
  No, if it was stop and start 55MPH that would be even worse than steady 55, but stop-and-go 32MPH is better than steady 55MPH. Perhaps you should've read the post you were replying to?
  
  --
  I am trolling
43. Re:320 miles by Internetuser1248 · 2011-10-03 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  They are only cheaper to run at the moment, and only compared with the very high statistical average of the US vehicle fleet. They are not cheaper to run than a well tuned k-car with an ICE, and they are less efficient in terms of thermal units per km (well to wheel). As you mention, there is also much less road tax on them and also electricity is relatively cheap compared with petrol. There are over 250 million vehicles in the united states. If you convert that entire fleet to electric how long do you think the price of electricity will stay down? Care to do the math on mWh excess on the national grid vs that required for 250 million vehicles, or the math on how many square km of solar panels that will require? If the fleet were converted, and the grid wasn't massively expanded, you would just end up with all the petrol being burned in power stations anyway, although with the state of the current fleet that might not be much of an efficiency loss. Not to mention if the tax isn't raised on them the government will be unable to maintain road infrastructure.
  
  I understand how attractive the dream is, I am just saying face facts: for now, cars of any kind are unsustainable as a form of mass transit. Sure in a few decades if we get the energy issues sorted out and improve out battery technology we may be looking toward electric vehicles as the way of the future. I look forward with hope to that time, and urge everyone to focus on the energy task now, the cars are looking polished enough and battery research takes time.
44. Re:320 miles by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-03 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this car will run for 12 years without needing a battery pack...
  Most manufacturers do a warranty on the batteries, but tests on Prius batteries have shown little or no degradation over a 10 year lifespan anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
45. Re:320 miles by arobustus · 2011-10-03 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  My bike gets 100 MGP of WATER. I never have to plug it in. I got it on Craig’s list for $400. I ride to work every day 14.5 mi. round trip so I stay in shape. Lost 30lb. & now eat anything I want & never give it a second thought. I get to spend time outside every day. I'm 61 & I feel great. I know what beautiful days are and also what rain and cold are. I'm in the process of giving away my car. My wife & I should be able to get by with one car. When the snow flies I'll cop a ride in with her or take a bus. When we all learn to move close enough to our workplaces to do this, the world will be a better place and the people who make anti-depressant drugs will have to make something else or go out of business.
46. Re:320 miles by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-03 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  They are only cheaper to run at the moment, and only compared with the very high statistical average of the US vehicle fleet. They are not cheaper to run than a well tuned k-car with an ICE
  That simply is not true, they are an order of magnitude cheaper to run and petrol is only going to get more expensive. It is just much cheaper to produce electricity than to get oil out of the ground, refine it and transport it to where it is needed.
  
  Care to do the math on mWh excess on the national grid vs that required for 250 million vehicles, or the math on how many square km of solar panels that will require?
  It isn't nearly as bad as you think because most charging will be done over night, when demand is low anyway. For nuclear, wind, solar thermal and wave power it costs almost zero to run them at capacity during the night rather than spooling generation down. And yes, solar thermal does work at night, it is reliable 24/7.
  
  cars of any kind are unsustainable as a form of mass transit
  That I can agree with.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
47. Re:320 miles by Dare+nMc · 2011-10-03 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  >own a car that hasn't needed significant repair in 12 years?
  Very believable. I have a 98 chevy Cavalier 5spd with 180,000 miles. Added up the maintenance (not including tires, windshield wipers, AC compressor, paint job) that would be common with electric. I came up with $1460 in lifetime maint, add in the 9000 gallons of fuel, and purchase price new of $8900 I am under $36,000 lifetime cost. (maint items inc: 60 oil changes, 4 spark plug changes, key switch replacement, 2 fuel filters, Antifreeeze flush, 3 brake changes, 1 pair CV joint replacements.) I am over due for timing chain, and transmission oil change, but still...
48. Re:320 miles by HornWumpus · 2011-10-03 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  He has 24'' rims because he believes that they will get him laid (he might be right, stupidity abounds). The same reason men do most stupid things.
  Large rims in even larger tires would at least make some sense on a truck (I'm talking 40+'' boggers). I assume he has rubber band tires on chrome rims.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
49. Re:320 miles by networkBoy · 2011-10-03 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I own a car that was built in 83 and didn't need major repairs until about 2003.
  Maintenance was not an issue to speak of, and while I agree that an ICE will need work, since the battery pack is the single most expensive consumable on an EV I compare it against a head gasket, transmission main seal, and gearbox friction pack all at the same time for relative cost expectations.
  Another poster said that the Prius batteries have held up well, but I partially wonder if that's because it has an ICE to fall back on rather than the stresses the pack would sustain in an all EV?
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
50. Re:320 miles by Kommet · 2011-10-03 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Jigga, what?
51. Re:320 miles by Anguirel · 2011-10-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  If the fleet were converted, and the grid wasn't massively expanded, you would just end up with all the petrol being burned in power stations anyway, although with the state of the current fleet that might not be much of an efficiency loss.
  From my understanding of the efficiency of a fixed-site oil-burning large-scale electric generator vs. a vehicles ICE, this would be a significant efficiency gain even if it were still burning petrol. From a foot note here:
  
  Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
52. Re:320 miles by adolf · 2011-10-03 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's not abrupt.
  The saw spins up in about a quarter-second second, and dims the lights for a moment. It takes about two seconds to stop, and does not dim the lights at that time.
  This is far more indicative of resistive braking than of reversing the motor.
  It's also simpler, cheaper, and has fewer parts to wear out. And since the saw was very cheap, I'm inclined to believe that its brake is also very cheap.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 09:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Ford T cost $240 in 1925. That's $3000 in today's money. If you want a revolution, what you want is low prices.
1. Re:How about a Model T? by Poorcku · 2011-10-02 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Impossible thanks to regulations:
  1. emission standards (euro V or whatever) 2. safety standards (abs, esp, airbags, etc). you can't even put a car the market without those.
  Try to comply with all on this list http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html and it will cost you a fortune.
  
  --
  I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
2. Re:How about a Model T? by Bobakitoo · 2011-10-02 10:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Ford T has no air conditioner, seat belt, airbags, computer assisted direction and engine or sophisticated electronic gadget. The Ford T was essentially a golf cart, and 3000$ is about right for a modern electric gold cart. If you want a revolution, peoples will have to change what they are expecting from a automobile. We can't no longer afford a 'living room' on wheel. The automobile need to return to its minimalist roots and focus on getting us from point A to point B with the less power possible.
3. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 10:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  None of the latter four are meaningful in this case. Unskilled wage? There isn't much of that left in automobile production. There are not even a lot of skilled workers in modern car factories. GDP per capita is not a good base for comparison either, because there are now a lot more things being done in the USA than in 1925, which are now also part of GDP.
4. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You clearly don't understand this is a luxury sedan and not an everyman car.
  How many years or decades was it from the introduction of the auto to the availability of the Model T? The price you quote for the Model T in 1925 is relatively accurate but the car had been in production for SEVENTEEN years by that time and its price of $850 in 1909 would be equivalent to about $22000 today
  Do you seriously think the availability of a low-cost EV will take the same length of time?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
5. Re:How about a Model T? by artor3 · 2011-10-02 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  So comparable to buying a used compact. Only today's compact gets at least twice as many miles per gallon, five times as much horse power, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, a radio/cd player, seat belts, air bags, crumble zones, headlights that don't run on burning oil, a top speed above 40 mph, and the ability to start without using a fricken hand crank.
  
  There's a reason modern cars are more expensive. You are getting a much, much, <i>much</i> better product for your money. Absolutely no one would buy a car with specs similar to a Model T at $3000.
6. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 10:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Thanks for the link but you'll get a better comparison if you use the Model T's price of $850 in 1909, instead of the cost after being in production for 17 years.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
7. Re:How about a Model T? by Nethead · 2011-10-02 10:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I already drive a '93 Saturn SL1, how much lower can I go?
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
8. Re:How about a Model T? by Osgeld · 2011-10-02 10:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I was looking at a 10,000$ Kia, sure that didnt have AC, power anything or even an AM radio, that car had the highest safety rating of that year, 40MPG. I ended up getting a 15 grand model and that even had a MP3 player.
  Meanwhile at the GM dealership I could get a lower quality car, with less features, less gas mileage, less power and a much lower safety rating for damn near 10 grand more than the IMPORT. So its not impossible to make a low cost car, sure not 3 grand like the OP suggests but the American companies are not even trying.
  Its been over a decade since I bought a domestic car, and now that almost all the imports are being made in the USA, I get to have a quality product for a reasonable price without hearing the "dey took our jobs" horse shit.
9. Re:How about a Model T? by tepples · 2011-10-02 10:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Unskilled wage is how long one has to flip burgers to afford a car.
10. Re:How about a Model T? by Dunbal · 2011-10-02 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Except the numbers the government puts out are pure bullshit.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
11. Re:How about a Model T? by phantomfive · 2011-10-02 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Consider this to be like the Peugeot Typ 19, a luxury (for the time) that only a few could afford, and yet something that pushed the technology forward.
  
  In general it has to be invented before it can be mass produced at a low cost. Tesla is still in the invention stage.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:How about a Model T? by budgenator · 2011-10-02 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure we could build a Model T for $3K today, and consumers have higher exceptions than they did in 1925.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
13. Re:How about a Model T? by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 10:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The regulations are expensive to comply with, but most serve a good purpose. What should have been done (blocked by the Big-3) would be to merge US regulations with EU and Japanese regulations so that a single regulation would apply everywhere. Instead, the US has deliberately invented incompatible regulations as protectionist matters to block good-selling EU cars from landing on US shores. Yay protectionism for failing industries at the expense of the citizens.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
14. Re:How about a Model T? by Rei · 2011-10-02 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  The Model T was introduced in late 1908. You're talking about where Tesla would be in nearly 2030.
  Back in 1908, the Model T cost $850, or over $20k today. But remember that the part count in such a vehicle was many orders of magnitude lower than that in a modern car. Here's what a 1908 Model T looked like under the hood. Not much there! Also remember that the Model T was hardly the first gasoline car produced in America.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
15. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The availability of a low-cost EV has already taken more than its reasonable share of time. Actually, they should have been around for at least a decade.
  
  The Chinese have them. In fact, Daimler sued a Chinese car maker in 2006 for making a copy-cat Smart car with an electric engine and battery. And the Chinese had already been using electric cars for real since the mid 90ies. - Not that anybody cared or noticed back in the stagnated (that is, not developing) countries.
  
  The key is to understand, that electric cars have no market as luxury items unless and until they have been established as cars for everyday users. Before that, there just won't be the infrastructure it takes to make proper use of them. But in order to get to this point, they need a price point that makes it possible for people to use them as single-purpose vehicles, alongside the traditional ones. (E.g. getting one person and a suitcase to work and back)
  
  $3000-4000 for a light-weight two-person car with limited range (80km/50miles) and speed (below 80km/h or 50mph) is entirely possible to achieve. Weight, range, acceleration and speed are the main determinants of the size of the battery (and its weight!), which determines the price of the battery and thus the price of an electric car. Such a car could actually have reasonable charging times (One tenth the total capacity means one tenth the time to charge) and such a car could do some 90% of the driving for a lot of people. But because of the limited performance nobody is going to bother buying such a car unless it's really cheap. (Meaning: unless it has a price that makes it reasonable to buy without being an eco-freak.)
  
  But then again, you don't get to pay gas prices of $8/gal (as in Europe) until you realize that the USA will collapse if it continues to pretend that cheap oil is only a matter of military power.
16. Re:How about a Model T? by Teancum · 2011-10-02 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind the magic "carbon tax credits" and other ways that the market is being skewed. I know of more than a few automobile manufacturers who sell their vehicles at a slight loss and make up for it with sales of pollution tax credits to luxury auto companies. Still, your point is well taken so far as an arguably better vehicle costing less than an inferior vehicle which is "made in America". It isn't a surprise that foreign auto companies have been making inroads into the America auto market for decades precisely because of this kind of problem.
17. Re:How about a Model T? by Poorcku · 2011-10-02 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  i never said they don't serve a good purpose. i was just arguing that 3k$ cars are impossible.
  
  --
  I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
18. Re:How about a Model T? by frosty_tsm · 2011-10-02 10:58 · Score: 2
  
  I already drive a '93 Saturn SL1, how much lower can I go?
  '85 Geo Prizim?
19. Re:How about a Model T? by frosty_tsm · 2011-10-02 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Ford T has no air conditioner, seat belt, airbags, computer assisted direction and engine or sophisticated electronic gadget. The Ford T was essentially a golf cart, and 3000$ is about right for a modern electric gold cart. If you want a revolution, peoples will have to change what they are expecting from a automobile. We can't no longer afford a 'living room' on wheel. The automobile need to return to its minimalist roots and focus on getting us from point A to point B with the less power possible.
  Clearly we think we can.
  
  What I'm tired of seeing are people with big vehicles of their own choosing (not out of necessity) who are weeping about gas prices. We Americans still have some of the cheapest gas in the world even though prices have doubled since 2004 (when I bought my first car and started really paying attention). But we expect to be able to buy a big SUV or minivan as soon as we have our first kids. Or lift our pickups and put mud tires on them. If we have had $5 gasoline, what prevents us from having $6 or $8 gas before it's time to get a new car?
20. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly what people argued 100 years ago. Try:
  
  http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7213
  (My Life and Work by Henry Ford)
21. Re:How about a Model T? by l0ungeb0y · 2011-10-02 11:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I already drive a '93 Saturn SL1, how much lower can I go?
  '85 Geo Prizim?
  '76 Gremlin
22. Re:How about a Model T? by Nethead · 2011-10-02 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Touche'.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
23. Re:How about a Model T? by morari · 2011-10-02 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  It worked great for the Volkswagen Beetle as well.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
24. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Try:
  
  http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24240+in+1925+dollars
  Inflation has been far from steady.
25. Re:How about a Model T? by zippthorne · 2011-10-02 11:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You're seriously making the claim that emissions standards are holding back cheap electric cars?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
26. Re:How about a Model T? by zippthorne · 2011-10-02 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Using the phrase, "rule of 72" makes you sound like either a charlatan, or an old timer who doesn't realize that you can get a pocket calculator capable of doing exponents and logarithms for under $10. Sometimes you can even find them on sale at gas stations....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
27. Re:How about a Model T? by john.r.strohm · 2011-10-02 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are two sides to the gas prices argument.
  The question nobody ever asks is this: Why is gas so much cheaper in the United States than everywhere else? The drilling is international. The costs are the same. The refining is the same. (Additives are different. I suspect that blending costs are HIGHER in the US than just about everywhere else, but ignore that for the moment.) Pipelines, storage tanks, gasoline tankers, and gas stations are the same everywhere.
  So why are Europeans paying twice as much for gasoline?
  (Hint: Even in the US, a large chunk of the price of a gallon of gasoline is federal, state, and local taxes.)
28. Re:How about a Model T? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, until employers out there pay livable wages that can support the cost for those cleaner safer cars - I'm gonna cut people off in those expensive cars while driving that 15 year old deathtrap you're talking about while flipping the bird and leaving a nice cloud of burnt oil trailing behind. Not everyone has the means for better in this economy. (And don't say to get a degree either, that's turned out to be bullshit too. The job market favors employers way too heavily these days. You can have a Bachelor's or Masters and find that the only place that readily hires without any experience in spite of qualifications still has you toiling away at burger flipping wages. It's what you gotta do to pay-off that debt for what was supposed to get you ahead in life.)
  If you want people to adopt electric cars or take them seriously, the point of them being affordable to the majority is still a good one.
29. Re:How about a Model T? by Mashiki · 2011-10-02 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. I drive a '96 saturn SW2 for nearly the same reason good car, damn cheap when they were new. $12k in cash. Good mileage too, right up around 44mpg. To be perfectly honest I would buy a cheap car without any of the crap in it, if it was cheap. But automakers seem to have this "HOLY SHIT LETS PACK IN CRAP" mentality.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
30. Re:How about a Model T? by oberhaus · 2011-10-02 12:07 · Score: 1
  Tesla has a Secret Master Plan. In short:
  
  1. Build sports car
  2. Use that money to build an affordable car
  3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car
  4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
  
  and of course, if it's going to work, they must:
  5. Profit!
31. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 12:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Until now, most of the car companies have been blocking the path of a mass-market EV that could compete. Chevron managed to scoop the NiMH patents and their subsidiary Cobasys won't accept any orders for car-sized batteries below 10k units. If you're going to travel above 25 mph, you can't be considered a low-speed vehicle anymore and you suddenly have to meet a lot of additional requirements for safety.
  And, yes, US attitudes against small, odd vehicles that can't do the 1/4 mile in 15 secs and cheap gas is a big factor.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
32. Re:How about a Model T? by Burning1 · 2011-10-02 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  We can't no longer afford a 'living room' on wheel. The automobile need to return to its minimalist roots and focus on getting us from point A to point B with the less power possible.
  A 50cc scooter will get you from point A to point B, making 100MPG. Has all the safety features of a Model T, too.
33. Re:How about a Model T? by khallow · 2011-10-02 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Get an account. Then you can have a resource that is only limited by the size of the variable type it is indexed by. And you can post under a pseudonym so spacenutters don't bug you when they're not supposed to.
  
  As to "resource-constrained", it's worth noting that the perception of resource-constrained doesn't fare well when subject to reality. For example, many people do afford "living rooms" on wheels (ie, SUVs), even whole houses on wheels (recreational vehicles). In fact, I see no "winding down" of living arrangements. They're a lot nicer now than they were decads ago.
34. Re:How about a Model T? by khallow · 2011-10-02 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you want a revolution, peoples will have to change what they are expecting from a automobile.
  
  And what happens if I don't want a revolution? I don't change anything, right? kthxbye.
  
  Plus, somewhat more efficient cars really aren't that valuable. Cars are already pretty efficient. Even the gas guzzler usually costs more in wasted time from waiting in traffic than it does in gasoline.
  
  As I see it, the real revolutions would be either telecommuting, namely, being able to work and do other things without having to travel, or even being able to live without having to work at all.
35. Re:How about a Model T? by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  $3k cars are possible. But when you take out the A/C, radio, and such to get to to a $3k price point, people won't want them. But a 4-wheeled motorcycle (registered as a car) should be able to pass regulations for $3k and still be profitable, if people bought a million of them.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
36. Re:How about a Model T? by chrismcb · 2011-10-02 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  You know, there isn't a lot to an original Model T. I bet, if you did a bit of research, you could probably manufacturer a replica today for under $3K. Of course it wouldn't meet any of today's standards, and wouldn't really be driveable, so not many will purchase one, which of course means the end result would be more than $3K.
37. Re:How about a Model T? by Lifyre · 2011-10-02 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  The average inflation was ACTUALLY 2.99% apparently (at least according to the link). Oh and I use the rule of 72. Easier than constantly reaching for a calculator...
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
38. Re:How about a Model T? by trout007 · 2011-10-02 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Use gold since that Is what they used in 1909. It was $20/oz then and $1600 now. That is 8000% so $850 * 80 = $68,000.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
39. Re:How about a Model T? by elashish14 · 2011-10-02 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Probably a Ford or GM after you've had it for a few months.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
40. Re:How about a Model T? by mbkennel · 2011-10-02 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  In the USA a small chunk of the price of a gallon of gasoline is taxes.
  In Europe an large chunk to majority of the price of petrol is taxes.
41. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-02 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why did it take 120 years to get from the first successful electric car (William Morrison, 1891) to the "Peugot Typ 19" for electric cars, yet it only took 14 years to get from the first successful internal combustion powered car (Karl Benz, 1885) to the actual Peugot Typ 19?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
42. Re:How about a Model T? by TooMuchToDo · 2011-10-02 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a good thing. When gas is cheap, your land development is based solely around the automobile. Gas prices go up? Can't drive to work, the store, the mall. in Europe, keeping gas prices high ensures you don't become too dependent on the fuel, preventing an economic shock (like the US went through) when crude prices hit $140/barrel.
  Gas taxes = good policy.
43. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-02 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly don't understand this is a luxury sedan and not an everyman car. How many years or decades was it from the introduction of the auto to the availability of the Model T? The price you quote for the Model T in 1925 is relatively accurate but the car had been in production for SEVENTEEN years by that time and its price of $850 in 1909 would be equivalent to about $22000 today Do you seriously think the availability of a low-cost EV will take the same length of time?
  Well, obviously not. Since the first successful electric car was introduced in 1891 and we still don't have a low-cost EV. While the first internal combustion engine automobile was introduced in 1885 and the Model T was introduced in 1909.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
44. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-02 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  The Model T was introduced in late 1908. You're talking about where Tesla would be in nearly 2030.
  Back in 1908, the Model T cost $850, or over $20k today. But remember that the part count in such a vehicle was many orders of magnitude lower than that in a modern car. Here's what a 1908 Model T looked like under the hood. Not much there! Also remember that the Model T was hardly the first gasoline car produced in America.
  Of course, the Tesla is hardly the first electric car produced in America either, by over 100 years. The first successful electric car was introduced in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was introduced in 1885.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
45. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Gold is too volatile - it's climbed from $600 to $1600 in only 4 years but has fluctuated between $300 and $400 per oz for almost 20 years.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
46. Re:How about a Model T? by phantomfive · 2011-10-02 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Because no one cared for all those years. Oil was really accessible.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
47. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Study the history of EVs more closely - there were successful, affordable EVs well into the 1920s although nearly all models had disappeared by 1935. Ford's mass production techniques, the discovery of oil in Texas and the invention of the electric starter ( how ironic ) began the phase-out for EVs.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
48. Re:How about a Model T? by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2011-10-02 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I already drive a '93 Saturn SL1, how much lower can I go?
  '85 Geo Prizim?
  '76 Gremlin
  1959 Renault Dauphine?
  
  --
  Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
49. Re:How about a Model T? by tftp · 2011-10-02 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Unskilled wage is how long one has to flip burgers to afford a car.
  The unskilled wage is seriously inflated today, compared to 1925, because of minimum wage laws. This still means that modern unskilled wages are 1/3 of what they were in 1925.
50. Re:How about a Model T? by tftp · 2011-10-02 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  All you guys have nothing on ZAZ-965A.
51. Re:How about a Model T? by quenda · 2011-10-02 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  How about this: the Model T was cheaper than a refrigerator.
  
  There was a 1922 model that consisted of a wooden cold box, water-cooled compressor, an ice cube tray and a 9-cubic-foot (0.25 m3) compartment, and cost $714. (A 1922 Model-T Ford cost about $450.)
  
  What's the old joke? - Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 mi/gal."
52. Re:How about a Model T? by jo_ham · 2011-10-02 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  Kia has just released an 88mpg Rio here in the UK (a 1.1 litre common rail diesel). In US figures that's 73.3 US MPG. Has AC and power windows/locking etc.
  Comes with a 7 year warranty too, but it is $18.5k in USD (although take off 20% for VAT).
53. Re:How about a Model T? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2011-10-02 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  In production for 17 years or not, there is no brand-new car available today that costs $3000. I'd certainly buy a 17 year old design if it were still made new today for $3000.
54. Re:How about a Model T? by Malc · 2011-10-02 17:25 · Score: 2
  
  I see quite a few REVAs on the streets of London. It's been panned by the Jeremy Clarkson club, and it has a fairly limited range, but clearly it is selling. The mayor of London has been supporting electric car ideas for a while, and now he's pushing replacing the city's fleet of 22,000 taxis with zero-emission vehicles by 2020, which might mean electric vehicles. But as you say, the cost of petrol in the US isn't providing an incentive, and apparently nor is air quality, all compounded by the greater driving distances Americans travel in and around their cities.
55. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  You can in India and you can get some pretty okay second-hand cars in several Western countries for well under $3000 that'll last for years. Also, times have changed a lot - in those days, cars were slow and unsafe. And you had to climb steep hills in reverse due to the poor original placement of the gas tank.
  And only 20 horsepower? Heck, there are riding mowers that can match that.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
56. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Fuel cells - an incredibly expensive way to waste two thirds of the energy you're putting into "charging" up your car. With batteries you lose less than one tenth. That's what always gets lost when people talk starry-eyed about fuel cells.
57. Re:How about a Model T? by 7-Vodka · 2011-10-02 18:05 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Hey I get it. So you build in the inefficiency all the time, so that when those rare times come where you have to adjust you're already used to it?
  Brilliant!
  I had a crazy uncle that used to wear a buttplug all the time, so that just in case he got gang raped by a bunch of guys it wouldn't hurt.
  Like I said tho, he was crazy.
  Let's just pretend to forget that most countries in europe are crowded as fuck and cheap gas or not people ain't gonna be building anywhere NEW because there ain't nowhere new to build baby.
  
  --
  Liberty.
58. Re:How about a Model T? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot one thing. The main reason manufacturers don't build electrics is the HUGE loss of profits for parts and service over the life of the car; even after they are paid off.
  That's the real bone they have to pick with electrics and that's something you NEVER hear.
59. Re:How about a Model T? by ArsonSmith · 2011-10-02 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  there are thousands of options for low-cost EV equivilant to a Model T. Just look at any golf course and you see i full of them. They probably actually have better stats over all than a model T as well.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
60. Re:How about a Model T? by serviscope_minor · 2011-10-02 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  Gold is too volatile
  As opposed to what? I'm not defending gold, but estimating how wealth has changed since 1909 is extraordinarily hard, since the relative costs of things have changed so much.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
61. Re:How about a Model T? by ianare · 2011-10-02 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  $3000? How about $2000 for a brand new Tata Nano ?
62. Re:How about a Model T? by jabuzz · 2011-10-02 21:17 · Score: 2
  
  It has long been known that in the long term the absolute price of gas/petrol is not as important as the short term fluctuations. Basically higher prices cause long term structural changes in the economy, i.e. I move close to work, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle etc. The amount you actually spend on fuel as a percentage of your income is not that different between the USA and Europe.
  The killer is the short term price fluctuations. Having high fuel duty cushions this, so if the price I pay is 50% tax, then a doubling of the raw material only increase prices by 25% rather than 100%.
  Low fuel prices in the USA have resulted in an economy that will take many trillions of dollars to structurally adjust to high fuel prices. Given that high fuel prices are here to stay, that you might think this is good long term economic planning only shows up your ignorance.
63. Re:How about a Model T? by tp1024 · 2011-10-02 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Neither electric nor available. It's over $3000 and Tata has a lot of trouble actually building them. http://www.nanostats.info/tata-nano-what-went-wrong/
64. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-02 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  You were the one who appeared to be suggesting that the Tesla was a new technology/idea similar to the internal combustion automobile in the late 1800s to early 1900s. I was pointing out that electric cars are almost as old as internal combustion cars.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
65. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-02 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that EVs are a mature technology. They have been around for well over 100 years. If the technology is not there yet, get back to me when it is.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
66. Re:How about a Model T? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  "If we have had $5 gasoline, what prevents us from having $6 or $8 gas before it's time to get a new car?"
  Oh, those prices are coming all right. The price will waver up and down, but it's a non-renewable resource and the only way the price would permanently go down is if an alternative starts to get widespread use. That doesn't seem likely until the price is much higher (say, $10/gallon). When I'm buying a car I think of ~10 year timeframe. I remember when I went shopping last time (2003) and told the dealer I wanted the most fuel-efficient 4-door car I could afford because I expected prices to rise substantially over the subsequent 10 years. He found that attitude strange and he kept trying to sell me an SUV model, saying "the fuel costs aren't that high". Yeah, right. Maybe *then*. What about now?
  The thing that makes me laugh are the commercials touting how great the gas mileage is in some new SUV/crossover/boatcar, then the small print says what that mileage is: pathetic. Typically you can get twice the fuel efficiency by simply choosing an ordinary, low-tech car, and you do even better if it is a hybrid. I have no sympathy for anyone driving unnecessarily large/heavy vehicles if they aren't truly needed for the job, because they push the fuel prices up for everyone else. When people buy a car now they shouldn't be thinking about fuel prices today, they should be thinking at least 50% higher, because that's probably what you'll be paying by the time you get a new car.
67. Re:How about a Model T? by trout007 · 2011-10-02 22:55 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Well since gold has maintained value for 5,000 years and the fiat dollar is only 40 years old I think I'll use gold.
  When you purchased a car in 1909 it was in gold coin or gold certificate.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
68. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that's a very valid point - it also undercuts the " EVs are too expensive" but too many consumers don't think that far ahead when making a purchase.
  Company fleets, on the other hand, are sure to take that into account, and will be a crucial factor in the uptake of EVs.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
69. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-02 23:48 · Score: 2
  
  As compared to the consumer price index. There's nothing to prevent gold from crashing back to pre-2007 levels ( expect the horrible state of the Western economies ) but will that drop the cost of everything you buy to what you were paying 4-6 years ago?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
70. Re:How about a Model T? by lwriemen · 2011-10-03 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
71. Re:How about a Model T? by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  The key is to understand, that electric cars have no market as luxury items unless and until they have been established as cars for everyday users.
  The key is to understand that what you have said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Early adopters don't buy items based on their usefulness to the plebes. The Tesla sold like hotcakes, which proves you wrong; a $110,000 roadster is a luxury item, even if you don't call it a "luxury car". Rich people love to buy sleepers, too, so this is perfect for them.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
72. Re:How about a Model T? by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-03 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  You could easily sell an electric car costing three or four times that with only a little bit more range and speed, simply because they are so cheap to charge up.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
73. Re:How about a Model T? by mdarksbane · 2011-10-03 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the graphs I have seen put Korean cars at roughly the same long term reliability as GM and Chrysler. Which is somewhat worse than Ford, and light-years away from a Toyota or a Honda.
  It is amazing how well the import companies are managing to beat American ones even using American workers. At least partially because they build their factories in Tennessee or Kentucky where they don't have to deal with union laws.
74. Re:How about a Model T? by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's the first volume (not really mass production) li-ion EV. If you want to contrast to earlier EV chemistries, then you need to contrast gasoline cars to steam engines.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
75. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-03 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  You still have a much shorter window from the first steam engine cars to the Model T than from the first electric cars to the Tesla. My primary point is that electric cars have long passed the point where we can say, "This is a new idea, you need to give it a few years to iron out the kinks." 100+ years is more than a few years. When the Tesla Roadster came out, my thinking was, "Give them a few years, this looks like a good business plan." Well, it has been a few years, and Tesla does not appear to have reached a point where they can survive without government subsidies. In which case, it is time to pull the plug, either Tesla can survive on its business model, or it should go under.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
76. Re:How about a Model T? by Azghoul · 2011-10-03 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, how many people have you 'seen' who are whining about gas prices while driving a monster mobile? Something here smells like straw...
  You obviously don't have kids or you wouldn't be complaining about minivans. I don't have one, but with two kids and federal laws about how much space they have to take up, you simply don't have enough space in any small to midsize car.
77. Re:How about a Model T? by tehcyder · 2011-10-03 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The average inflation was ACTUALLY 2.99% apparently (at least according to the link). Oh and I use the rule of 72. Easier than constantly reaching for a calculator...
  I prefer to use the rule of 69, for obvious smut-related reasons.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
78. Re:How about a Model T? by wurakeem · 2011-10-03 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a qualifying domestic contender http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2012_chevrolet_sonic-first_drive_review
79. Re:How about a Model T? by Monchanger · 2011-10-03 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well since gold has been one of many items of value for 5,000 years
  
  FTFY. You don't seem to understand what the words "maintain" and "volatile" mean.
  Oh, and how many donkeys did you want for your daughter? They've been used even longer and are still in use, you know.
80. Re:How about a Model T? by savuporo · 2011-10-03 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Goingreen, REVA UK importer stopped selling them, quoting the competition from mainstream manufacturers, like Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and its rebadged Peugeout Ion cousin finally arriving on market. See here
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
81. Re:How about a Model T? by adeft · 2011-10-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Say what? I don't have any intent of having a family, and I already have a house. I'll gladly drop exorbitant amounts of money on a stupid inefficient go fast mobile. Just because you require economic things doesn't mean everyone does.
82. Re:How about a Model T? by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-10-03 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's the old joke? - Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 mi/gal."
  Yes, and it they would occasionally explode for no apparent reason, killing all the occupants.
83. Re:How about a Model T? by alispguru · 2011-10-03 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I already drive a '93 Saturn SL1, how much lower can I go?
  '85 Geo Prizim?
  1985 Yugo.
  
  --
  
  To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
84. Re:How about a Model T? by operagost · 2011-10-03 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Ford Focus MSRP is $16,500. No one pays MSRP, so I'm sure you could get one that's comparable to your Kia.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
85. Re:How about a Model T? by Nadaka · 2011-10-03 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  They still sell buggy whips. You can get them in BDSM shops.
86. Re:How about a Model T? by networkBoy · 2011-10-03 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Also, gold was on a fixed standard for much of that time. Use the cost of steel or copper and it will give you a more accurate valuation compared to economy.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
87. Re:How about a Model T? by OrangeTide · 2011-10-03 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I paid $11k for my GM in 1999 and it had an AM/FM radio wit tape and the best fuel economy in its class (22mpg). It held up nicely and the only reason I sold it was because it was a 2 seater (gf insisted I sell it actually).
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
88. Re:How about a Model T? by networkBoy · 2011-10-03 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Hybrids of the current variety are a joke.
  Not really better mileage overall (better in city stop and go, but worse on the freeway).
  Add to that the manufacture of some of the components is decidedly eco-hostile and energy intensive.
  A good low tech sedan with a small displacement engine of proven design is vastly superior to a hybrid currently, based on TCO, purchase price, "green-ness", and sustainability.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
89. Re:How about a Model T? by marnues · 2011-10-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Laws about how much space a child is to have in a car? Nonsense. As long as they're in the backseat, you can cram them in like sardines.
90. Re:How about a Model T? by marnues · 2011-10-03 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your "kthxbye" was not followed up by you leaving. Why?
91. Re:How about a Model T? by marnues · 2011-10-03 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's not inefficient. It does it's job 100% of the time. Expensive gasoline keeps people closer to their work, schools, and cultural centers. The corollary is also true as people will not drive to the mega-movie theater 10 miles away on the outskirts of town, so the mega-movie theater is instead a renovated building downtown. Expensive gas means efficient cities and significantly less capital flight from urban areas.
92. Re:How about a Model T? by phantomfive · 2011-10-03 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  They are only mature technology in the sense that they are old. Much as a person can work many years and still be immature, so too a technology can exist for many years and still be immature (consider the case of the steam engine, which existed for over a thousand years before it was incorporated into transportation). The primary limiting factor with EVs of course is the battery, and people really haven't been working too much on battery technology until the last couple decades, during which time we've seen significant improvement. Think of how lousy laptop batteries were in 1995.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
93. Re:How about a Model T? by operagost · 2011-10-03 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that it was stable for 20 years tells me that it is not the gold that is volatile, but our unstable global economy. Greek bailout, anyone?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
94. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-03 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  To restate something I said in another post, if at this point, Tesla cannot make it as a car company without government subsidies, it is time for it to go under. I believe that there is a strategy that would allow a company to survive (and perhaps prosper) as an electric car company without government subsidies. Giving government subsidies to electric car companies decreases the chances of that strategy (whatever it is) being successful because you would have to compete with companies that do not have a viable strategy that are surviving on government subsidies.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
95. Re:How about a Model T? by phantomfive · 2011-10-03 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, your problem is not with electric cars, your problem is with government subsidies. Brilliant way to bring that up in a conversation.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
96. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-03 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  What about the much, much, much, much larger US bailouts - and there may be more coming. A recent report showed that some of the big boys weasled ( apologies to any actual weasels, who have much better character ) their way out of TARP much too early so the top execs could pocket bigger bonuses.
  Since they're now even "too bigger to fail", the taxpayers may be back on the hook for them by next year.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
97. Re:How about a Model T? by frosty_tsm · 2011-10-03 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Um, why are you including minivans there? Minivans are what American families SHOULD be buying instead of SUVs. Significantly better mileage for the same carrying capacity, and better access to that space to boot (which I'm sure is a very odd turn of phrase should you be British,lol).
  Most minivans sold in American come with 3.5L high-torque engines that get 19-21 MPG so they can tow as well as carry people. It's more green to buy a Toyota Highlander than the Toyota Sienna.
98. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-03 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I also have a problem with people who talk about electric cars as if they are a new phenomenom. Electric cars are not a new phenomenom and the problems with producing a commercially succesful one are well understood. When PCs first appeared, they were a new phenomenom and there were many misconceptions about their potential market. There was plenty of room for people to imagine what needs they would fill and how they would be used. Electric cars have been around for a long time and there actually is a potential market for them (I believe), but everybody keeps trying to shoehorn them into other markets as well. If some company would produce a fleet of electric cars that profitably fill whatever the existing potential niche for them is, they could then experiment with various other implementations as the battery technology improves. I thought that Tesla was following that sort of strategy when they first announced the Roadster. However, since they have discontinued the Roadster in favor of the Model S, I am questioning what exactly their business model is.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
99. Re:How about a Model T? by cptdondo · 2011-10-03 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  What, no back seat cramped your style? No bed or what?
100. Re:How about a Model T? by HornWumpus · 2011-10-03 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Check your math. Unskilled wages are 3x what the were in 1925. Strictly speaking we don't have enough information. Unskilled wages are 3x the inflation index.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
101. Re:How about a Model T? by HornWumpus · 2011-10-03 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Kia is not Hyundai.
  Hyundai used to make _monumentally_ bad cars. They have worked hard and changed their ways.
  Kias are just pieces of shit. For example, in their quest to cut costs Kia removed the timing build tensioner. The timing belt of a Kia is tensioned by the water pump which is mounter in an eccentric housing. Mechanic tensions the belt by turning the housing with his left hand, tightens bolt with right. Belt stays tight until it stretches.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
102. Re:How about a Model T? by HornWumpus · 2011-10-03 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  They are ranking POS cars. You are ranking idiot owners.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
103. Re:How about a Model T? by khallow · 2011-10-03 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I was being sarcastic and annoying. Clearly, I succeeded at the latter.
104. Re:How about a Model T? by iceaxe · 2011-10-03 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  You are right.
  My commuting vehicle also has no air conditioner, seat belt, airbags, computer assisted direction and engine or sophisticated electronic gadget[s]. It is not a living room on wheels, but it is true to its minimalist roots and gets me from A to B reliably.
  It also cost me $250 (lightly used) in 1995, and with regular maintenance works as well now as it did then. (Granted, I've probably put an additional $1000 into it over the years replacing worn parts and consumables like tires and lubrication.)
  You can still get a new one, too, though the cost has gone up a little, along with the wheel size. It's still a great deal.
  Oh, and in my experience it gets approximately 50 miles per cheeseburger.
  
  --
  WALSTIB!
105. Re:How about a Model T? by hvm2hvm · 2011-10-03 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  come on... you shouldn't need a minivan for 2 kids...
  
  --
  ics
106. Re:How about a Model T? by jafac · 2011-10-03 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Car manufacturers do not sell cars any longer. They sell loans. This is why, when our financial industry collapsed, and required a bailout, our auto manufacturers required a bailout. This is also why, when the laborers' union contracts were up for renewal, it wasn't their wages, per-se, that were the sticking-point. It was the "financing" of their retirement.
  Yes, we can no longer buy a useful new car for $3000, or its equivalent. Now, they're more like $30,000. Plus insurance.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
107. Re:How about a Model T? by jafac · 2011-10-03 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind that the KIA was built in South Korea - and that the factory would belong to Kim Jong Il, had the USA not paid billions in tax dollars and US soldiers' blood, defending South Korea from North Korea.
  That KIA is VERY heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer.
  They are pretty nice cars for the money. Someday, their workers will be able to demand to be treated on equal footing with Detroit's workers. (long after Detroit's workers have lost that clout). (FWIW: I have struggled with the crappiest car in the world for the past 5 years, a "german" car, made in mexico. . . german prices, mexican quality.)
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
108. Re:How about a Model T? by jafac · 2011-10-03 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I really do WISH WISH WISH that gasoline would go up to $6, $7, $8/gal. I want to laugh my ass off at the motherfuckers in their giant pickup trucks. More than that, I want them to stay home, so I can drive to work without the stop-n-go on the freeway.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
109. Re:How about a Model T? by jafac · 2011-10-03 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't mind having an extra car for commuting to work and getting groceries, (and keeping my current car, only for long trips).
  But that would mean:
  An extra car-payment.
  An extra insurance-payment.
  Actually, I own my car clear right now, so not an extra car-payment. But I'm not looking to BUY a new car.
  But insurance companies need to cut us a deal on electrics so we can have the flexibility we need to drive an electric to our daily commute (when we only need the 50 mile range); and keep the gasser in the garage for the weekend when we DO need the 450 mile range.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
110. Re:How about a Model T? by m.ducharme · 2011-10-03 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or shut down randomly while you're out on the freeway.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
111. Re:How about a Model T? by Osgeld · 2011-10-03 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see why their workers wouldn't be on par with Detroit , since they are currently made in Georgia
  http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/09/kia-ville-georgia-a-small-town-catches-a-big-break/
112. Re:How about a Model T? by Thing+1 · 2011-10-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it was. ...and, because.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
113. Re:How about a Model T? by Anguirel · 2011-10-03 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  So... the Pinto?
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
114. Re:How about a Model T? by phantomfive · 2011-10-03 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  If they can get a $15k electric car (with reasonable range), those cars will sell like hotcakes. Their Model S has sold out, so they should have no problem making money off that, if they so choose. It is worth asking, as you do, why they discontinued the roadster, I don't know the answer to that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
115. Re:How about a Model T? by adolf · 2011-10-03 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  The timing belt of a Kia is tensioned by the water pump which is mounter in an eccentric housing. Mechanic tensions the belt by turning the housing with his left hand, tightens bolt with right. Belt stays tight until it stretches.
  I'm not sure how much of a big deal that really is, unless it's easy to jump timing when changing a water pump out.
  IIRC, timing belts these days are reinforced with Kevlar. They should not stretch appreciably, but they will wear out eventually. Replace it at the specified interval (40k or 60k depending on the Kia), tighten things properly at that time, and call it done until the next replacement interval.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
116. Re:How about a Model T? by hedpe2003 · 2011-10-04 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Lower profits for the car companies means more innovation - innovation in things we need, like electric cars.
  
  Hey if the logic works for healthcare, it has to work for everything right? :)
  
  --
  Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
117. Re:How about a Model T? by hedpe2003 · 2011-10-04 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Lower profits for the car companies means more innovation - innovation in things we need, like electric cars. Hey if the logic works for healthcare, it has to work for everything right? :)
  errr, so THATS why there is a forced preview, eh?
  
  --
  Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
118. Re:How about a Model T? by HornWumpus · 2011-10-04 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Weather the clearance develops because of stretching or wear on the cogs it won't matter.
  Further a quick search of timing belts reveals they are avaiable in nylon, kevlar and steel reinforced. I'm willing to be they use less of the stronger material. I'm further willing to bet Kia didn't use the best available belt.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
119. Re:How about a Model T? by haruchai · 2011-10-04 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Until the Model T, electrics outnumbered petrol cars and while Henry Ford's cars were cheaper, there were EVs that weren't too expensive. The point is that the EV just might, 100 years later, turn the tables on petrol vehicles. It isnt' a straightforward comparison but the tech is improving and the grid reaches almost everywhere.
  And EVs won't totally displace petrol passenger cars for decades but I can foresee the sales of new vehicles reaching parity between the two in 25 years.
  And the focus must go beyond just EV and onto efficiency - all those diesel tractor-trailers on the road need a serious improvement in mileage. That should have started during the oil embargo and it's a shame how little progress have been made in this area.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
120. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-04 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that many times when proponents of electric vehicles are confronted with the limitations of electric vehicles they try to claim that we "need to give them time for the technology to mature." Electric vehicle technology has been around for a long time. While it is possible its limitations will be overcome, there is no basis for saying, "We just need to give it a little more time." At this point, sell me a car that is useful despite the limitations, or get back to me when you have overcome the limitations. No more, "Look at how far the technology has come in a short time, in just a few more years (and few more billion dollars of taxpayer money) all those problems will be overcome."
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
121. Re:How about a Model T? by Rei · 2011-10-05 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, it wasn't. The first practical steam engine was built in 1692, and the first commercially successful one in 1712. The first practical electric motor was made in 1828, and the first one for turning machinery in 1837. If you want to be more specific as to engine type, the first practical in-cyclinder multi-cycle ICE suitable for vehicle use was built in 1856, while the first variable frequency synchronous motors suitable for vehicle use weren't practical until the 1990s. Want to talk power source? The lithium ion battery was developed starting in the 1970s and released in 1991. Gasoline was first isolated from oil commercially some time in the early 1800s. The first battery was invented in 1792 (notwithstanding some sketchy claims of earlier ones). Humans have been burning fuels, even specifically hydrocarbon fuels, since they lived in caves and hunted ancient megafauna.
  No matter how you cut it, thermally-driven engines are much older tech and have had far longer to mature than electrically-driven ones.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
122. Re:How about a Model T? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-05 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  A steam engine is not an internal combustion engine. In the early 1900s electric cars were more popular than internal combustion engine cars. The first successful electric car was built in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was built in 1885. So, how does that go again?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
123. Re:How about a Model T? by zippthorne · 2011-10-05 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  If your electric car can't meet emissions standards without profit-eating additional expenses, you're doing something seriously wrong....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
124. Re:How about a Model T? by Rei · 2011-10-06 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  A steam engine is not an internal combustion engine
  Nor is a variable-frequency AC electric motor the same type of device as the brushed DC motors that powered the early EVs. Did you not read my post? I already went into all of this.
  The first successful "fuel-fueled vehicle" was built in 1769. The first successful "electric-fueled vehicle" was built in 1891. The first-successful "internal combustion engine gasoline vehicle" was built in 1885. The first successful "variable frequency AC electric motor vehicle" was built in the mid 1990s. You're trying to compare a second-generation "fuel" drivetrain (the internal combustion engine) with a first-generation "electric" drivetrain (brushed DC motors). You're doing the same thing with batteries, comparing first-gen batteries (lead-acid) with second-gen fuels (refined petroleum products).
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
Wait for Top Gear by kurt555gs · 2011-10-02 10:02 · Score: 1

I remember all the claims Tesla motors made about the original sports car. Top Gear UK tested it and most of the performance claims turned out ot be less than 1/2. It was utter junk. I would like to see Top Gear (who I trust) test this new Tesla (who I no longer trust).

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *
1. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Dan667 · 2011-10-02 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  doubt that would happen. Top Gear was sued by tesla for pointing out what is common sense (among other inconsistent claims). Having to wait hours to charge a car defeats the whole purpose of having a car, freedom to go where you want when you want.
2. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 10:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, there were some problems with that review...
3. Re:Wait for Top Gear by nurb432 · 2011-10-02 10:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You actually trust top gear to make a fair review? They are there to entertain you, not be accurate.
  You really need to get your facts somewhere else before you cast a judgement.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
4. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 10:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I remember all the claims Tesla motors made about the original sports car. Top Gear UK tested it and most of the performance claims turned out ot be less than 1/2. It was utter junk. I would like to see Top Gear (who I trust) test this new Tesla (who I no longer trust).
  I love Top Gear, but you have to be pretty dumb to believe a review of an electric car done by someone who has on numerous occasions said he doesn't like them.
5. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Timmmm · 2011-10-02 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? The appearance on Top Gear was infamous for being unfairly staged! Top Gear hates electric cars!
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/30/tesla-sue-top-gear
6. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 10:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Rebuttal and video of the review
7. Re:Wait for Top Gear by __aarzwb9394 · 2011-10-02 10:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Top Gear has a record of out and out faking when "reviewing" Tesla cars. As an entertainment show, I am not sure how much credence I would give them for any brand, when it comes to Tesla they are on record as lying.
  http://articles.businessinsider.com/2008-12-29/green_sheet/30080624_1_electric-car-drag-race-lotus-elise
  Robert Llewellyn has pointed out that Top Gear's roadshows are sponsored by Shell (who are invested in hydrogen as the alternative fuel of the future) and that Top Gear has talked up the potential of hydrogen as superior to electric vehicles.
  Robert Llewellyn is of course a very vocal electric car advocate. I recommend his web series Carpool: just as entertaining as Top Gear, but in a different way.
8. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously?
  From your own linked article, from a Top Gear spokesperson, ... actual words (on the show ) were "We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles".
  and then the spokesperson also points out
  "The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla's boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles."
  Top Gear is getting sued for pointing out that driven on a track, that the car would be out of power after driving 55 miles and that it would take several hours to recharge.
  I think Top Gear's major issue with electric cars is the limited range and then the lengthy recharge. A thousand mile drive would take four days including the time to recharge. Even a 180 mile trip to grandma's house would take at least 2 days because the car has to recharge overnight.
9. Re:Wait for Top Gear by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  Top Gear purposefully devises tests to get a response the opposite of the useful truth. Note they got better mileage from an M3 than a Prius, mainly because of the test they devised. I expect that if the results were "expected" (the other way around with the Prius winning, they would never have aired it and nobody would know. Perhaps they even ran the test 100 times, changing the parameters every time until the more entertaining result was acheived. They don't independently test vehicles (like Car and Driver and other magazines claim to), but they have a vehicle-based entertainment show. I'm confused who someone would "trust" Top Gear. That's like trusting Rush Limbaugh for the news.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re:Wait for Top Gear by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 10:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Top Gear lied on-air about the charge level, and extrapolated numbers that were provably false. But the lies weren't actionable because the right number of "might" and "would be" weasel words were added in to make it be an opinion presented as fact, and not an incorrect fact presented as fact.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
11. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Rei · 2011-10-02 10:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It doesn't take nearly as long as Top Gear pretended it does, and they knew that. On the standard Tesla charger, a *full* charge (not a daily commute charge, but a "I just drove 200 miles" charge) takes 3 1/2 hours.
  Top Gear also pretended the vehicle overheated (it didn't), that they were without a working vehicle at one point (they weren't), that the vehicle ran out of charge (it didn't), and that it would run of charge abnormally earlier than comparable gasoline vehicles (it wouldn't; all-out with a Roadster on the track may only get you ~40 miles, but all-out with a Veyron will only get you ~60).
  Top Gear is an entertainment show that doesn't care much for the truth.
  As for your "transferring carbon production", the DOE has already extensively studied this (as have many, many other groups). In every case, the conclusion is that even on our current grid, EVs are notably cleaner than gasoline cars. Meanwhile, oil keeps getting dirtier (tar sands, deepwater, etc), while the grid gets cleaner (new power infrastructure in the US is primarily NG and wind).
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
12. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Rei · 2011-10-02 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  How far do you think a Veyron would go at all-out track duty? Seriously, you drive a vehicle with the pedal to the floor, expect your range to suck, no matter what your powertrain.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
13. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Local+ID10T · 2011-10-02 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Top Gear is full of shit.
  They have been caught staging events to make better (more interesting/sensational) TV.
  It's entertainment, not science.
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
14. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Local+ID10T · 2011-10-02 11:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So it doesn't take hours to recharge the batteries? Oh wait...
  RTFA http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1066795_breaking-tesla-making-faster-2012-model-s-0-60-in-under-4-5-seconds
  
  When the batteries are depleted, Tesla says even the 300-mile range Model S will be able to recharge from empty to full in under an hour thanks to its new direct current external charger. The 90 kilowatt units will be installed by Tesla at suitable rest-stop locations or hotels alongside arterial freeways such as I-5 between Canada and Mexico.
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
15. Re:Wait for Top Gear by DMoylan · 2011-10-02 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  he also has a podcast called fully charged that's worth watching. it's about electric/hybrid technology.
  http://www.youtube.com/user/fullychargedshow
16. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  If by "lies" and "extrapolated numbers that were provably false" you mean "asked Tesla how long the charge would last driving they way they were on their track, then reported the number that Tesla's engineers gave them in the sentence 'On our track, it would run out in (number) miles' ", yes. However, everyone else would call that reporting accurately.
  The brake system DID blow a fuse. Tesla didn't like them reporting that. Just because they didn't spin it exactly the way Tesla wanted them to did not make it inaccurate. "Might" and "would be" weren't a factor. Tesla sued because they wouldn't gloss over the car's shortcomings.
17. Re:Wait for Top Gear by 0123456 · 2011-10-02 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When the batteries are depleted, Tesla says even the 300-mile range Model S will be able to recharge from empty to full in under an hour thanks to its new direct current external charger. The 90 kilowatt units will be installed by Tesla at suitable rest-stop locations or hotels alongside arterial freeways such as I-5 between Canada and Mexico.
  Wow, I'll be able to recharge in under an hour every 300 miles, so long as I find the 'suitable' location where electricity will probably be priced at $1 a kWh because they know that I have no alternative other than to pay the price or pay for a tow.
  I'll stick to my Civic, thanks, which can travel about twice as far, fill up in two minutes and do so at any gas station we pass.
18. Re:Wait for Top Gear by FrankieBaby1986 · 2011-10-02 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Until electric cars can be recharged in about the same time it takes to fuel up an internal combustion car, they won't be practical replacements.
  Why not? If you drive a few miles to work everyday and come home everyday, why can't you just top up overnight? How often do you need to refuel that you really need to have it done in minutes? If it's really that often, you might want to consider moving closer to where you work or getting a better car.
  
  --
  ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
19. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 11:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Do you know how thin the Department of Sinister Conspiracies in Service of the Obama Regime is spread these days?
  
  It's bad. Our unionized-coddled-public-sector employee mandatory augmented lunch break scheme, and general socialist hatred of efficiency don't help, of course; but they just keep dumping more work on us. It's even harder because half of the conspiracies directly contradict the other half(we've had to let three spin-doctors retire with generous disability pensions due to workplace-induced vertigo caused by keeping the media toeing the Party line...
  
  First they want to destroy capitalism by convincing the public that only the State can save them from greedy speculators and economic ruin: "No problem", I tap a couple of marxist academics(we were in the same anarcho-syndicalist squat when we were coasting through liberal arts college on our parent's money, old buddies), and they invent the notion of a "credit default swap" and our media puppetmasters fabricate the necessary backstory, while the economic wrecking squad does some penalizing of Wealth Creators just to make things extra believable.
  
  Then, just as I was kicking back and enjoying some nice, family-values-destroying gay smut, my boss comes in all pissed off: "What the fuck are you doing? If you destabilize the EU, our One World Government will be set back by at least a decade! And how is Obama supposed to coast to an easy victory on strong economic news if you keep up like that?". The entire department had to work until 5pm that evening, coming up with a scheme to bail out GM and allocate 'stimulus' money away from small businesses and toward teachers unions. That sucked.
  
  Worse, once we had GM on our hands, we had to simultaneously prop up their union makework projects and advance the progressive agenda of destroying the Freedom of the Open Road and forcibly implementing collectivist mass transit. We could hardly write grants fast enough to get our pet scientists to stop undercounting spotted owls for a minute and start re-classifying benign automobile emissions as dangerous pollutants.
  
  Don't even start on what the guys in the Middle Eastern Affairs office have to put up with, trying to cast our Leader as strong on terrorism and get some good photo-ops, without getting too many of our Sharia brothers killed...
  
  And now you say that we are going to have to track down every Model S released and ensure that nobody is able to take simple performance measurements? How many Black Helicopter kill teams do you think we have?
20. Re:Wait for Top Gear by volsung · 2011-10-02 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover, why do we need to adopt Highlander Rules here? An electric car is a practical replacement for people whose driving habits don't require a fuel station on every corner. That doesn't work for everyone, and those people shouldn't buy a pure electric car.
  However, complaints about the range issue do highlight one of the real problems in selling electric vehicles: discomfort in giving up some capability regardless of how often you actually use that capability. I owned my first car (quite the beater) for two years, and drove it more than 150 miles from home exactly once. Would I have been happy with a vehicle that had a 300 mile range? Sure. (Would I have spent $200k rather than $2k? No, but I would not have spent that much money on a car, even if I never had to refuel it.)
21. Re:Wait for Top Gear by swalve · 2011-10-02 12:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There are lots of cars that won't meet the needs of 100% of the population. This is one of them. It is also an expensive, niche vehicle that is not (I don't think) intended to be a drop-in replacement for your Oldsmobile.
22. Re:Wait for Top Gear by swalve · 2011-10-02 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, you drive for 180 miles, throw it on the charger, visit with Grandma for 3.5 hours and then leave. No problems.
23. Re:Wait for Top Gear by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  'On our track, it would run out in (number) miles' "
  It's an extrapolation (not a fact) given to harm the company the statement is about. In Florida or Texas, that will land you in court (if about a "protected" industry), and no, truth of that statement doesn't matter in the US for those cases. And the truth is not a an absolute defense to libel in the UK, as it generally is taken to be in the US.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
24. Re:Wait for Top Gear by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-10-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you hear this?
  Hydrogen will never be the future technology. I have visited BMW at the University of Birmingham, and have met their engineers many times, and these are the facts about hydrogen.
  It is expensive to manufacture hydrogen, difficult to transport and almost impossible to store in large quantities. It take 20 minutes to fill a 'tank' on a hydrogen car, and because they are small tanks as it is hard to store the fuel, you get no more than 150 miles per refill, and if you do not use your car for a few days you will find you have an empty tank, this is because the pressure builds up when the hydrogen warms up, it has to be vented. Also, the fuel cells have a life of 5,000 hours, the cost of raw materials alone for each cell is over £200,000!
25. Re:Wait for Top Gear by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-02 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  What? None of that happened, they just faked the battery running flat.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
26. Re:Wait for Top Gear by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-02 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  LOL mod parent Funny XD
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
27. Re:Wait for Top Gear by trawg · 2011-10-02 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a citation for the DOE stuff? I would love to have it handy, because I've definitely heard that before and I'm constantly getting into fights with people who don't believe it and I can never find anything really authoritative about it.
  I can see a couple reports here: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/electric_charging.html but haven't had time to read them thoroughly.
28. Re:Wait for Top Gear by mbkennel · 2011-10-02 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe the Tesla has a whole bunch more battery in it.
29. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Robert Llewellyn should stick to what he is good at: playing a mechanoid with a head shaped like a novelty condom!!!
  Tesla have sued Top Gear over that episode. My believe is that Tesla will lose once a court reviews everything that was said, and what happened.
  Those of you interested in Top Gear's side of this should read:
  http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/
  Frankly, the idea that a BBC show like Top Gear has a secret agenda because of a sponsor at a roadshow seems a stretch. It's much more likely that Jeremy Clarkeson just hates them.
30. Re:Wait for Top Gear by TooMuchToDo · 2011-10-02 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with $6-$8/gallon gas in your Civic.
31. Re:Wait for Top Gear by naroom · 2011-10-02 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  The Top Gear show in question was the first I ever saw of the Tesla roadster. I came away from it wildly impressed. Maybe they misrepresented Tesla on a few specific spots, but overall it was a positive message. You should watch the actual show if you're going to debate whether they were biased.
32. Re:Wait for Top Gear by WindBourne · 2011-10-02 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  wow. You have one of the more 'interesting' posts that I have seen in a long time.
  You must be the guy that argues that private space will not take off because the VW bug can not get there.
  
  If you are the type that drives more than the range of the car on a common basis (daily, weekly, or even monthly), then you should not have bought it in the FIRST place. It is NOT suitable for you. You get a fossil fuel vehicle.
  OTH, if you drive more than that range for say once or twice a year, then you can rent, or you can choose to do an overnighter. And yes, then this vehicle is a GREAT car for somebody that fits that bill. The nice thing is, that the later fits the bill for the overwhelming majority of westerners, including Americans.
  Simple as that.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
33. Re:Wait for Top Gear by jo_ham · 2011-10-02 16:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They also showed the crew pushing it into the garage by hand implying that the batteries were totally flat, when the car's systems never recorded the battery dropping below 20% with a voice over saying "we wanted to do more shots, but... look what happened".
  The script was pre written (literally) - they knew how they were going to shoot the piece, and they told some massive porkies at the end for no good reason, since it was a pretty decent review up to that point.
34. Re:Wait for Top Gear by fnj · 2011-10-02 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Top Gear is absolute garbage. It is a stupid, mass entertainment piece of shit. If you trust Top Gear for worthwhile information, you deserve the skull full of mush they will try to give you.
35. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Arlet · 2011-10-02 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. Grandma's apartment building doesn't have a place to charge it.
36. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Robert Llewellyn has pointed out that Top Gear's roadshows are sponsored by Shell (who are invested in hydrogen as the alternative fuel of the future) and that Top Gear has talked up the potential of hydrogen as superior to electric vehicles."
  That's a hell of a lot more tenuous then the fact that Robert Llewellyn's Carpool is directly sponsored by Toyota, and his show features largely Toyota Hybrid vehicles, and rarely electric only.
37. Re:Wait for Top Gear by S-100 · 2011-10-02 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  The big ugly guy on Top Gear burned through two sets of tires in minutes, drifting a fancy Mercedes around a race track. Does that tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the car (other than it's fast and powerful)? At top speed, a Bugatti Veryron will run out of gas in just a few minutes. Does that mean that the car is deficient in some way? The fact that you CAN burn through the battery charge of a Tesla on a race track is not in and of itself a negative. Anyone spending $100,000 plus for a car already knows that an EV is not (yet) a full replacement for a gas or diesel vehicle. A two-seater makes a poor vehicle choice for a soccer mom. This does not make two-seaters defective.
38. Re:Wait for Top Gear by PwnzerDragoon · 2011-10-02 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Top Gear is full of crap. I know someone who owns a Tesla Roadster, he regularly uses it in a 100-mile-plus commute and never comes close to running out the battery.
39. Re:Wait for Top Gear by andydread · 2011-10-02 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes this is true. When I found out about this It made me realize that I can't put too much stock into the credibility of Top Gear anymore. They are a drama show not a reputable car review. They are also IMO the funniest auto show on TV. So while I will continue to watch them I wont take their words as fact.
40. Re:Wait for Top Gear by DrXym · 2011-10-03 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is by trolling like this they are doing the new tech a disservice and dampening sales. I doubt even the most ardent EV proponent could claim they have petrol / diesel levels of range or performance, but I expect EVs would be entirely suitable for a very large number of potential owners.
41. Re:Wait for Top Gear by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough, the same factor is not impeding uptake of the Nissan Leaf, which Nissan cannot produce fast enough to meet demand.
  You are clearly not the market for this car, because you drive a Civic. I am clearly not the market for this car in spite of driving a Mercedes sedan, because it is old and I can't afford one either. The market is old people with all your money who like to stop at rest stops.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:Wait for Top Gear by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-03 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Usually you charge your car over night, and if you need to go further than the range allows on a single charge you take your partner's petrol engine car. As more charging stations become available and batteries improve that will change, but at the moment an EV is not suitable for someone who only has a single car they can use and wants a general purpose motor.
  You can get batteries that will charge to 80% in under an hour, they just cost more which is why we don't see them in the cheaper models.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
43. Re:Wait for Top Gear by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Most old people don't go on long trips that often. 300 miles is actually quite astounding, and better range without a fillup than many gasoline cars, especially full-size sedans. Most trips do not involve a fillup. This vehicle is a drop-in replacement for most Oldsmobile drivers.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
44. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go: Link.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
45. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  And how about you factor the carbon footprint/environmental impact of battery production into your analysis?
  Sorry, but this is a total myth. First, as if batteries have some sort of grossly disproportional amount of carbon involved in their production in comparison to, say, the steel in your internal combustion engine. Second, as if they're not recycled/reused at end-of-life. And third, as if the energy and carbon that goes into a vehicle manufacture is even close to the energy/carbon impact from operating the vehicle over its lifespan. All of these are false.
  I'm not going to own two cars just to accommodate the need for longer trips with quick refuel times as that would be exceptionally wasteful.
  News for you: Most American families *do* own multiple cars.
  Also, most people only go on long road trips rarely. In which case, it can simply make more sense to rent for those rare occasions. I don't drive around in a panel van for those rare occasions a couple times per year that my sedan isn't big enough. I just rent. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to range?
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
46. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Gavagai80 · 2011-10-03 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  You get a thousand foot extension cord and plug it into her wall socket, or park in her living room.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
47. Re:Wait for Top Gear by Arlet · 2011-10-03 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, there is electricity alright. It's just 5 floors up from the parking lot, which is on the other side of the building.
48. Re:Wait for Top Gear by adolf · 2011-10-03 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  What caused you to take Top Gear seriously in the first place?
  It's just entertainment, and I love their antics. But they're just...antics.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
49. Re:Wait for Top Gear by trawg · 2011-10-04 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Doh, that 404s for me
The imporant question by dnaumov · 2011-10-02 10:07 · Score: 1

How long will the battery last? It's all great and exciting, but if one has to replace a ridiculously expensive (10,000$+) battery every 5-6 years, this is a nonstarter.
1. Re:The imporant question by abhi_beckert · 2011-10-02 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The Tesla Roadster has an expected battery life of 7 years, and you can pre-order a new one for $12,000 (it'll be delivered in 7 years).
  No doubt the prices for new batteries will have gone down by 7 years from now, and the Model S has a swappable battery (for those who don't want to wait for it to charge).
  Yes, this is an expensive car. But it's half the price of their previous car, and their next one is supposedly going to be cheaper again.
2. Re:The imporant question by pbjones · 2011-10-02 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  battery life depends on use and charge cycle. normal driving/charging will give much more than 5-6 years use. for many drivers the fuel savings over 5-6 years would pay for new batteries twice over. Anyway, it's a premium car with a premium price, the buyer won't care.
  
  --
  There was an unknown error in the submission.
3. Re:The imporant question by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  The batteries last about as long as a gasoline engine, and cost about the same to replace. The people bitching do so only because the graceful failure of batteries confuse them to thinking it's somehow preventable. In the same time, you'll spend the same on brake pads, oil and filter, and tires, but nobody even notices because the individual costs are lower and we expect those expenses. But a battery, oh no, fear the unknown and make up lies about the unknown!
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:The imporant question by Rei · 2011-10-02 11:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Well, the Volt's pack is going to be *warrantied* for ten years, soo.... Plus, A) EV battery packs can often have parts of them replaced individually, and B) evne a reduced-capacity pack still has value (say, on grid load balancing)
  Battery life is always going to be limited by *design*. You can have any sort of lifespan you want out of a battery, from nanoseconds to tens of thousands of years. It's all about tradeoffs. The better the chemistry, the better the temperature regulation. the gentler the charge/discharge curve, the better the charge management, and the lower the depth of discharge range, the longer the lifespan, by orders of magnitude. As for Tesla's design approach:
  * Chemistry: nothing special -- same as in laptops
  * Temperature regulation: top notch -- a far cry from an unregulated battery pack sitting right next to your CPU.
  * Charge management: very good -- detailed computer monitoring and balancing of hundreds of individual subcomponents.
  * Charge curve: The most common case (~3.5 hours per full charge) is a little gentler than an average laptop charge. The mild case (a 120V socket) is exceedingly gentle. The rare case (fast charging on a long trip, ~1 hour) is worse than for most laptops.
  * Discharge curve: Unless the vehicle is being put through track duty, gentler than a laptop.
  * Depth of discharge: It's hard to generalize between laptops. Telsa does not charge to 100%, nor allow down to 0%, and the most common discharge case usually only uses a few tens of percents charge before recharging. So in general, well gentler than for a laptop.
  Different vehicles vary. The Leaf uses a better chemistry, but poorer temperature regulation. The Volt uses both a better chemistry and good temperature regulation.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
5. Re:The imporant question by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-02 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  The batteries last about as long as a gasoline engine
  I've never driven a car whose gasoline engine crapped out after only seven years.
  I don't even own a car that is less than 12 years old now, and all of them have engines that are in fine shape.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
6. Re:The imporant question by dadelbunts · 2011-10-02 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  You sir are an idiot. An engine with even the most basic maintenance will last way longer than 7 years. And then it will cost 1-2 thousand for the engine and about another to put it in. so 3k. Hell i have a 1977 280z a 1991 camry and a 1994 4runner. All bought used all original engines. Z has almost 300k miles on it. Oil filters are cheap and as for tires and brakes, unless you are a genie you will have to change those on an electric car as well.
7. Re:The imporant question by swalve · 2011-10-02 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's not true for Li Ion batteries, I don't think. At least when they are charged and discharged within their specs. They have a limited lifespan that is based mostly on heat and age. They start degrading the moment they are manufactured.
8. Re:The imporant question by jackbird · 2011-10-02 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oil changes are $20-$30 in the US (assuming you don't want to do it yourself), which makes $420 worst-case for the oil changes.
  I just picked up a set of sparkplugs for my Mazda6 at Autozone for $18. And they were the fancy iridium ones, too. Even if you had to buy a socket wrench, spark plug socket, and extender for both changes the total can't be over $100.
  Sure, getting a timing belt done is relatively expensive, but they're generally an "every 100,000 miles" item, and no more than $300 on any car I've owned.
  Where are you getting your $1600 figure from?
9. Re:The imporant question by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  The warranties are designed to run out at about the 7 year mark (even the 10 year ones, where the "average" person will hit the mileage cap long before 10 years). Why? Because that's when engine failures jump in frequency.
  
  Stating a true fact you don't like hearing doesn't make me wrong. I had a '67 Bug with over 300,000 miles. The engine crapped out on that one when someone stole the engine out of the car while it was parked at my dad's place. But that doesn't mean that gasoline engines don't take a spike in failures around the 6-7 year mark given.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re:The imporant question by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  My comparison isn't a lie. I'm talking about the proability of failure of two systems. One is a guaranteed failure with a mostly predictable timeline and outcome. The other is unknown, where people have enough anecdotal data to suggest a "lucky" person will never see a failure. And yes, I know old people who insist smoking/drinking isn't that harmful because George Burns made it to 100+ years. All it takes to trump reality is an emotional desire for a convenient answer and a single anecdotal example.
  
  The "OMG, why would anyone ever buy a car when they know the batteries will die in a few years at a cost of $50,000!!!!!!" response is silly, stupid, and in most cases, a lie. A number of the makers will lease the battery pack so there will never be a replacement cost. Others (like GM) cover it 100% under warranty, then when it's closer to time for the failures to increase, take them all and destroy them so nobody will ever pay to replace a single battery. Hell, there's even a good argument that any battery failures under 100,000 miles will be covered under warranty (even if excluded by warranty). The plans differ between manufacturers, and the electric-haters always use the (often impossible) worst-case to describe the average case.
  
  People do not buy these things to save money.
  People don't buy a Tesla to save money. But plenty buy a Prius to save money, and depending on driving habits, are quite successful with that plan.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
11. Re:The imporant question by dadelbunts · 2011-10-02 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Its not a true fact tho. Engines last WAY longer than warranties. And they dont spike in failures at 6-7 years. Maybe at around 20 years with no maintenance. You might be confusing engines with other mechanical parts of a car tho. Such as an alternator, fuel pump or other device. This is why warranties cover powertrain and not "engine". You sir are again wrong just like you were wrong about the cost and about electric cars not needing any tires or brakes.
12. Re:The imporant question by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  I never said electric cars don't need tires or brakes. You stupidity doesn't make me wrong.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
13. Re:The imporant question by msevior · 2011-10-02 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  You assume the price of petrol will stay at $4/gal over the next 6 years.
14. Re:The imporant question by dadelbunts · 2011-10-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  In the same time, you'll spend the same on brake pads, oil and filter, and tires, but nobody even notices because the individual costs are lower and we expect those expenses ^ Why mention brakes and tires then. The cost for those is the same on an electric car. And no your stupidity doesnt make you wrong but this statement does "The batteries last about as long as a gasoline engine, and cost about the same to replace."
15. Re:The imporant question by AK+Marc · 2011-10-02 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Beacuse the initial comment was "OMG, look at the upkeep expenses on this, $10,000+ every 5 years." Which, the price is a lie, the time-frame is a lie, and I wanted to point those out. Also, since I was going through the trouble of pointing out the lies, I figured I'd address the comments as if they were true (a more reasonable cost and time frame). In that perspective, people will have paid as much on a regular car in that time frame, so the sum itself isn't absurdly high. I made no mention that it's the only cost with these cars (as I have been accused). I was merely pointing out the truth that people are willing to spend such sums on maintenance for their vehicles, as they already do so. Anything beyond that simple observation is the fabrication of those who wish to find fault with such statements.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:The imporant question by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Waaahhhh!! Not fast enough! I want a $12 electric car that can do 0-60 in 2 seconds and has a 50,000 mile range so I can commute and then do a few laps around the world on a moment's notice. The fact that I can't get these features *today* means electric cars are dead.
17. Re:The imporant question by tftp · 2011-10-02 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  same as in laptops
  I hope not. Laptop batteries are usually near the end of their useful life after 2-3 years, regardless of how much you actually use them.
18. Re:The imporant question by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes (although overplayed)... but, note, when used without temperature regulation, poor charge balancing, tougher charge/discharge curves, and deeper depth of discharge.
  These sort of factors can make order-of-magnitude lifespan differences, both in terms of cycle life and calendar life. Temperature is a huge factor (and when you use a laptop, you're baking your cells). With charge balancing, even if you don't use the laptop battery, when you finally do, your cells can be out of balance and dramatically limit your capacity; plus, a failure can take out the whole pack (not true with the Roadster). Lastly, the faster charges and discharges in laptops amplify any age-related degradation when used, and the greater average depth of discharge significantly amplifies it.
  There's another factor worth noting here as well. Laptops are very voltage-sensitive. Electric motors are not. A change in your laptop battery's voltage discharge curve can total your usable life in a laptop. Not the same in an EV.
  Anyway, Tesla's pretty much the only one out there (well, them and the companies they contract for) who uses the approach of using laptop cells. Pretty much everyone else is using more stable li-ion chemistries.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
19. Re:The imporant question by Thelasko · 2011-10-03 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  How long will the battery last? It's all great and exciting, but if one has to replace a ridiculously expensive (10,000$+) battery every 5-6 years, this is a nonstarter.
  Yeah, I remember people making that argument when the Prius came out over ten years ago. Here we are, ten years later, and there are first generation Prii running around without battery issues.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
20. Re:The imporant question by SecurityGuy · 2011-10-03 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe at around 20 years with no maintenance.
  
  Hardly. In my youth, I bought a new car and changed the oil once. At 26,000 miles, I rebuilt the engine after the bearings failed. Expensive lesson learned.
Re:Quarter mile time? by colinrichardday · 2011-10-02 10:11 · Score: 1

60 miles per hour is 88 feet per second. Given constant acceleration, we have 88 feet per second divided by 4.5 seconds, which yields about 19.6 feet per second squared. Using the formula d=0.5*a*t^2, and taking 1320 feet as a quarter mile, we get 1320=0.5*19.6*t^2. Solving for t gives us about 11.6 seconds.
Re:Quarter mile time? by bjorniac · 2011-10-02 10:27 · Score: 2

Where you've assumed constant acceleration throughout? And at the end of that time the car would be going 155mph - I highly doubt that acceleration is anything like constant from 0-60 and it certainly won't be at higher velocities, as drag is proportion at v^2. If it were, you could have one of these babies hit light speed in about a year and a half...
Re:Quarter mile time? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Acceleration wouldn't be constant, air resistance varies with the square of speed. 11.6 second cars generally have sub 4 second 0-60 times. My car does 0-60 in 4.6s, but it's 1/4 mile time is 12.9 seconds at 112MPH, I'd expect the Model S to be +/- 0.5 seconds of that.
Re:Quarter mile time? by slater.jay · 2011-10-02 10:32 · Score: 1

Air resistance increases with the square of the velocity. You can't assume constant acceleration.
Re:Quarter mile time? by Rei · 2011-10-02 10:51 · Score: 1

Air resistance plays a relatively small role on acceleration times. The faster you accelerate, the smaller the role.

--
Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
Re:Will it still corner like a pig? by Teancum · 2011-10-02 11:03 · Score: 1

This vehicle is being designed for freeway driving..... which implies not just 0-60 in a quick start but sustained driving at 70+ mph for an extended period of time. Obviously freeway driving will suck juice out of the batteries faster than driving at a slower speed, but it isn't as bad as it seems.
I've heard of more than a few people who have driven from the SF Bay area to Lake Tahoe and back with a Tesla Roadster (presumably recharging overnight in Nevada). Figure that out for yourself what that implies in terms of performance and range. Neither the Roadster nor the "Model S" are golf carts in terms of performance.
As for cost.... look it up yourself, Google can be your friend.
Re:Quarter mile time? by colinrichardday · 2011-10-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Ah, the dangers of extrapolation. Thank you.
Re:Will it still corner like a pig? by 0123456 · 2011-10-02 11:19 · Score: 1

This vehicle is being designed for freeway driving.....
Why would you want an electric car for freeway driving? Electric cars only make any kind of sense in situations where you don't have to sit and wait for them to recharge (e.g. a daily commute where you can recharge overnight).
Re:Quarter mile time? by arielCo · 2011-10-02 11:33 · Score: 2

That's nothing! It'd run its 320 mile range in sqrt(320 miles * 2 / (19.6 ft/s^2)) = 6m 55s.
Too bad the braking will be a bit complicated at 6.92 minutes * 19.6 ft/s^2 = 5,548 mph.

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Re:0-60 In 4.5 Seconds by Goonie · 2011-10-02 11:33 · Score: 1

Yes, that is *very* quick. It's within cooee of the BMW M5, which, if not the world's fastest sedan, is very close to it. Another way of looking at it - that's an average of 0.6G of acceleration. Peak acceleration at low speeds would be even higher. But even 0.6G is getting slammed - hard - into the back of your seat.
It's worth pointing out that they've chosen the most favourable acceleration statistic to quote. Electric cars are extremely quick at lower speeds, but their acceleration tails off more quickly than petrol-engined vehicles. Over the quarter-mile (standard dragstrip distance) or around a racetrack, I wouldn't expect the Model S to get anywhere near an M5.
However, for a luxury sedan, the Tesla will be more than fast enough, will have that instant throttle response that makes overtaking a breeze, and be eerily quiet. If I could afford one, I'd buy one.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Re:0-60 In 4.5 Seconds by Tacvek · 2011-10-02 11:34 · Score: 1

I'm no expert. Based on Wikipedia, and verified by external sites, I've compiled the following information for comparison:
Normal high end cars get a zero to sixty of a little under 6 seconds. Expensive exotic cars get 3-4 seconds. The worlds fastest street legal car (the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport) does 0-60 in 2.46 seconds (that car costs the equivalent of over 2.5 million US dollars!).
The Formula One race cars (which trade some safety of street legal cars for extra speed), can get 0-60 time of around 2.3 seconds.

--
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:0-60 In 4.5 Seconds by dadelbunts · 2011-10-02 12:05 · Score: 1

Cheaper cars also have good acceleration. Caterham c7 for instance. Electric motors are known for astoundingly quick acceleration tho as they go from 0 to maximum torque instantly. An internal combustion engine has to rev up to reach peak hp and torque.
Automation by oberhaus · 2011-10-02 12:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Another big part of the Tesla story is automation. Check out today's post by Robert Scoble:
This is the future of American manufacturing. They can make anything. It's almost 100% vertically integrated, which means everything from plastics and metals to batteries, electronics, motors and component assembly is done here, with flexible multi-purpose robots. Every car can be different, with no retooling, because the robots can do anything. It's just software.
1. Re:Automation by Speare · 2011-10-03 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Every car can be different, with no retooling, because the robots can do anything. It's just software.
  While I love the idea of this, my first thought is Certification. With every change, its safety and other standards-compliance must be demonstrated to certification authorities (NHTSA in US, plus parallel cert authorities in other countries if exporting). Perhaps changing a few styling choices would be simple, but altering seat positions or compartment headroom or custom dashboards for different drivers is not likely to happen as easily as implied. This isn't a Cabbage Patch Doll with seven inconsequential variables like hair and eye colors.
  
  --
  [ .sig file not found ]
2. Re:Automation by Thelasko · 2011-10-03 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Every car can be different, with no retooling, because the robots can do anything. It's just software.
  I think Mr. Scoble fails to account for the cost of software. A human can be trained in a matter of minutes. Reprogramming a robot can take weeks, and software engineers make a significantly higher hourly rate than a factory worker.
  
  There are many advantages of automation in manufacturing. Robots are faster, more reliable, work in severe conditions, and have a low upfront cost. However, robots are not flexible to change. A small change in a part might require retooling/reprogramming every machine in a factory. With humans, you can gather everyone around and hold up a part and say, "Hey! This is our new steering knuckle. It goes into production tomorrow. It looks a little different than the old one, but it goes in the same way. Any questions?"
  
  If automotive manufacturers could save a ton of money by switching to robots, they would have years ago. It's not a matter of having the technology. The major automakers have the technology, it's just isn't cost effective.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Math by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-02 13:18 · Score: 2

>>On the standard Tesla charger, a *full* charge (not a daily commute charge, but a "I just drove 200 miles" charge) takes 3 1/2 hours.
So you have to spend between 2x and 4x as much time driving the car charging it? That's not a good selling point.
>>the DOE has already extensively studied this (as have many, many other groups). In every case, the conclusion is that even on our current grid, EVs are notably cleaner than gasoline cars.
I'd like to see a citation for this. But in lieu of one, let's run some numbers and figure it out for ourselves.
The Tesla holds 53 kWh on a full charge and gets 300 miles.
Therefore, a charge here in California will run you between $5 and $26 (depending how much energy you use a month - http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ERS.SHTML) If you're charging your car off the grid, you'll be in the $26/charge tier, but you'll probably be smart and running it off-peak, so we'll call it $13 or so. So you get about 23 miles per dollar.
A gallon of gas has 36.6 (call it 37) kWh in it. It's $3.90 a gallon right now in California. A 510 horsepower Jaguar XKR with the same 0 to 60 time gets around 20mpg, or 5 miles per dollar.
So the Tesla is cheaper as long as you charge it at night, and compare it against a gas guzzler. =)
In terms of CO2 output per kWh -
I'm using the data from here: http://www.stewartmarion.com/carbon-footprint/html/carbon-footprint-kilowatt-hour.html
Their data is wrong for PG&E - PG&E draws a lot of power from NG, but it lists it at 0%, which is obviously in error (Actual mix is 35% NG - http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/). So we'll just use the national average instead, which is about 1 pound of CO2 per kWh.
Using the EPA and IPCC estimates of CO2 per gallon of gas, we see it's about 20 pounds per gallon (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm). The BlueSkyModel.org website estimates it at 14 pounds per gallon, but we'll take the word of the EPA on this one, since they fucked up pretty badly on PG&E's numbers above.
The Tesla generates 53 pounds of CO2 per 300 miles, or about 6 miles per pound of CO2 generated.
The Jaguar XKR drives 20 miles on a gallon of gas, so it gets a nice even 1 mile per pound of CO2 generated.
Conclusion: If you are contrasting the Tesla against a similar price and performance Jaguar, then it's about 6x better at CO2 emissions than the Jag, and costs about 4x less to "fill up". The Jag will have a much longer range, can "fill up" faster, and looks a bit more manly, but on these two stats alone, the Tesla has the advantage.
1. Re:Math by s122604 · 2011-10-02 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Some things you conveniently forgot
  gasoline doesn't get magically placed in your tank by the gasoline fairies
  it takes a massive amount of energy to get it out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, refine it (which takes TONS of electricity), ship it to a gas station, store and sell it..
  
  The percentage of coal going into the power grid is going down, not up.
  
  and even it that weren't true, we don't have to stage the 5th fleet in Bahrain to keep coal flowing through the Straight of Hormuz, and West Virginians have a perfect record of not flying airplanes into the world trade center.
2. Re:Math by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-02 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Some things you conveniently forgot
  gasoline doesn't get magically placed in your tank by the gasoline fairies
  it takes a massive amount of energy to get it out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, refine it (which takes TONS of electricity), ship it to a gas station, store and sell it..
  The percentage of coal going into the power grid is going down, not up.
  and even it that weren't true, we don't have to stage the 5th fleet in Bahrain to keep coal flowing through the Straight of Hormuz, and West Virginians have a perfect record of not flying airplanes into the world trade center.
  I didn't "conveniently" forget anything. I was doing a rough estimate of the cost and CO2 production to fill up the Tesla and an equivalent car. There's plenty of other factors (transmission line losses), capital charges, and so forth, on both sides, but I think the math does show that the Tesla is about 6x cleaner in CO2 and 4x cheaper in "fuel" than an equivalent gasoline powered car.
  The transport costs for gasoline aren't especially high - look at how much gas you can transport on a tanker for an equivalent amount of gas, and the ratio is quite good. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to use gas.
3. Re:Math by moonbender · 2011-10-03 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure how representative those numbers for the energy mix are. I found this page which seems to be more reliable: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm#electricity
  For 2010 (Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors)), it lists roughly 44% coal, 23% NG, 20% nuclear, 6% hydro, 2% wind, and the rest is peanuts.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
4. Re:Math by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  California's gas prices are above average in the US, but their electricity prices are way over average, so it;s a bad comparison. The average residential power price in the US is 10-11 cents per kWh. Commercial rates are more like 9 cents, and industrial, more like 6 cents.
  Don't guess on the energy comparison between EVs and gasoline: Use studies.
  
  --
  Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
5. Re:Math by s122604 · 2011-10-03 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except gas doesn't come on a tanker, crude does
  
  and again it doesn't magically turn itself into gasoline. So yes you are forgetting something, the staggering amount of electricity it takes to extract and refine crude oil.
  In 1997 1.5 percent of CA electricity use was spent just extracting crude oil, not even counting refining, which runs between 5-12KWH per gallon depending on who you ask. The gasoline fairies don't do it, electricity does.
  And that's still just gasoline sitting in a tank in a refinery, it still has to get pumped into a pipeline, offloaded onto a tanker trunk, shipped, and retailes.
  It also requires a good bit of water, if that means anything.
  That, good sir, is not trivial.
6. Re:Math by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-03 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  >>Except gas doesn't come on a tanker, crude does
  Supertankers and tanker trucks both have very high efficiency ratios. 5 kWh for refining is a fair chunk of the 37kWh of a gallon of gas, but then again you lose about 7% of electricity to transmission line losses, too.
  So I think my back of the envelope calculation isn't going to be too far off.
7. Re:Math by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-03 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  >>Don't guess on the energy comparison between EVs and gasoline: Use studies.
  Your link doesn't work.
  But the fun part about running the numbers yourself is that you get to avoid the very real possibility that the other person is lying to you, or factually wrong.
  >>California's gas prices are above average in the US, but their electricity prices are way over average, so it;s a bad comparison. The average residential power price in the US is 10-11 cents per kWh.
  Sure, true on both counts, but I wanted to see how it would compare around here. The final rates I used for filling up the Tesla was 23c/kWh, so divide the electricity cost by 2, and reduce the gas cost by about a third, to get more generally applicable numbers. Tiered power rates are a very real problem for electric car owners, though. It's going to easily push you into the top tier of costs for whatever time you run your car charger.
  Ironically enough, I have much much lower peak usage than off-peak, due to solar basically powering my house during the day, so the math might also be different that way, too.
Re:Will it still corner like a pig? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-02 13:19 · Score: 1

Corner like a pig? Even on the "eco tires" it will out-corner 99% of the cars out there. It's still just an Elise that weighs a little more than an S2000.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:0-60 In 4.5 Seconds by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-02 13:23 · Score: 1

The Formula One race cars (which trade some safety of street legal cars for extra speed)
They trade no safety. F1 cars are the world's safest cars. They trade affordability - ALL of it.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Peak Lithium by Gormm · 2011-10-02 14:06 · Score: 1

But we're already at peak lithium....
Most New tech is expensive by spineboy · 2011-10-02 15:36 · Score: 1

If America is to compete with other country sponsored industries - i.e. China massively funding most of their new technologies, then it's not unreasonable.
All new technologies are expensive - remember CD players? went for $1,000 initially.
Electricity is MUCH cheaper than gas - it would be nice to stop our hemorrhaging of billions of dollars to the middle east, and suck the power out of those countries., making them irrelevant.
Green energy is the only way to go, for environmental reasons, as well as political, and economic.

--
..........FULL STOP.
1. Re:Most New tech is expensive by tftp · 2011-10-02 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Electricity is not much cheaper than gas. In the USA it is at best close - $0.30/kWh for electricity vs. about $0.11/kWh for gasoline.
  However electricity is infinitely renewable and has no emissions (regardless of whether these are harmful or not.)
  The only problem with electricity is that it's very expensive to store it, and we don't know how to store enough. In the end, though, electricity is the answer (or perhaps hydrogen.)
2. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-02 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  If America is to compete with other country sponsored industries - i.e. China massively funding most of their new technologies, then it's not unreasonable.
  Yes it is unreasonable. If there are truly worthwhile investments to be made in these technologies then the private sector will make them at the time when it's most appropriate. I reject the notion that the government must step in and subsidize technologies in order to make them successful. I also reject the notion that big spenders like China will somehow gain an advantage over US industries because of subsidies and direct investments in these R&D projects. When the time comes to step up and make and investment, when it makes sense to do it, unencumbered private sector businesses will be there to do it and they will compete at least as well as foreign industries which have been "incubated" by misdirection of public funds. People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in. The best that can be said is that sometimes, and even then not very often, government purchases in military hardware or the space program, which is arguably mostly about military goals too, might lead to new technologies sooner rather than somewhat later. However, whenever the government has tried to subsidize technologies that private citizens are supposed to go out and buy for themselves, like electric vehicles for example, the results have been disastrous. It's mostly a waste of taxpayer funds for technologies that could have been researched, developed and acquired more cheaply without government involvement in private industry.
  
  Electricity is MUCH cheaper than gas
  Except that it's not because current battery technologies do not store as much energy in as easily usable a form as liquid fuels. Plus, look at natural gas. The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs. Boone Pickens was right about that. Natural gas as a vehicle fuel makes sense and is far more sensible than battery powered electric vehicles at this time. The economics support nat gas for commercial ground vehicle transportation.
  
  Green energy is the only way to go, for environmental reasons, as well as political, and economic.
  1. It isn't economical. If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies. In case you haven't been paying attention; that hasn't happened . Almost all "green" energy projects would not exist right now if not for government subsidies; without government subsidies, they are economic losers.
  2. The US government is drowning in a sea of red ink right now and subsidizing "green" energy is like throwing more good money after bad. How about all of those unemployed people that the federal government has trained for green jobs in the last two years that don't exist? Those people are still looking for non-existent green jobs more than a year after completing their training. In fact the surest way to render someone unemployable is to let potential employers know that they have completed an OSHA-approved federal jobs training program. They might as well put a big red sticker on the back saying, "warning: don't hire me. I've been trained by the federal government to be a trouble maker."
  3. Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work, your children are out of work and everyone is struggling just to get by. If this sort of thing continues, and I'm fairly certain that it will until Obama is booted out of office in 2012, people will be ready to kick the greenies to the curb for a real chance at getting a real job that actually pays something and puts them back in the black
3. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-02 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  In the end, though, electricity is the answer.
  That may be, but it will happen when the technology, marketplace and consumer decides, without government interference, that the time is right. People don't like being forced or "nudged" into making economic decisions, which they know they wouldn't make if not for government subsidies or punitive taxation, before they're ready to make them for themselves. In democratic societies people of all stripes punish those in power at the polls for engaging in that kind of social engineering. If you're a government official then take heed. If you go around "nudging" people to make the "right" decisions, don't be surprised when they turn around and slug you at the polls for being a busybody. Nobody likes a busybody who pokes around in other peoples' business without so much as a, "by your leave".
4. Re:Most New tech is expensive by lwriemen · 2011-10-03 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in.
  This argument is a logical fallacy. There are a lot of technologies that have come into existence due to government funding (which is why I assume you worded your argument this way), and to suppose that they would have found other funding sources is pure fantasy.
  
  The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs.
  If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped? Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11243/1170956-28.stm
  
  If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies.
  You'd have to level the playing field on both sides, because oil production is heavily subsidized as well.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
  
  Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work
  It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land. Unpolluted water and air means you can sustain yourself outside of the boundaries of civilization. Even in cities, it's nice to have clean air and water and freedom from disease. Of course lassez-faire attitudes are what got us into this economic situation, as money to rich has trickled out (not down) to countries that aren't as concerned with environmental quality and working conditions.
5. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  If America is to compete with other country sponsored industries - i.e. China massively funding most of their new technologies, then it's not unreasonable.
  Yes it is unreasonable. If there are truly worthwhile investments to be made in these technologies then the private sector will make them at the time when it's most appropriate.
  Just like the Big Three built reliable, safe cars with good emissions, while the Japanese were eating their lunch? Oh wait, the free market failed to keep up in this country, and we had to raise federal crash test standards to the point where only massive pieces of steel or expensively engineered ones (e.g. Smart ForTwo) can pass them, in order to disqualify most of those vehicles. In the end, we got government intervention specifically BECAUSE the Big Three automakers are incapable of keeping up. So no, the private sector will fall on its ass and the government will bail it out with legislation, AGAIN. And we'll see the car companies getting money AGAIN, but we won't call it a bailout, it will be used to bring them into the modern age.
  
  Electricity is MUCH cheaper than gas
  Except that it's not because current battery technologies do not store as much energy in as easily usable a form as liquid fuels.
  That has only limited repercussions for ongoing cost. It affects range and initial cost in batteries, which cost more than a fuel tank. Further, the massively superior efficiency of electric motors (the motors used in cars are typically over 90% efficient both as a motor and a generator) lets you use more of the power you have stored. Since they're more than three times as efficient as gas, you only about one third the energy density to get the same results.
  
  If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies. In case you haven't been paying attention; that hasn't happened
  Uh, no. You are either totally uninformed or an industry shill. Chevron owns the NiMH battery technology needed to make effective cheap EVs, but they want to sell you oil products because it's where they can make the most money. DuPont and BP together own a company called Butamax, which owns a rather obvious patent that should never have been granted which applies to the practical production of Butanol, a direct 1:1 replacement for gasoline which can be made from any organic material and which burns cleaner. And the US DOE performed a study concluded in the 1980s at Sandia NREL which indicated that producing biodiesel from algae grown on dirty water (salt or fresh, makes no difference) is profitable when prices reach $3/gallon, which we've been beyond for many years. Most of the land suitable for this purpose is BLM land, and you can get a permit to drill for oil or mine coal, but if you want to build a solar plant or an algae plant, the government tells you that you need to do an environmental study! Indeed, Bush himself rang in on this issue while his administration was denying a permit for just one such solar plant -- which can power the EVs you so malign.
  To suggest that the "free market" (which simply does not exist, especially in this nation of subsidies and tariffs) will fix the problem is to not only ignore the lessons of history, but also the lessons of the present. You are either an idiot (on the basis of being willing to make declarative statements when their opposite is true) or a troll. Are you on the auto industry payroll?
  
  The US government is drowning in a sea of red ink right now and subsidizing "green" energy is like throwing more good money after bad.
  The US government is drowning in precisely two things; needless war, and undertaxing the rich. The most wealthy among us have access to classes of in
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-03 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  This argument is a logical fallacy.
  Not true. I'm pointing out the tendency of those who support subsidies to say, "advancement x will not happen unless we subsidize". We cannot subsidize everything because the economy must run everything on a finite pool of resources, at least in the short run. Indeed that is what economics is, the study of scarcity and the choices that it engenders. When the government subsidizes something, causing more resources to be allocated than would be otherwise, some other part of the economy is made to do with less than it would have otherwise; the classic guns and butter comparison. To engage in subsidies presumes that the government, and not the market, picks the best possible uses of our limited resources. The question of whether the government or the market should allocate resources was largely decided in favor of the market before the end of the 20th century. Some people don't like it, but if we look at what governments and people actually do and not just what they say that they will do; free markets have been and continue to be the first choice. So either were all stupid and insane for continuing to pick the market against our own best interests, as judged by the enlightened statists, OR perhaps the people of this world actually know a thing or two about how economics works in the real world.
  
  If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped?
  Other sources of energy, namely liquid crude oil pumped straight out of the ground, were cheaper still and remain competitive due to the large existing investments in capital equipment, technology and expertise made over the course of a century and more of crude oil production. Natural gas is next in line, especially here in the United States, and will start coming on line for more intensive production as and when the economics of energy production dictate. We are even now rapidly approaching the point where commercial long haul trucking and trains may decide to switch from diesel to compressed natural gas. Boone Pickens has already discussed the economics of nat gas in transportation at length. If you are interested in the details I suggest that you Google pickens plan and natural gas.
  
  Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive.
  Modern fossil energy exploration and production has always been a capital intensive business and expensive is a relative term. The potential reserves of natural gas trapped in massive shale formations here in the continental USA is immense. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas here in the United States or at least we could be when production is ramped up. Natural gas exploration is a long term investment and should be treated as such in any analysis with costs amortized over thirty years or more. All things considered, natural gas remains an attractive long term investment here in the United States. If you need proof of that look at the interest expressed by Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chesapeake Energy among many others. Natural gas is a going concern that attracts investment even without government subsidies because it makes economic sense; it stands up by itself as a worthwhile investment in the private sector.
  
  You'd have to level the playing field on both sides, because oil production is heavily subsidized as well.
  Indeed, I agree completely. The subsidies must end. That has always been my position. You see? I'm consistent.
  
  It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land.
  Have you tried that? Your parents might have as hippies during the "back to the land" movement in the 1960s. You grandparents or great grandparents were probably involved in some form of subsistence agriculture if your family has roots going back to the 19th century here in the USA or Europe. There are still a few hippies liv
7. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-03 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  the free market failed to keep up in this country,
  So let me get this straight. It's the fault of the free market that Japanese built better cars than we did? Sounds like the free market working perfectly to me. The Japanese companies, specifically Toyota but Honda and others too, decided without being mandated to do so by the Japanese government, that they were going to focus on building small, high quality automobiles and motorcycles that people in export markets actually wanted to buy ; what a remarkable concept! They focused on quality and through hard work and innovative processes they were able to succeed at a price point that the big 3 American automakers couldn't match. Hmm, that wasn't because of the uncompetitive UAW workers and their inane work rules was it? No of course not, nothing to see there. Don't blame the incompetence of the American automakers on the free market and then cast the government as their saviors for bailing them out and making them "keep up". They should have been allowed to go bankrupt if they couldn't compete with the Japanese or the Europeans. That is what the free market does, it gets rid of poorly run and uncompetitive companies. That is not a failure of the free market, it's the free market doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing; creative destruction.
  
  That has only limited repercussions for ongoing cost. It affects range and initial cost in batteries, which cost more than a fuel tank.
  The initial cost is on the order of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars more for hybrid and electric vehicles. I wouldn't call that "limited" and neither would most other Americans. As for range, that's also very important. Gasoline and diesel automobiles have endurance measured in the 300-700 mile range. If alternative vehicles are to be mass market sellers, they have to meet or beat those ranges in real world driving conditions at comparable prices. People aren't stupid. They have crunched the numbers and come to the conclusion that hybrids and electric vehicles, outside of niche in-city driving scenarios, don't make sense economically. They don't pencil out on a pure financial basis when the numbers are crunched with a calculator or a spreadsheet. This has been demonstrated time and again by many others; you can Google many representative sample calculations for all of the fine details. People who do pay more up front for hybrids and electric vehicles do it because they like driving them and are willing to pay a premium for the personal satisfaction, what economists call "utility", of being "green".
  
  Chevron owns the NiMH battery technology needed to make effective cheap EVs, but they want to sell you oil products because it's where they can make the most money.
  I know that Chevron owns the battery business which they acquired with Texaco which purchased the original firm: Ovonics. If these batteries could totally destroy the oil business then why doesn't Chevron produce them and win over all ground vehicle business from their competitors in the oil business? Chevron is not even close to being the worlds largest oil company after all. Alternatively, the could sell the battery business, at a high price, to someone who did want to go head to head with the oil companies. For that matter, why didn't Ovanics, the original developer, become the largest and most successful energy company ever? Surely, they could have found investors if there was such a tremendous opportunity to massively disrupt the energy business? There have always been conspiracy theories about oil companies buying up technologies that would give us vastly superior energy options and they have always proven to be unfounded. Remember the 300 mile per gallon carburetor? Busted. Yeah, enough said.
  
  to the practical production of Butanol, a direct 1:1 replacement for gasoline
  Sigh, butanol is not a perfect substitute for gasoline. It has some
8. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  the free market failed to keep up in this country,
  So let me get this straight. It's the fault of the free market that Japanese built better cars than we did?
  No, it's the fault of the free market that the Japanese building better cars than we do by default can lead to massive underemployment here without government interference. See, when people go hungry, the system has failed. From that standpoint, government interference is better. Unfortunately, the interference came in the form of rubberstamping mediocrity, instead of subsidies for the competent.
  
  If these batteries could totally destroy the oil business then why doesn't Chevron produce them and win over all ground vehicle business from their competitors in the oil business?
  What a sophomoric question.
  
  The initial cost is on the order of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars more for hybrid and electric vehicles. I wouldn't call that "limited" and neither would most other Americans.
  People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time. Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions, they are getting Baby Huey style and lots of noise, plus an unnecessarily massive car.
  
  butanol is not a perfect substitute for gasoline. It has some problems which make it less desirable as a substitute for gasoline.
  None of those problems are serious at all. Let's go over them one at a time. To match the combustion characteristics of gasoline, the utilization of butanol fuel as a substitute for gasoline requires fuel-flow increases (though butanol has only slightly less energy than gasoline, so the fuel-flow increase required is only minimal, maybe 10%, compared to 40% for ethanol.) Comes with its own built-in "this is not a problem". 10% is well within the adaptive range of most ECUs. Alcohol-based fuels are not compatible with some fuel system components. This is precisely NO more problem with Butanol than it is with Gasoline, because MTBE has already been thrown over for Ethanol as a fuel additive, and everyone who was going to lose their seals already has. Alcohol fuels may cause erroneous gas gauge readings in vehicles with capacitance fuel level gauging. This is a vanishingly small slice of the market and no one ever should have used capacitance because it fails when fuel is contaminated. While ethanol and methanol have lower energy densities than butanol, their higher octane number allows for greater compression ratio and efficiency. Higher combustion engine efficiency allows for lesser greenhouse gas emissions per unit motive energy extracted. Another point which contains its own "this is not a problem". Butanol is toxic at a rate of 20g per liter and may need to undergo Tier 1 and Tier 2 health effects testing before being permitted as a primary fuel by the EPA. are you fucking kidding me? Okay, so since none of the concerns about biodiesel affect 99% of the market, I conclude that it is vastly more suitable than electric vehicles, which have the capacity to serve only 95% of the market. I have also concluded that you do not. know. what. you. are. talking. about.
  
  To suggest that the "free market" (which simply does not exist, especially in this nation of subsidies and tariffs)
  Again, you blame the private sector for government meddling.
  Again, you are a naive idiot or an industry shill, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The automotive industry BOUGHT that legislation.
  
  US government is drowning in precisely two things; needless war, and undertaxing the rich.
  Actually, we need to raise taxes somewhat across the board while lowering them so that nobody pays more than about 25%.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Most New tech is expensive by lwriemen · 2011-10-03 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  You see? I'm consistent.
  You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments. You totally failed to address my logical fallacy comment by changing tact and trying to force opinions as truths. You ignore the whole subsidies argument until it fits your view. You change the employment terms in the environmental discussion to some weird rant against hippies. (BTW, my parents are too old to have been hippies, I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.) You went totally bizarre in the response to the "trickle-out" comment. I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
10. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-04 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments.
  That's your opinion, but I stand by my arguments. We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I remain skeptical of government subsidies and I do not favor them as a good use of my tax dollars; I'd prefer that the government spend less and leave more of my hard-earned dollars in my pocket. I am somewhat more open to government funding of scientific research, but I will never be convinced, for example, that giving cheap loans to Tesla motors for production of electric vehicles is a good use of my tax dollars.
  
  I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
  your comment was on trickle-down, not off-shoring specifically. The profits are made in resource extraction and cheap manufacturing, but they don't generally remain in those countries. The profits are transferred into offshore subsidiaries for two reasons: first, if the money enters the US again then it is taxed again (after already paying any foreign taxes) and second many growth investment opportunities are no longer located inside the United States due to relatively high taxes (already mentioned) and excess regulatory burdens. So why repatriate revenues and profits when they are just going to be invested overseas again anyway? The corruption of certain governments, particularly in Africa, makes the resource and labor arbitrage more attractive. It's not the whole reason for off-shoring, but it does sweeten the deal for corporations operating in those countries.
  
  I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.
  Most of the people living in the developed world don't know how to live off the land and have never farmed. They like to shop at Whole Foods, but they aren't prepared to give up their private automobiles, careers and detached suburban homes to go and live off of it.
11. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-04 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  the Japanese building better cars than we do by default can lead to massive underemployment here without government interference.
  That is how the market works. The price system acts as a signaling mechanism to allocate resources efficiently. Allocating resources inefficiently, even to protect jobs, ultimately makes everyone worse off. The economies of India, Latin America and Russia offer plenty of historical examples of the rather substantial downsides of trade barriers.
  
  People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time.
  How can you be sure that they don't need it? Do you know their circumstances and preferences better than they do?
  
  Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions
  What about safety and "family hauling" capabilities? I doubt that low emissions are a high priority for most buyers. They may choose a lower emission vehicle, all other things being equal, but they will not generally sacrifice desired features like multiple bench seats for the kids and more cargo space just to get lower emissions. You might consider low emissions to be useful, but not everyone shares your preferences.
  On the butanol issue: Is there anything stopping a gas station from installing a butanol pump for those customers who want it? Look, the owners' manual states very clearly that my vehicle uses 87+ octane gasoline with no more than 10% alcohol additive. It also says that using unapproved fuels voids the warranty. I'd rather just use the recommended fuel and not waste time arguing with the manufacturer over warranty service because I filled the car up with butanol; it's just not worth the hassle to me.
  
  Again, you are a naive idiot or an industry shill, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The automotive industry BOUGHT that legislation.
  Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. You're just being a jerk. Look, it's no surprise that corporations lobby for legislation that benefits them and hinders their competitors. The fact that corporations and wealthy individuals engage in rent seeking is not an indictment of the free market. It is precisely the scope and power of the government which makes this sort of behavior attractive. There are rent seekers even in the absence of a free market; The Soviet Union had rent seekers looking to use the power of the state to unjustly enrich themselves and they were definitely not a free market system.
  As for tax policy: again, we obviously disagree. Personally, I favor the Fair Tax, but I suspect that you hate it with a passion so there's really no point in discussing the matter further. The arguments and counter-arguments surrounding the Fair Tax are well known and books have been written on the subject. Anyone else reading this who wants to immerse themselves in the detailed arguments would be better served by getting them from the original sources.
  As for the unemployment numbers, I was being generous. The numbers are indeed much higher than officially reported. Why do you accuse me of idiocy simply because I am generous in my argument? Higher unemployment, and higher still in California, only strengthens it.
  
  Because our government doesn't actually believe in Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness,
  The government doesn't guarantee that you will have these things in abundance, merely that you are free to pursue them; your mileage may vary.
  
  Second, in the hands of a capable shooter my Kimber Pro-Carry II is probably a superior weapon to your Ruger, aside from reliability issues if you carry the wrong ammunition.
  It's never been a problem for me. It fires both the .454 casull and .45 ACP reliably with as much accuracy as you would expect from a short barrel revolver. I normally load the .45 ACP, not the
12. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-05 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Allocating resources inefficiently, even to protect jobs, ultimately makes everyone worse off.
  I agree with that. Unfortunately, we are neither allocating resources efficiently nor protecting jobs.
  
  People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time.
  How can you be sure that they don't need it? Do you know their circumstances and preferences better than they do?
  Their circumstances are relevant but I am familiar enough with them to know that they don't need the cars they're being sold; their preferences are only half their own because they are predominantly feeding from the glass teat. Advertising works, and about half of all automotive advertising is designed to make current owners feel good about their purchases, as much to keep them from patronizing the competition as much as to keep them coming back to the same marque. It wouldn't be necessary to do this if people were genuinely satisfied with their vehicles, but the vehicles they're being sold in this country aren't designed predominantly to make people happy, but to make money for the big three. They're just as reliable as they need to be, while still being designed to send people back to the dealer for service. The continuing obscurity of the relevant OBD-II codes needed for service of modern vehicles and the need to reverse-engineer them that makes the third party tools quite expensive indeed is one great example.
  
  Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions
  What about safety and "family hauling" capabilities? I doubt that low emissions are a high priority for most buyers.
  Safety is provided through a combination of factors, not merely a "Safe car" where safety is defined as doing well in collision tests, although that is a necessary component. The collision tests have been made more difficult over the years because the average car has actually gotten heavier in recent years, and been given more power, in spite of which the vehicles are still ungainly and slow to accelerate compared to their lighter, lower-powered cousins from overseas. Most vehicles are engined and geared to provide a top speed of around twice the legal limit, which is unnecessary and inhibits efficiency. If you put a smaller engine in it sufficient only for doing say half again the legal limit, and gear them down to provide the same performance (which they will!) the only thing you lose for the street driver is noise which statistically nobody else wants to hear anyway.
  The vehicles are being sold specifically for the benefit of the car company, not for the benefit of the buyer, who is being tricked into buying more car than they need by being made to feel inadequate if they don't. This is simple fact.
  
  On the butanol issue: Is there anything stopping a gas station from installing a butanol pump for those customers who want it?
  Yes, they can't get butanol on a cost-effective basis even though there is a company that would like to produce it and sell it to them, because BP and DuPont assert that their process conflicts with their patent — which they are not bothering to actually exploit for profit, instead electing to sit on it and not produce any fuel.
  
  Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. You're just being a jerk.
  You're just saying the things that shills say, which is what is making me suspicious. Everything I'm saying here is well-documented. Everything you've said against these biofuels so far has been uninformed at best. If you want me to assume that you're just asserting your own opinion, it's going to have to be a little further separated from the Big Oil and Big Auto party line.
  
  n the hands of a capable shooter my Kimber Pro-Carry II is probably
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-08 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  but the vehicles they're being sold in this country aren't designed predominantly to make people happy, but to make money for the big three.
  While it's true that few people absolutely satisfied with every last detail of their vehicle, I would venture a guess that most people are mostly satisfied. Now granted, people may be compelled by individual circumstances to purchase a vehicle that is within their means rather than the one that they would prefer if cost was no limitation. However, it's a bit much to blame this on the auto manufacturers. We are all obliged to make choices between limited options by the marketplace. There aren't enough resources on the planet to completely satisfy the whims of every last car buyer; that's just the way it is and it would be that way even if there were only one vehicle manufacturer completely owned and operated by the government.
  
  The continuing obscurity of the relevant OBD-II codes needed for service of modern vehicles and the need to reverse-engineer them that makes the third party tools quite expensive indeed is one great example.
  True, but try and see it from the perspective of the manufacturers. If they are liable for the bumbling hands of every shade tree mechanic out there for warranty claims, the cost of repairs will be increased for everyone. The dealers may cost more, but at least they are trained to service your particular brand and model of vehicle. Compare that with many independent garages which are well known for botching repairs, particularly to higher end vehicles with complex control systems and numerous sensors, and being generally dishonest. Besides, everything is negotiable when it comes to vehicles. If you don't like the price the dealer or shop offers for repairs then try negotiating; you might be surprised by the results of a calm, rational and carefully stated objection to a high price.
  
  Yes, they can't get butanol on a cost-effective basis even though there is a company that would like to produce it and sell it to them, because BP and DuPont assert that their process conflicts with their patent
  You'll find no defender of the patent system in me. The system no longer serves the purpose for which it was created; that much is clear. It needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished and replaced with something else.
  
  Everything you've said against these biofuels so far has been uninformed at best. If you want me to assume that you're just asserting your own opinion, it's going to have to be a little further separated from the Big Oil and Big Auto party line.
  What I want is an end to all energy and fuel subsidies, indeed subsidies in general, and patent reform. Then perhaps, the free market can at last make the right decisions, without interference, between each alternative competing on it's own merits. I dislike it when scientists, technocrats and policy wonks tell me what I should be putting in my gas tank and then pass laws forcing me to accept whatever they, in their infinite wisdom, deem is best for me. People must be free to make their own choices, even bad ones, without undue interference from their "betters". That is what separates the United States from the European countries and other examples of paternalistic "enlightened" statism; it's what makes us Americans.
  
  And if enough of us tell others to do it too, then we can build awareness, and hopefully go after the criminal abusers.
  I rather think that most of the criminal abuses with regard to pollution and environmental degradation occur due to incomplete or unenforceable private property rights. The experience of the last 30+ years in the United States, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, demonstrates the difficulties inherit in achieving proper redress through government regulation and monitoring of gross polluters. Compare that to cases where the actions of one party clearly degrades the private
14. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-09 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  There aren't enough resources on the planet to completely satisfy the whims of every last car buyer; that's just the way it is and it would be that way even if there were only one vehicle manufacturer completely owned and operated by the government.
  That's not what's necessary, however. The car companies spend a lot of money to tell people they need ever-larger and more-powerful vehicles, when in fact they would be happiest with a vehicle which is precisely the right size to hold what they will put in it (since it will be easier to see out of, easier to park, cheaper to fuel, better-handling, etc., all else being equal) and with just enough power to drag around what they want to drag around, for all the same reasons. Indeed, satisfying the actual needs and real, meaningful desires of the car-buying populace is done neatly by boring companies like Toyota, which is probably one of the reasons they regularly produce the world's best-selling cars. In some parts of the world they have laws about what you can say in an advert that go beyond trademark law.
  
  The continuing obscurity of the relevant OBD-II codes needed for service of modern vehicles and the need to reverse-engineer them that makes the third party tools quite expensive indeed is one great example.
  True, but try and see it from the perspective of the manufacturers. If they are liable for the bumbling hands of every shade tree mechanic out there for warranty claims, the cost of repairs will be increased for everyone.
  Again, if you want me to take you seriously as anything other than a shill, you're going to have to stop repeating patently nonsensical party lines. They're not liable for that when cars don't even have an ECU, and they're not liable when they do, either.
  
  Everything you've said against these biofuels so far has been uninformed at best. If you want me to assume that you're just asserting your own opinion, it's going to have to be a little further separated from the Big Oil and Big Auto party line.
  What I want is an end to all energy and fuel subsidies, indeed subsidies in general, and patent reform.
  Now you're prevaricating instead of responding to what I said. What I want is for you to admit that you parroted an ignorant party line about the drawbacks of various biofuels like butanol, and also I want to know why. Yes, the REAL problem with Butanol is that a clearly obvious patent was granted; yes, it was based on real work, but the work was done at a public institution, at least in part with public money, so it should not be granted on that basis as well, or at least, the patent should be co-granted to the American public, who paid for its development... or it should be invalidated on the basis of prior art, in that the public paid for that prior art. Blah blah blah. So while I agree with you that the patent system is completely broken, you're moving the goal posts, and I not only want you to stop it, but I want an apology. It's a cheap debating tactic, and so far you've been a cheap master debater.
  
  I rather think that most of the criminal abuses with regard to pollution and environmental degradation occur due to incomplete or unenforceable private property rights. The experience of the last 30+ years in the United States, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, demonstrates the difficulties inherit in achieving proper redress through government regulation and monitoring of gross polluters. Compare that to cases where the actions of one party clearly degrades the private property of another and the matter is litigated in the courts.
  Most of the criminal abuses with regard to pollution and environmental degradation occur because when we created an organism to protect our environment we gave it insufficient backbone and no teeth. The EPA needs the power to immediately shut down any facility which is emitt
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-09 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  when in fact they would be happiest with a vehicle which is precisely the right size to hold what they will put in it (since it will be easier to see out of, easier to park
  There are plenty of automotive companies which produce just such a vehicle(s). You mentioned Toyota for example. Should we prevent those who wish to drive a high performance vehicle from doing so because we think it's not practical or they don't need that? I will say this one last time and very clearly: don't presume to know what's best for me. I decide what I like and don't like and what I buy and don't buy and nobody but me gets to decide whether or not I'm happy with those choices. I don't judge other people's personal decisions and purchases as it relates to their own happiness. Individual happiness is in the eye of the beholder and nobody else.
  
  They're not liable for that when cars don't even have an ECU, and they're not liable when they do, either.
  One thing that you can count on, at least here in the United States, is that there are always clever and enterprising attorneys willing to try out just about any new theory of liability. Limiting ones' personal exposure to the depredations of attorneys is a necessary life skill here in the United States. If you want someone to blame for the diagnostic code debacle or the biofuel patent troubles; blame the attorneys.
  
  What I want is for you to admit that you parroted an ignorant party line about the drawbacks of various biofuels like butanol
  Look as soon as something as cheap and as good as gasoline comes along, I will be among the first to switch if it's really better. Ethanol doesn't fit that bill because the energy density is too low and the cost is no less or only marginally less than conventional gasoline or diesel. The 90% gasoline 10% ethanol that most of us are stuck with right now at the pump is a real stinker because it costs as much or more than 100% gasoline while delivering less mpg. The only people happy with ethanol here in the US are corn farmers and their lobbyists. If butanol can run in my engine without damaging it and without expensive modifications AND the long run average price is equal or less than gasoline, then I'll give it a try. However, I'm not prepared to pay even one cent more because butanol pollutes less than gasoline (if that's even true) because it will always be spit in the ocean compared to filthy Chinese coal plants, cement manufacturers and other international gross polluters. You like to, "do what you can", even if it's irrelevant. I, on the other hand, draw the line at futile efforts just to make a moral point that, in the end, is equally irrelevant. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead".
  
  The EPA needs the power to immediately shut down any facility which is emitting more than the legal limit. Without that power, all they can ever do is assess fines, and our political system guarantees that those fines will never be arduous, except for those who forgot to fund their PAC.
  Which is to say that the EPA, which is staffed by unelected bureaucrats, must have the power to immediately shut down the economy. Do you not see that by concentrating such tremendous power in a single agency you will only increase the stakes of the game and make the inevitable regulatory capture all the more attractive from the standpoint of those whom the EPA regulates? At the very least, the EPA is staffed by bureaucrats who will still need jobs to feed their families and pay the mortgage even when they no longer work for the EPA. Why be an enemy of the powerful when you can instead become one of them? Many will fall and have fallen victim to precisely that sort of corruption and you want to give the government agencies more power? The United States Treasury is a powerful agency and look at the revolving door between top Treasury bureaucrats and the top Wall St firms; that's no accident.
  
  you're
16. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-10 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Should we prevent those who wish to drive a high performance vehicle from doing so because we think it's not practical or they don't need that? I will say this one last time and very clearly: don't presume to know what's best for me.
  You're being disingenuous again and I'm tired of it. Why don't you try responding to my actual argument, which is that people are being told they need more car than they actually need, and advertising works, so they buy more car than they need, and then live the rest of their period of ownership in a state of remorse, requiring the car company to kick out advertising to make them feel good about themselves if they want the customer's money in the future?
  
  I decide what I like and don't like and what I buy and don't buy and nobody but me gets to decide whether or not I'm happy with those choices
  No, you are viciously manipulated using psychological tricks proven to work, and you don't even know what you want. I can believe that people do, but not when they are so obtuse about this issue. It is a proven fact that advertising can lead otherwise intelligent people to make poor, regrettable purchasing decisions.
  
  If you want someone to blame for the diagnostic code debacle or the biofuel patent troubles; blame the attorneys.
  That is complete shit. I blame the people paying the attorneys. The case of butanol in particular is a clearly anticompetitive use of the system.
  
  Look as soon as something as cheap and as good as gasoline comes along, I will be among the first to switch if it's really better.
  
  Great, Butanol can be vastly cheaper as it can be made from any kind of organic waste. And it burns cleaner. It's better.
  
  If butanol can run in my engine without damaging it and without expensive modifications AND the long run average price is equal or less than gasoline, then I'll give it a try.
  If your engine can run on gasahol, then it can run on butanol.
  
  However, I'm not prepared to pay even one cent more because butanol pollutes less than gasoline (if that's even true) because it will always be spit in the ocean compared to filthy Chinese coal plants, cement manufacturers and other international gross polluters.
  "You have already been shot, so if I stab you, who cares?
  
  Which is to say that the EPA, which is staffed by unelected bureaucrats, must have the power to immediately shut down the economy.
  Pretty much. If the cost of the economy is a toxic burden on the future, then it should be shut down. It is not a necessary cost, it only allows the rich to get richer faster.
  
  To quote Henry Kissinger, âoeAccept everything about yourself--I mean everything. You are you and that is the beginning and the end--no apologies, no regrets.â
  Well, accept this: You are a cheap debater who does not know what he is talking about but is defending his position to the end by any means necessary, and I think that means you are a stereotypical "useful idiot" and this conversation cannot possibly bear any further fruit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:Most New tech is expensive by hyades1 · 2011-10-10 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for having the patience to deal with that cretin. I don't for one second believe his argument was even a little bit honest; I think you were right on the money when you pegged him as a shill.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
18. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-10 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for having the patience to deal with that cretin. I
  I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
  More seriously, I don't like myself when I lose control and get angry, and it doesn't win any converts either.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-10 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  this conversation cannot possibly bear any further fruit.
  I suppose then that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that; there's really nothing more to be said.
20. Re:Most New tech is expensive by CodeBuster · 2011-10-10 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like myself when I lose control and get angry
  I must confess that I don't much care for it either.
  
  it doesn't win any converts either.
  Certainly true in this case.
21. Re:Most New tech is expensive by drinkypoo · 2011-10-11 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like myself when I lose control and get angry
  I must confess that I don't much care for it either.
  Sorry kiddo, you didn't see it in this thread, either. I just got bored, and slightly annoyed. When you come up with some new arguments that I haven't already refuted a thousand times in conversations with people smarter than you are, then maybe I'll be arsed to get angry.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:How about a Model T? - inflation calc by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2011-10-02 15:39 · Score: 1

Go here : http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
and it says $850 in 1909 = $20,363 in 2010 dollars.

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I like Tesla's by ILongForDarkness · 2011-10-02 16:23 · Score: 1

effort to make electric cool by giving good performance (actually for acceleration usually superior performance) to gas powered cars. That said I don't think electric is all that green in the US or a lot of other cars. Replace gas burned in a car for coal burned in a plant + all the inefficiencies in the power distribution system + all the really crappy components in the batteries. If governments would get of the asses and actually generate electricity from green sources than electric would be green but they do it isn't a clear win in my mind.
1. Re:I like Tesla's by drinkypoo · 2011-10-03 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  That said I don't think electric is all that green in the US or a lot of other cars. Replace gas burned in a car for coal burned in a plant + all the inefficiencies in the power distribution system + all the really crappy components in the batteries.
  You don't think so, but you don't actually know what you're talking about... but will make your "contribution" anyway. Running EVs IS cleaner than gasoline, simply due to efficiency. When the batteries "die" they are still going to be useful for power storage, and "recycling" them consists of building battery banks out of them for terrestrial, fixed power storage.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:I like Tesla's by ILongForDarkness · 2011-10-03 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  and where does the electricity come from in the US for example? 68+% is fossil fuels with the majority of that being coal. How is that cleaner? People seem to think that if they don't have to put anything in the car that no emissions are created. As for energy storage/recycling: could be one day but not there now. So again I'd say at the moment EVs are not that green. if you can't do anything with the batteries except hope something some day will come around to get rid of their pollutants and or make use of them then you are in the same wishful thinking place as nuke technology. I like nukes but I don't pretend like they are perfect as they stand. There are still issues and they aren't truly green until they can take care of their waste products.
3. Re:I like Tesla's by sycorob · 2011-10-03 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  The coal power plant is still more efficient than your tiny internal-combustion engine. Even with power losses from lines, etc, the electric car is still more efficient overall. So, that's present state.
  For future state, if we had mostly electric cars for commuting, running to the store, etc, we could replace coal plants with wind turbines, for example, and suddenly our cars are green. If all cars are internal combustion engines, we're stuck with using oil, or using up valuable farmland to grow vegetation for bio-gas. Just because electric cars aren't 100% green right now, doesn't mean they're not better than what we have. We have to start somewhere.
4. Re:I like Tesla's by ILongForDarkness · 2011-10-03 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, no. Coal http://kilowattcoalco.com/StatsAndLinks.html 2.16 pounds per kwh (why the heck are they mixing empirial and meteric? Damn Yanks :-)). Gas: 9.7kwH per liter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline, and another source 19.4 pounds CO2 per gallon burned. Converting units give 0.529 pounds CO2 per kWh for gas far far better than coal, unless 95% of the coal CO2 is captured AND some fantastic way of recycling the batteries comes up gas better at least on a CO2 standpoint. I agree with you that we need to start somewhere and the market share of electric vehicles is small enough that it isn't that big of a deal at the moment but useful for trying different technologies. But the assumption that because you don't put gas in the front end that it is greener in the backend is false. That said moving generation to the backend makes sense because a single (huge) investment in power generation would automagically make your car base more efficient too.
The problem is: we STILL can't get cheap EVs. by Cyberax · 2011-10-02 16:39 · Score: 1

The technology to produce cheap EVs is just becoming available. Nissan LEAF borders on being practical, but it uses cutting-edge battery and power electric technology. 10 years ago it would have been impossible (there were electric RAV4s but with much worse params).
Top Gear by Errtu76 · 2011-10-02 18:53 · Score: 1

Can't wait for Captain Slow to review this one. Should be right up his alley!
Re:Tesla Motors = Taxpayer Motors by PeterBrett · 2011-10-02 19:11 · Score: 1

There are just so many fallacies in the parent post that I'm actually at a loss for what to say.

--
Pirate Party UK
These guys claim 2.8 seconds by fscker · 2011-10-02 19:43 · Score: 1

At this year's Frankfurt Motor Show this 1088HP electric claiming 0-100km/h in 2.8 secs with a 600 km range was unveiled ... http://www.inautonews.com/frankfurt-rimac-concept-one-1088-hp-ev-supercar-revealed
Question on motors by bryan1945 · 2011-10-02 20:04 · Score: 1

I remember reading in some car magazine (can't remember) last year about new electric cars. One of the reviews was talking about a car that had 4 electric motors, 1 each directly driving 1 wheel. The part that impressed me was that the builders had to place hardwire limiters on the motors because at full torque they would literally rip the carbon body apart.
Anybody have an idea what car that old article was talking about? I was thinking maybe is was a previous version Tesla due to its acceleration, but I couldn't find any info about the drive train in TFA.
Thanks for any info.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
1. Re:Question on motors by nosferatu1001 · 2011-10-03 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The Jaguar one, possibly. "Concept" had a jet turbine, however the production is likely to have a super high pressure McLaren 1.6L petrol engine - turbo and supercharged
2. Re:Question on motors by bryan1945 · 2011-10-03 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Turbo and super? Wow, the engineers must have been absolutely giddy designing that.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Drag time. by MiggyMan · 2011-10-02 21:54 · Score: 1

Id still rather roll blackcurrent down the strip, id get to the other side sooner.

--
Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
1. Re:Drag time. by hidave · 2011-10-02 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Has anyone mentioned that the electrical infrastructure of the United States is nowhere near capable of supporting a decent number of electric cars?
  
  --
  Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
2. Re:Drag time. by MiggyMan · 2011-10-03 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's much the same in most places, both of the major uk motoring shows (topgear and 5th gear) have done endurance peices and found that it's just not practical.
  Me, Id go for hybrid electrics, cars with mini hydrogen turbine power plants, possibly employing the solar hydrogen tech developed the other day to get around the storage issue!
  Then you really would have cars that run on water :D
  
  --
  Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
0-60 in 4.5 seconds? by Zanadou · 2011-10-02 23:54 · Score: 1

60 km/h isn't that fast...
Re:Will it still corner like a pig? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-03 00:26 · Score: 1

Handles like a pig compared to what? Supercars that cost more than twice as much?
And yeah it costs 3 times as much as an Elise because it's electric. That means it never needs gas, requires little to no engine maintenance and accelerates like a sportbike. Can't afford it? Don't buy it. Need to drive insane distances? Don't buy it.
It's like you're butthurt by the very fact that the car exists.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Quarter mile time? by Rei · 2011-10-03 00:35 · Score: 1

Simply not true. The main factor that affects your acceleration time is your power to mass ratio. Air resistance is a very small proportion of it. Air resistance is the primary method of energy consumption when *maintaining* speed.

--
Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!
1995 Lotus Elise by Quila · 2011-10-03 00:48 · Score: 1

Frame, engine, seats, body, windows. That's mostly it, no ABS, power brakes, power steering, power windows, power top, stereo, spare tire, A/C, bumpers, carpet, glove box, or even a cup holder.
Re:Quarter mile time? by HornWumpus · 2011-10-03 07:04 · Score: 1

Interesting universe you live in.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Regulations by AK+Marc · 2011-10-03 09:25 · Score: 1

You can say that, but you'd be wrong. By definition, the EU is already working with multiple countries to homogenize regulations. There's no reason the US couldn't get as involved in that area as they are with copyright law. The US has specifically chosen to not follow existing international standards, and instead create substantially similar (in function) regulations that are incompatible with all others out there. The US has managed to come up with a few sensible regulations first that weren't followed, but those are few and far between.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Funniest part of the article by gordo3000 · 2011-10-03 09:47 · Score: 1

it happened to lightning mcqueen....
Re:Quarter mile time? by Rei · 2011-10-05 09:42 · Score: 1

It's the one with the laws of physics. You're welcome to join it at any time.

--
Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids!