175 MPH Student-Built EV Smashes Speed Record

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

175 MPH Student-Built EV Smashes Speed Record

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday October 4, 2011 @05:15PM from the zoom-zoom dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A team of Brigham Young University students recently smashed the world land speed record for electric vehicles by hitting a top speed of 175 miles per hour in their self-built electric car. The car, named 'Electric Blue,' reached high speeds thanks to lithium iron phosphate batteries and its streamlined design, which is capped by a tail fin for speed and agility."

132 of 164 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cmon by hom3chuk · 2011-10-04 17:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

Make EV cheap, not fast!
1. Re:Cmon by Fluffeh · 2011-10-04 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Baby steps tiger, baby steps.
  The first cars were expensive and slow. Slowly they became faster and cheaper. Now they are fast and cheap.
  First EV were slow and expensive. Slowly they are becoming faster and cheaper. One day they will be both fast and cheap.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
2. Re:Cmon by cirby · 2011-10-04 17:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pretty much every major technical advance you can think of in internal combustion cars that made them faster and cheaper came from people racing them.
  Of course, they've been getting more expensive over the last couple of decades - but a huge chunk of that cost has been the addition of things that cars don't really need to run - safety, electronic gadgets, emissions controls. And even with that, most modern "sporty" family cars will leave all but the hottest 1970s era sports or muscle cars in the dust, especially when handling is considered.
  If we made new cars to 1970s safety standards, without mileage and pollution controls, they'd be insanely fast, much lighter, and about 1/2 the price.
  The side effects of that can be left as an exercise for the reader.
3. Re:Cmon by phantomfive · 2011-10-04 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  How about both?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Cmon by deisama · 2011-10-04 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  So are you trying to say that if we'd just be ok with having a significantly higher death rate from car accidents, as well as a large cloud of smog over every city, than we'd be able to save 15k on a new car, AND shave a couple seconds off of getting up to 60mph?
  Your post is very well spoken and clearly well informed, but I'm not quite sure what the message I'm supposed to take away from it is.
5. Re:Cmon by hom3chuk · 2011-10-04 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nice, but I'd prefer fast trains or planes. One don't need more than 40-50 mph in a city with all this crossroads and such.
6. Re:Cmon by hom3chuk · 2011-10-04 18:51 · Score: 2
  
  Nice, but I'd prefer fast trains (trains, especially) or planes. One don't need more than 40-50 mph in a city with all this crossroads and such.
7. Re:Cmon by phantomfive · 2011-10-04 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ah,but you can't beat acceleration! FWIW I don't know where you live, but I frequently hit 80mph on freeways around here.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:Cmon by hom3chuk · 2011-10-04 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm one of those who sees future with automated subways, trains and alike everywhere, instead of personal vehicles. And 80 mph totally fine actually, while it cant put someone around in danger.
9. Re:Cmon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-04 19:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Make EV cheap, not fast!
  There's only one thing holding it up and that's cheap light batteries. The thing you have to realize is the last major commercial battery upgrade happened a dozen years ago and there's nothing on the horizon. Lithium Ion batteries have actually been around a long time but only became commercial fairly recently. Yeah if you follow the press releases light high capacity batteries are around the corner just like a cure for cancer. Realistically we are probably 10 to 20 years away from a major innovation that would make electric cars in line with gasoline cars. Even that is pure speculation since there's nothing standing out yet and we're talking 5 to 10 years after the innovation until there's any hope of a commercial product and another 5 to 10 years before the price drops. Everyone says hydrogen but I've been following hydrogen since the mid 70s and I have yet to hear of a new storage system that is anywhere near a commercial product. Once again it's just another form of battery but at least it can be refilled. I'm not crazy about hydrogen for all vehicles. For people that don't drive a lot they'll likely loose 10% to 20% to leakage, I'm saying if you only fill up once a month. People that fill up weekly will only loose a few percent but it's still a factor.
  I've read about dozens of new concepts for batteries over the years but as I say none are anywhere near being released as a commercial product. I swear 20 years ago there was talk of polymer batteries being the solution since they are light but none ever came close to holding the energy needed. It wasn't that long ago NiCads were the battery of choice and they hit the scene in the 70s for wide spread commercial use. Based on that we could be looking at another 20 years until a new battery takes over. Gee where did I hear that before? Like I say don't expect cheap electric cars for 10 to 20 years, if ever. Cars may simply in the end get more expensive. Then stick with gasoline? Last time I checked they weren't making anymore dead dinosaurs. Long before we run out oil will simply get too expensive to burn in cars. That's what peak oil means it doesn't mean we're running out.
10. Re:Cmon by Anne+Thwacks · 2011-10-04 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  The message is obvious: "You cant handle the truth!". Sorry wrong cliche: "you pays your money and take your choice".
  However, the problem with electric cars is, as it was in 1890 - batteries are expensive and heaving - this cost is due to using hideous amounts of raw materials - and (although we know it is not theoretically impossible) no one has come up with a suitable chemistry yet.
  The electric car will trash all opposition - if we only had a brain^h^h^h^h^h battery.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
11. Re:Cmon by SeaFox · 2011-10-04 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  And make them "normal". Not a car that only seats one and has everyone gawking at your as you drive down the street (and not in a good way like with a Tesla).
12. Re:Cmon by ZeroExistenZ · 2011-10-04 21:32 · Score: 2
  
  You cannot drive them at fast speeds on public roads. They need to be cheap and have longer ranges. That is all.
  
  --
  I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
13. Re:Cmon by cbope · 2011-10-04 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the message is quite clear: As safety and the environment have become much more important since the 70's, the additional costs of safer design, more fuel efficient engines, added safety equipment and emission controls have increased the cost of cars. That's it. No hidden message there. Sure, we could still be building big, fat polluting hogs for cheap if safety and the environment were not important.
14. Re:Cmon by peragrin · 2011-10-04 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  EV is cheap is the the power storage systems that suck.
  batteries are heavy, and have barely 1/3 of the power that they need to even come close to replicating normal driving habits.
  They are getting better, but in real world testing, the limitations are coming to light.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
15. Re:Cmon by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-04 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, lighter, '70s cars were heavy but look at mid '80s-early '90s cars, that actually had to deal with tighter safety and emissions regulations. We could build them that light again.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
16. Re:Cmon by frozentier · 2011-10-04 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot drive them at fast speeds on public roads. They need to be cheap and have longer ranges. That is all.
  Agreed. Speed hasn't been a problem since they broke 75 miles per hour. We need the charge to at least last long enough to get you BACK from where you are going. Actually I guess what we really need is a way to charge while you are away from home, same as I may drive to a neighboring city now yet need to buy fuel to get home.
17. Re:Cmon by justforgetme · 2011-10-04 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  actually in the 70s fast consumer cars were really really light.
  Think that a modern golf gti is almost twice the weight as it's history writing Mark I.
  The original mini is another example.
  Only in America were cars big and heavy in the 70s, the rest of the world had gotten it right even back then.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
18. Re:Cmon by justforgetme · 2011-10-04 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla
  No, they laugh at you when they see you in that one.
  Because they know that you are going to make the last third of the journeyon foot ;-)
  
  --
  -- no sig today
19. Re:Cmon by __aavevi421 · 2011-10-05 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have 3 cars, built between 1968 and 1977. They fit 4 normal size humans, do over 75mph and weigh less than 550Kg. Compared to a Smart car that weighs 750Kg and only holds 2 people?? That's progress!!
  These cars are great fun, easy to work on and still usable.
  Reliant Kitten
  Reliant Rebel
20. Re:Cmon by Muad'Dave · 2011-10-05 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...batteries are expensive and heaving...
  I got a mental picture of a well-dressed battery puking its guts out over the rail of a luxury cruise liner.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
21. Re:Cmon by Muad'Dave · 2011-10-05 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked they weren't making anymore dead dinosaurs.
  I eat freshly-killed dead dinosaurs at least 3 times a week. I call them "chicken", however.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
22. Re:Cmon by JoeMerchant · 2011-10-05 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  "sporty" family cars will leave all but the hottest 1970s era sports or muscle cars in the dust, especially when handling is considered.
  Granted on handling, but I don't believe you ever experienced big block performance first hand. Virtually anything under 3 tons weight with a 454cid engine (and un-restrictive breathing) will completely smoke a "sporty" 3 liter sedan, even today. Of course, not many people are willing to put up with 7mpg to go with the acceleration and top speed that those kinds of displacement bring (and they get far less MPG when opening the throttle.)
  In my book, if it doesn't have a big block, it's a weak muscle car.
23. Re:Cmon by silas_moeckel · 2011-10-05 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Owning a 70's lead sled and having owned a 3.8 liter supercharged v6 sedan there is no comparison. The sedan cornered better than the 70's stock suspension but driving performance on highways and get up and go I'll take the big block (502 chevy with a blower and nos in a TA BTW). It's not easy to get a big heavy car to corner well it's just that much more inertia to overcome, but there is a lot that can be done to either cars suspension.
  The premise of the safety bits is funny, it's always assuming the accident. We have systems to automatically brake now, but few cars have decent brakes since it's cheaper to not put them on and the safety tests do not take this into account. Drop 20 or 30 feet of the 60-0 braking distance and I wonder how many read endings you will stop? We would be better off with stricter drivers ed Sweden seems to know how to do it with a skid pad as part of the testing and training.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
24. Re:Cmon by skids · 2011-10-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why we have "sports" EVs on the market is pretty simple -- if you want to recapture all your braking energy, you need really beefy motors, and a really beefy capacitor bank. Once you have those, you are 80% of the way to a sports car. So the marketers decided hey, if we are essentially building sports cars anyway, let's see if we can market then as such.
  So yes, range, battery longevity, and charging flexibility are what needs to be worked on now, but the high brake horsepower is going to stay except in those designs where effectively recovering braking energy is discarded to shave off the sticker price, at the cost of energy efficiency and wear and tear on the friction brakes. But then, consumers never were that smart about factoring in embedded costs.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
25. Re:Cmon by afidel · 2011-10-05 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 13.6
  2010 Ford Taurus SHO 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.6
  1972 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 0-60 mph 7.4 Quarter mile 15.3
  2007 Chevrolet Impala LTZ 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter Mile 15.4
  2011 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ (3.6L) 0-60 mph 6.3
  
  The OP's point stands, the sporty version of a modern family car is the equal of most 1970's muscle cars (in factory trim) in the quarter mile and will completely crush it in just about every other metric you care to measure.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
26. Re:Cmon by Antarius · 2011-10-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, just a bit.
  
  The next city from where I live in Australia is 250km away. An electric vehicle able to do 120-175km on a charge is a tad useless to me.
  
  I do trips where I'm driving 1,500km/day. I don't expect an EV to be able to get that far in a charge and would obviously have to change my driving habits to allow for an overnight charge mid-way (unless removable "swap'n'go" battery packs are adopted) - but I'd like to at least get from one city to the next in a day, rather than be stuck in the middle of nowhere.
27. Re:Cmon by Dare+nMc · 2011-10-05 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  >Long before we run out oil will simply get too expensive to burn in cars.
  Sure, but almost every new car currently being sold in the US can burn either E85, or Bio-Diesel, neither require Oil. E85's link to ethanol may make it sound bad, but you can make your own from rotting corn, and yeast you can but at any homebrew store, just smash, mix with water, wait a week, then add heat to distill (Illegal in the US without a revenuer permit.) Make sure it isn't mixed with gasoline, and your good.
  Hybrid still makes sense, I am not sure if a pure EV is even close to making sense for the majority in the US.
28. Re:Cmon by dr2chase · 2011-10-05 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Safer, narrowly defined to only include harm from car crashes. The lack of exercise from people driving when they could walk or bike kills far more people.
29. Re:Cmon by afidel · 2011-10-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, boss 429 of which there were only 1,000 over 3 model years ending in 1970 (aka hottest of the era): 0-to-60 of 6.8 seconds and quarter mile pass of 14-seconds flat at 103mph. Bigger engine does not mean faster car unless you take the block and do all sorts of things that take the already abysmal life and lower it to rebuild every couple runs.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
30. Re:Cmon by homer_ca · 2011-10-05 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  A '64 Pontiac GTO did 0-60 in 6.6 s and the 1/4 mi in 14.8 s. A V6 Camry can easily match that.
31. Re:Cmon by TClevenger · 2011-10-05 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, they've been getting more expensive over the last couple of decades - but a huge chunk of that cost has been the addition of things that cars don't really need to run - safety, electronic gadgets, emissions controls.
  
  The 2008 Civic has almost identical dimensions as the 1990 Accord, and is better equipped, faster, safer and gets better mileage. Adjusted for inflation, it's also $8,000 cheaper than the Accord.
  The 1972 Chevy Nova (with the top-of-the-line 165 gross horsepower 350) cost $13,300 in today's dollars, or about $3,000 less than a Civic, so while there has been some inflation since the 70's, I think we've done all right, and certainly better than in the early 90's.
32. Re:Cmon by Grishnakh · 2011-10-05 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Cheap isn't even as important as "good", which in this context would mean having a long range. As long as an EV can reach 80mph or so, that's all you need for normal roads; the Achilles' Heels of EVs are range and recharge times. The latter can be gotten around with quick-swap standardized battery packs, but they still need to beat 100 miles for range.
33. Re:Cmon by operagost · 2011-10-05 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is the first time I have ever heard the word "fast" used to describe a Golf. Look at the previous posts to see what "fast" means: not just scooting around corners, but straight-line sub-15 second quarter miles with sub 7 second 0-60 MPH times.
  
  Only in America were cars big and heavy in the 70s, the rest of the world had gotten it right even back then.
  
  Only if you think having useless bumpers, no seat belts, and no smog controls is "getting it right".
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
34. Re:Cmon by Grishnakh · 2011-10-05 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Improving the ability to recapture braking energy is not going to affect range significantly.
  When you're looking at maximum range numbers, there's an assumption that you're mostly driving on highways. On highways, you don't use your brakes (until you reach your exit). You're only limited then by your battery capacity.
  The only thing regenerative braking is good for is to improve your range in the city, but that's not even a problem right now; we can already build EVs that have a good range for short commuting in-city. Yes, improving the city range is good and all, but it's lower in priority than maximum range, which can only be solved through improved battery technology.
35. Re:Cmon by digitalsolo · 2011-10-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  On highways, you don't use your brakes (until you reach your exit).
  I would like to drive on these highways. Fools on the roads on every highway I've been on preclude this being a possibility.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
36. Re:Cmon by Grishnakh · 2011-10-05 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you never drive on highways outside of cities?
37. Re:Cmon by justforgetme · 2011-10-05 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing so many points here...
  1) stop comparing unequal things. no car of the 70s with the specs you describe was an affordable lower class automobile.
  2) I'm not going to rescan the whole thread because you imply I should do, had you somewhere constructive to direct me you would have linked it.
  3) I know blasting through a motorway (or city center) at 300kph is great fun, but a lap at the Nordschleife is just better.
  4)Bumpers? Really? That is an argument?
  5)Health, safety and environment are topics you should be staying way clear from while writing a pro America article...
  just my 2c
  
  --
  -- no sig today
38. Re:Cmon by rusl · 2011-10-05 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, a racecar is not really in the spirit of an electric car that actually improves our world. The point isn't just to switch out the engine, the point is something sustainable.
  When it comes down to it most "eco" cars are greenwash. This is just more proof. You can't really move a small 150lb person in a large heavy metal box and call it sustainable. Especially when bicycles are so practical. Electric bicycles are another matter entirely.
  
  --
  Stupidity is its own reward.
39. Re:Cmon by digitalsolo · 2011-10-05 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I drive on rural highways pretty regularly. City highways (in the smallish, 300k resident city in which I reside) are actually easier to deal with as they have more lanes. Rural, 2 lane highways seem to be continuously full of people driving 5 under, next to each other.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
40. Re:Cmon by Grishnakh · 2011-10-05 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  What state is that in? Here in AZ, 2-lane rural highways are frequently fairly empty, and when there are other people on them, they're usually driving 85. Braking isn't something you have to do very often, unless there's some kind of problem. The city freeways (Phx has a population of 4+ million) are insane though.
  Even when I lived on the east coast, I don't remember having to deal with that much traffic on rural interstates, except in eastern Virginia.
41. Re:Cmon by digitalsolo · 2011-10-05 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
42. Re:Cmon by mattack2 · 2011-10-05 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  So you're obviously a far outlier.
  You could still get a hybrid, and use less gas than you do now.
43. Re:Cmon by mattack2 · 2011-10-05 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I want a car that looks "normal", but I wish they built more one-person cars. Wouldn't you be able to save a whole bunch of weight in the car (thus increase range)?
  I know you could say, get a motorcycle.. But I want a car (covered, and obviously something you don't have to balance on to drive). A one-person (or possibly two-person but the second person's seat would usually be for your shopping or whatever) car that still met safety requirements would be cool.
44. Re:Cmon by cynyr · 2011-10-05 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  i'd bet a roll cage, harness, helmet and HANS device, weigh less than the air bags/safety systems in most new cars. Lighter cars mean better performance and less accidents due to better maneuverability and stability. I would expect the devices I listed earlier to be safer as well. Just as a thought, the best way to make sure the passengers in a car don't hit anything damaging is to simply make sure they don't move, instead of trying to make a pillow appear in a few microseconds.
  I'd love an electric car, but i'm not sure where I would plug it in at my apartment or at my work. Also what is the range when it is using electric heat to make -25F air something at least above freezing, say 45F or better yet 80F.
  I'd bet that a good 1.6-1.8L turbo diesel is about the same cost as a 70's big V6 and may be about the same speed. I'd bet that an equally expensive 3 phase motor would be faster than that 70's big V6. anyways there is more that one route to get from A to B.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
45. Re:Cmon by mattack2 · 2011-10-05 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Do you mean range instead of power? If you do, then you're way off. You're claiming people need to drive 180 miles/day on average? (Even picking one of the lower end of 60 mile range cars.)
46. Re:Cmon by cynyr · 2011-10-05 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  seems to me that someone missed lemans and world rally of the 60s and 70s. None of the Detroit muscle cars even participated, the ford GT40 did, but it was purpose built to win lemans. I don't know about you but where I drive I hardly get over 70( and that's above the speed limit), but I know of some fun twisty =40 and =55 MPH roads. Taking a high torque low top speed car on one of those at near the speed limit but getting to drive all the corners sounds more fun to me than a short blast down a track on a day that I paid for...
  One of these could be a blast in a 4 motor all wheel drive lightweight electric car and i really couldn't care at all about it's top speed(over 80 MPH), or it's 1/4 mile times. The 0-60 is interesting, but what are the 15 to 45 or the 10 to 45 times, and how many G can it do on a skid pad(note there seems to be a limit around 1G right now without major areo effects)?
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
47. Re:Cmon by cynyr · 2011-10-05 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  to be honest with out car racing many of the "efficiency" improvements would not have been made in road cars.
  1) There are a lot of racing classes that require stock production cars simply fitted with harnesses and roll cages.
  2) Making the fuel more dense, and the engine/motor more efficent means taking less fuel for the race, which means a lighter car, which means faster.
  as for your bicycle comment... let me know how you would like to do 16 miles one way at -20F while taking you to work and your kid to school. Assuming a good clip of 15 MPH average, my one way route would take right around an hour... so 1 hour to eat/shower/dress + 1 hour to work + 4 hours of work + 1 hour lunch + 4 more hours of work + 1 hour of ride home + 1 hour to eat, check the news, etc + 8 hours of sleep == 20 hours of my day. sweet! that leaves 4 hours to spend with my kids, wife, etc... anyways, make a stop at the store on the way home, get a flat time, stay late a work to finish a project by the dead line and that 4 hours goes damn fast.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
48. Re:Cmon by cynyr · 2011-10-05 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  could you find me a production car from that time with >=500 cid? that had roughly the same cost (as a percentage of median household income) as a 25K-35K modern sports sedan?
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
49. Re:Cmon by Antarius · 2011-10-05 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Touché =p
50. Re:Cmon by Antarius · 2011-10-05 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's the plan. The family car I have now is unnecessary and too large.
  
  Alas, it seems the only choices around here are the Toyota Camry or... The Prius.
  
  The point still stands, however, that the range of the EVs have got to change if they are to be suitable for distance driving. A trip across the 1,100km Nullarbor Plain would be impossible - unless you have a stack of solar panels and allow many days for charging.
51. Re:Cmon by operagost · 2011-10-06 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  OK, let me spell it out for you: a 1970s Golf was slow. Could you make a racer out of it? Of course! People race anything that's light and can be made to handle well. You mentioned the Golf without bringing exact price into the discussion. A Mustang or Chevelle was cheap and fast; my mother bought a V8 Chevelle Malibu right out of nursing school and it was far faster than any Golf made in the 1970s. The Golf was cheaper, but both cars were accessible to 20-somethings. Also, I'll assume you're young and don't remember-- like I said-- in the 1970s Europe was doing nothing for safety or the environment as far as automobiles were concerned. NOTHING. We couldn't import most of the cars unless they were heavily modified to meet our regulations. Ask anyone about the "baby buggy bumpers" that had to be added to cars like Porsches to import them.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
52. Re:Cmon by Coren22 · 2011-10-06 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You are definitely not the norm, but for those that occasionally go more than 100miles (160km), a towable generator would work just fine for the average EV. Just include a bit more in the plug; charge, on/off control; along with the brake/turn signal lights.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
53. Re:Cmon by Coren22 · 2011-10-06 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I was personally picturing the battery out of breath as it tried to make it to the end of the race.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
54. Re:Cmon by Coren22 · 2011-10-06 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Don't ever buy the v6 Camry, for whatever reason, the in line 4 is way faster :P
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
55. Re:Cmon by skids · 2011-10-07 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  While it's true that in average highway travel, braking only accounts for 2% energy loss, that's still 2% off the top, post drivetrain. However, I think your assumption that any range driving is highway is a bit off. You have to get to the highway, first. Also in urban areas brake use on the highways is more frequent. I speak from experience, being that I drive 33% "country" and 67% highway, and I still regen in my Prius even on the highway, though most of the time even with the weak electric motor I manage to keep the pads off on the highway -- however given the asses I encounter on the road, that takes a LOT of good habit forming to accomplish. Less concerned/habituated drivers apply pads in the prius quite a bit more.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
LAND speed record ? by polar+red · 2011-10-04 17:22 · Score: 1

Do they know a tgv hit 574kph / 357 mph ?

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. Re:LAND speed record ? by hedwards · 2011-10-04 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a train, not a car, and I don't believe that the TGV operates under battery power either.
2. Re:LAND speed record ? by ooloogi · 2011-10-04 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  This car probably is as well. - Just one has a really long extension cord, and the other one fills up batteries and carries them around.
3. Re:LAND speed record ? by ooloogi · 2011-10-04 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Think you'll find this car won't reach those speeds on 99% of its routes either.
4. Re:LAND speed record ? by chocapix · 2011-10-04 19:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Also, it's "for its weight class". Otherwise, there's this 315mph electric car, also built by students.
5. Re:LAND speed record ? by weffew... · 2011-10-04 21:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  in 99% of its routes, the TGV doesn't even go that fast, because the french tracks are in such a crappy condition. 574km/h were only reached once on a test track.
  Major fail in your comment.
  It won't hit 357mph on any scheduled service (100% do not reach this speed), since that was a research experiment. The scheduled services run at 186mph (300Km/h) and 200mph (320km/h), depending on the line and train. It does this in an amazing level of silence and lack of vibration/sense of speed -- until you look out the window. When a TGV is moving quickly, rain doesn't stick to the windows. It's like being in a ground-level aeroplane.
  No slower train is allowed on LGV lines, and most routes have at most one stop: they don't slow down much.
  The record was done with a specially modified train (more power, less carriages), higher voltage(25Kv), higher-than normal tension in the overhead wires, bigger wheels and various other modifications. It was run on the new Le Mans line, before it was opened for regular service.
  French TGV (LGV) tracks are some of the best in the world. They have minimum bend radii you measure in kilometers (6 on older ones, 10 on newer ones).
  TGVs routinely hit 320Km/h (200mph) in service. They've not had a fatal crash ever.
  Anyway - you said "french tracks are in crappy condition" - they absolutely aren't.
  C
6. Re:LAND speed record ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-04 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Minor point of accuracy. The overhead catenary for the TGVs supplies 25KV as standard. It was boosted to just over 31KV for this test.
  Agree 100% with your dismissal of GP's claim that French tracks are in poor condition. These were purpose built for the TGV and are in absolutely excellent condition. If only we had the political will here in the UK to deliver something to the French standard.
7. Re:LAND speed record ? by justforgetme · 2011-10-04 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  facts? on shlapdot?
  
  --
  -- no sig today
8. Re:LAND speed record ? by PIBM · 2011-10-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  The 315mph one is hydrogen powered rather than battery powered, too.
9. Re:LAND speed record ? by hedwards · 2011-10-05 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  I got to ride the TGV when I was in Europe and I was definitely impressed. You're definitely correct about the lack of vibration, compared to the much slower moving AmTrack trains we have in the US, it was without any meaningful sense of either vibration or speed.
10. Re:LAND speed record ? by KingMotley · 2011-10-05 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  The venturi buckeye bullet isn't an EV, it's hydrogen powered.
11. Re:LAND speed record ? by chalker · 2011-10-05 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  One of the version of the bucket bullet is hydrogen powered. There have been several versions, including an all electric one that reached 307 MPH, holding the true electric vehicle world record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_Bullet
12. Re:LAND speed record ? by Amouth · 2011-10-05 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  i bet it will - considering that they only place they would run that is on the salt flats..
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Electric BLUE? Seriously? by martin-boundary · 2011-10-04 17:35 · Score: 1

What a lost opportunity...
"Car Smash Record!"
This is not impressive by SigNuZX728 · 2011-10-04 17:50 · Score: 1

You can make an electric car do whatever you want. You can put big motors in them and make them pull stumps, you can put tall gears in them and make them run 175mph, you can put big batteries in them and cut weight so people can drive 100 miles on a charge, but the one thing you cannot do is take them from an empty charge to full in 5 minutes nearly anyplace in the United States. I'm sick of seeing headlines about how some car can go 0-60 faster than a Porsche or whatever. It's all pointless right now.
1. Re:This is not impressive by MachDelta · 2011-10-04 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  You could always just swap them out.
  I mean, if six guys can change four tires, fill a tank of gas, clean the grill and take a round of wedge out the ass end of a car in ~15 seconds then surely we can figure out how to switch a battery pack (or two) in a couple minutes.
2. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-04 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you can engineer the batteries to be light enough that a single person can move an entire array of them. Even the highest-performance battery packs that are capable of being engineered today, in enough quantity to reasonably power a vehicle, weighs many times more than an individual can lift absent machinery or disconnecting each member unit individually. Neither of those are practical.
  The same can be said of a pit crew (regarding practicality). The cases where the expense is justified are extremely limited.
  If you were racing these in the same environment a pit crew works in, you can bet they'd have the machinery available to swap out the power storage in seconds.
3. Re:This is not impressive by dch24 · 2011-10-04 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Swapping propane tanks? Sure. You aren't likely to beat on it much (or you'll soon get caught in the blaze).
  
  But swapping batteries? It's insane right now. The previous owner/user could damage it in subtle ways -- overcharge it, undercharge it, or maybe just overheat it. Or even just ignore it for 36 months. Or physically puncture it -- maybe a tiny hole -- the hydrogen gas slowly building up in the battery compartment for weeks until it explodes.
  
  Batteries need to be better at a lot of things to beat out fossil fuels. Carbon-neutral fossil fuels are already available, so why are we still burning coal?
4. Re:This is not impressive by ooloogi · 2011-10-04 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  A fuel pump is a machine. Machines have been developed to do battery swaps too. If there were the incentive to do so, it would be technically feasible.
5. Re:This is not impressive by unrtst · 2011-10-04 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why does "practical" require "manual". Have you ever filled up your car by manually lifting up buckets of gas and pouring them in? And if so, I'd say that wasn't very "practical" either, but we came up with an easy way to get the gas into your car via a pump.
  This is part of the "figure out how to switch a battery pack (or two) in a couple minutes" the GP was talking about.
  How about:
  * set a standard battery size.
  * make them accessible via an opening on either side of the car via a pull out tray type thing
  * have a little station that replaces them one by one (line it up, hit a button).
  Sure, that'd impose a design limitation on cars, and we'd have to come up with the standards, and the stations would need to be designed/produced/built/installed, but that's all feasible and practical, and not a significant change from the norm. Gas cars all have to have a hole somewhere that takes gravity fed gas into a standard intake size, and no one seems to be very bothered by that limitation, and there are LOTS of pumps all over the place in various designs, and people keep making new ones and replacing/installing them, so installing some new stations is not absurd.
6. Re:This is not impressive by kaladorn · 2011-10-04 18:40 · Score: 2
  
  The Netherlands (I believe) is running a pilot project that solves this problem.
  
  Infrastructure:
  - Small stations with a couple of pumps deployed all over the place (a farm can be a gas station)
  - The small station can be fed by wind or solar or off the grid
  - The station charges 'chargeable fluid' to a certain level of energy
  - The fluid is some sort of suspension with a high energy capacity (probably involves metallic salts)
  - Generating power and selling charged fluid is supposed to be decentralized and help farmers and others
  make a few bucks (in rural areas)
  - All of these pumping stations are part of a larger data network
  
  Use
  - Car is driving around and its tank of chargeable fluid is having its charge depleted by use
  - Driver hits computer screen and it polls nearby stations for location, open/closed state, and price of fluid
  - Driver pulls in, grabs the hose, sticks it in his tank
  - System pulls out charged fluid, measures charge, pumps in freshly charged fluid, and bills the user for the charge difference
  - Whole changeover happens in a few minutes (5?) and then you have a fresh tank of fuel
  - Driver leaves with a fully charged car
  - Pumping station begins to recharge the partially discharged fluid (or recycle it)
  
  This (to me) promises to be the holy grail of electric cars if:
  a) The whole thing is as technically feasible as it sounded
  b) There isn't a cost benefit to buy charged fluid and harvest the salts out of it for cash (so they can't manufacture super expensive charged fluids)
  c) It isn't easy to have idiots substitute 'home made' charged fluids that might contaminate the pool
  
  It offers both the benefit of fast-change electrical power (as well as the ability to carry spare fuel!) and it offers revenue to farms and other places for an up front investment (presumably partially sponsored by the state) and encourages some degree of competition in pricing.
  
  If this works out, hopefully it can be adapted to other countries. I think Canadian mineral resources could make us a big exporter of charged fluid materials and help insure a domestic supply.
  
  The one issue is what happens in very cold Canadian winters? If the charge on fluid is low, will it freeze solid? That wouldn't be helpful.
  
  Still, best attempt at a solution I've seen yet.
  
  --
  -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
7. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-04 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  It was stated that it's feasible. It's just not practical or cheap, both of which are necessary in any end-user, non-professional application that's not limited to a tiny niche application.
8. Re:This is not impressive by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-04 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fossil fuels are not carbon neutral by definition, unless you work on a millions-of-years timescale.
9. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-04 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Any swap that isn't part of a contractual program will remain both infeasible and impractical until batteries exist that do not wear out or where the cost and ease of refurbishing or recycling worn batteries is much smaller than their replacement value. None of those things are true with current battery technologies, nor are they likely to be true in the near future (barring some amazing, out-of-left-field discovery that allows high energy potential and low cost and complexity).
  The technology exists, but it is either cheap or easy, not both. The sticking point is that, for a consumer application, it absolutely must be both.
10. Re:This is not impressive by AK+Marc · 2011-10-04 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Machinery" is not practical? Lots of safety and pumping machinery are involved in filling up at a gas station now, but for electric, it has to be safer, cheaper, easier, and faster than gasoline in every way, or else it's obviously inferior and will never be adopted. That's why electric will never take off.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
11. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-04 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere did I state machinery was impractical.
  I said this particular suggestion, given current technology, is impractical.
  With new technology that isn't even on the horizon yet (at least not publicly), it may become practical. A hypothetical tomorrow that nobody has the slightest idea of how to realistically get to doesn't really fill the bill for a solution to problems today.
12. Re:This is not impressive by denzacar · 2011-10-05 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  How about zero guys and ~5 minutes?
  Problems... Expensive charging stations and you don't really own the battery.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
13. Re:This is not impressive by JoeMerchant · 2011-10-05 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  In 1911, you couldn't drive across the US in a petrol powered vehicle and expect to fill up in 5 minutes wherever you pleased, either. So, should we have focused on grass eating cars then?
14. Re:This is not impressive by Grishnakh · 2011-10-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  They are if you synthesize them using thermal depolymerization processes, instead of digging them out of the ground. Of course, you might argue they're not truly "fossil fuels", but if it's the exact same mixture of hydrocarbons as those you get by refining crude oil, the term still fits.
15. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny you have to couple an informative link with the behavior of an asshole. I suppose that's why you post anonymously though.
  I have no problem with non-liquid storage mechanisms, but let's not let what I actually said get in the way of what you'd like to represent that I said. That wouldn't make things any fun, now would it?
  You posted a great link. You're also apparently a dick. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are points of technology I've missed. I bet there are things you aren't aware of too. I guess that means, according to your own definition, you're not actually interested in technology either. In fact, nobody is interested in technology, because they obviously aren't aware of everything.
16. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is a much more practical approach. The resistance is also exactly as you stated: old habits die hard.
  The culture in the US is very much opposed to anything that requires you to wait though, unless you're in a rural area. There is very little tolerance in urban areas for any sort of delay, at least among the mainstream, car-driving public.
17. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, focusing on the simplest part of the equation and implying that the rest of it is irrelevant or just as easy.
  Getting into space is cheap and practical too! All you have to do is mount an engine on a cylindrical object!
18. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I believe unrtst was referring to the trip from the external opening on the car to the opening in the fuel tank being the "gravity fed" mechanism.
  The rest is pretty spot-on. It seems like many who are interested in engineering conflate "feasible" and "practical." Yeah, it's cool to do a lot of things that are feasible, but that doesn't make them practical.
  Most of the complaints here are as amusing as the ones you get when you mention EVs are almost universally coal-powered (at least in the USA).
19. Re:This is not impressive by AK+Marc · 2011-10-05 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere did I state machinery was impractical.
  "... weighs many times more than an individual can lift absent machinery or disconnecting each member unit individually. Neither of those are practical." I included the quote so you could see. To those who can't read minds where you are saying that machinery is not impractical, it reads as: "[it can't be done] absent machinery [which is not] practical." If that edited version is not your intention, then I assert you have a severe problem with the English language. Reading the other comments, absolutely everyone else took it in the exact same way I did. When everyone universally agrees what you said, if you state what you meant is not in agreement, the issue isn't with our understanding, but your ability to convey ideas.
  
  Oh, they already have working insta-change machinery (swapping battery packs faster, cheaper, and safer than a gas station can get fuel in a car). The problem is that the ancillary issues are blocking it, much like if fuel tanks weren't used because lumping all that fuel together inside the car was unsafe, so manufacturers insisted on proprietary fuel cells, all with incompatible fueling clamps.
  
  There is no technical issue blocking faster-than-gasoline refueling for all new electrical cars. It is not technically impractical. You assert the opposite of the truth in an easily disprovable manner, then balk when proven wrong and blame our misunderstanding of your relatively clear and incorrect statement.
  
  With new technology that isn't even on the horizon yet (at least not publicly), it may become practical. A hypothetical tomorrow that nobody has the slightest idea of how to realistically get to doesn't really fill the bill for a solution to problems today.
  The technical solution is old. Battery swaps have been proven in the field. Manufacturers don't want it, so they claim it isn't technically practical when the issue is it doesn't agree with their business plan or whatever else is going on that they don't like about it. But that's completely different from there being a technical issue with it. The tech is done. The tech will likely need minor mods for universality, but those trivial changes can't be done until after the manufacturers are on board, and all the manufacturers are taking the Apple stance to battery change. Return to base, and no other way. We refuse, for business reasons, to concede anything else could be possible.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the comments were stated in such a way that it appears they were taking issue with the idea of machinery being impractical in a more general way. I did not mean, nor is it implied in my statement, that machinery is impractical when taken by itself. Given the way vehicle culture operates in the USA, from manufacturers down to consumers, the standardization itself required among manufacturers is highly impractical. That, in turn, makes the application of replacement machinery impractical to implement for mass markets. This is much the same idea as if each manufacturer implemented their own version of the gas nozzle. Even were that the case, multiple standards for that would be easier to implement than the form factor, interconnect, and accessibility standards that would be required for physical replacement.
  There was one anonymous comment regarding electrolyte replacement in batteries where (presumably, since I have not yet pursued the topic past the article linked) there is little or no degradation of the physical structure of the battery over the course of multitudes of replacements. So far, that is the only one which has even come close to addressing the problem of practicality. As long as the replacement requires moving an enormous amount of mass and volume, replacement will be impractical. As I said before in one of my earlier comments: cheap or easy; choose one. If you have examples that are both cheap and easy, including capital investiture for the infrastructure and top-down changes to manufacturing and buying demands, please share.
  Nothing you've said has provided proof to refute what I stated. If you have examples, please provide. I'm always interested in learning more if there are gaps in my knowledge. Having a starting point provided from someone who is aware of it already is usually much simpler than spending the time to re-find that starting point. If it requires standardization of form factor and interconnection, I'm not really interested. Practicality doesn't just include technical practicality. Overcoming cultural inertia can be just as impractical. The difficulty should be weighed in terms of whether there is enough benefit from burning coal (which is where the majority of the electricity to charge them actually comes from in the US) in your EV, versus burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
21. Re:This is not impressive by SigNuZX728 · 2011-10-05 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say we shouldn't improve on the idea. I'm saying that any article about an electric car's performance is moot. Given today's technology, you can make an electric car do almost anything you want except be practical by itself.
22. Re:This is not impressive by AK+Marc · 2011-10-05 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Given the way vehicle culture operates in the USA, from manufacturers down to consumers, the standardization itself required among manufacturers is highly impractical.
  I agree. It's much like getting a standard charging port on a cell phone. It's technically trivial to do it, and most certainly not "impractical" to have a universal power port, but it will never be done in the absence of legislation requiring it. Because of the large environmental issues related to EVs (the ones they cure and the ones they cause), as well as safety issues, I can see legislation on those managing to make it past, even if castrated by the big-2 in protectionist form.
  
  Overcoming cultural inertia can be just as impractical. The difficulty should be weighed in terms of whether there is enough benefit from burning coal (which is where the majority of the electricity to charge them actually comes from in the US) in your EV, versus burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
  Little, if any, of my power comes from coal. And EVs are best considered with the big push for "green" power at the same time. More wind, water, etc. to make up the difference, lowing the need for oil without requiring any more coal. Eventually, the addition of power generation should exceed the growth of load, and the use of coal will decrease, even with EVs. But yeah, if we all got 2 EVs tomorrow with no other changes to anything, there'd be lots of problems...
  
  Changable battery packs are easy. Some laptop/phone makers seal theirs in, but there's little, if any, additional cost to have them easily removable. It's just a simple design consideration. As long as the makers don't design an EV incompatible with changeable batteries, the adjustments to design and build will be easy. But they'll do what they did with lighting when European light makers pointed out that US lights were provably inferior. They flew in their private jets to DC and lied to Congress. They did the same when asking for money for the bailout.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
23. Re:This is not impressive by Fjandr · 2011-10-05 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty much in agreement with all that. I think the disagreement is between "have" and "get." It's practical to have and use such a system. The problem, as you outlined above, is actually getting there. Politics, economics, culture, and technology all have hurdles that need to be overcome, and that's why I consider it to be impractical. Once critical mass of EVs is reached, it may become practical to overcome the issues regarding quickly and cheaply storing and replacing thousands of pounds and several cubic feet of material per customer, per day, per location. Even with standardization, the capital expenditures required to support mass market rollout will be incredibly large. The only analogues to that sort of infrastructure building are projects on the order of the construction of the national electric grid or the interstate highway system.
  Personally, I live in an area with little to no imported coal power, but the majority of the US cannot say the same.
24. Re:This is not impressive by AK+Marc · 2011-10-05 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think we are in violent agreement. I think it very stupid to wait until critical mass to work on things like interoperability. That's best done *before* it's a problem, not after, but in practice, it's only addressed after. People *want* the invisible hand to fix such things, but we've seen with laptop batteries (trivial to make universal battery sizes, but nobody will ever have a Toshiba whose battery fits in a Lenovo or HP), laptop power supplies, phone power supplies, ports, and batteries. Companies work hard to make things incompatible so that they have more opportunity for profitable accessories, when everyone would be better off if everything was interoperable. Since we know the invisible hand won't do it, we should step in now before there are millions of incompatible machines out there.
  
  If you couldn't tell by my name, I'm from Alaska, and I don't think there's much coal, it's almost all natural gas in the populated areas, and diesel everywhere else (the little towns)
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Don't you read Wikipedia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-04 18:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the 1890s, electric cars were competitive with conventional petrol-engined vehicles in speed and range, manufacturers even began to address the problems of recharging by introducing removable battery packs. Given the cost of a non horse-powered vehicle then, cheap didn't enter the equation, but they were certainly fast enough It's all here. The fastest car in 1899, at 100km/h (62mph) was La Jamais Contente, driven by Camille Jenatzy, a Belgian racing car driver.
In the early 1900s, London had a large fleet of electric taxis.
Baby steps?
Thanks to the fantasy of "cheap oil", electric vehicles became uncompetitive. We're only taking interest again because "conventional" fuel is becoming dearer.
1. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by justforgetme · 2011-10-04 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't the first Ferdinand Porsche prototype also an electric car?
  well.. ok, it was a hybrid but for 1901 you have to say they really had some ideas those zany Germans :-)
  
  --
  -- no sig today
2. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by bberens · 2011-10-05 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Those electric vehicles largely didn't go from 0 to 60 in ~10s. They didn't have to carry a frame/body capable of meeting modern safety standards, 20 airbags or power an air conditioner.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
3. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by SleazyRidr · 2011-10-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Neither did the petrol vehicles of the time. Did you have a point?
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
4. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by bberens · 2011-10-05 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that because EV research and development stagnated for literally decades between then and now (as opposed to pretty regular improvements in the internal combustion engine) we're quite a ways off from it being competitive in the modern world. We've made some good progress the last 5-10 years, but we've still got a long ways to go until your average consumer vehicle could realistically be EV.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
5. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by digitalsolo · 2011-10-05 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that because EV research and development stagnated for literally decades between then and now.
  Perhaps development of all the relevant systems combined into an electric replacement for a petrol powered car stagnated, but advancements in the individual systems (batteries, microprocessor controllers, power switching, electric motors) has carried on at a pretty good pace for a large portion of that timeline.
  
  Batteries are the issue and we're still some major technological breakthroughs away from batteries being a viable replacement for fuels (be they gasoline, alcohol, hydrogen, etc.). Battery development has come a long way without transit's involvement (cell phones and portable devices mostly), but we still have a LONG way to go on that front.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
6. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by mattack2 · 2011-10-05 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  we've still got a long ways to go until your average consumer vehicle could realistically be EV.
  Your "average consumer" only has to go a few tens of miles to work (at most), and go shopping a bit.
  The average consumer COULD realistically have an EV.
  (I say this as someone who has a gasoline powered car, but if I could've bought an EV1 when I bought the car I have now, I would have considered it.)
7. Re:Don't you read Wikipedia? by bberens · 2011-10-07 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  There's no infrastructure/technology for "quick refills." There's very little in the way of places which can do maintenance on the vehicles, the TCO is still higher than petroleum vehicles, etc. It'll be a while.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-04 18:21 · Score: 1

While its true that EV vehicles don't solve the problem they do make it a solvable problem, which is at least a step in the right direction.
Fast, but how long ? by Meeni · 2011-10-04 18:43 · Score: 1

Apparently, the car weights about 1100 pounds, mostly batteries. How long does that weight of batteries keeps the car running at full speed is not described in TFA.
No they didn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-04 19:01 · Score: 2, Informative

FTA: An electric car designed and built by BYU engineering students set a world land speed record for its weight class.
That qualifier makes a world of difference.
Here's an article about students setting a EV speed record of 307.7 mph last year.
1. Re:No they didn't. by sifi · 2011-10-04 20:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I agree - they also didn't smash the record either, as there wasn't one there to break.
  
  The streamliner, named “Electric Blue,” competes in the “E1” class, which includes cars weighing less than 1,100 pounds. Because electric cars rely on heavy batteries, engineering a speedy vehicle at such a light weight is very difficult. That’s why there were no prior certified speed runs for this class
  
  Hats off to them though, still a pretty impressive feat!
  
  --
  Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re: Swapping stations by ygslash · 2011-10-04 19:25 · Score: 1

You could always just swap them out.
Yes, Better Place is already deploying swapping stations in a few areas. They have signed contracts for various stages of deployment on a much larger scale.
Sound? by LordNacho · 2011-10-04 20:00 · Score: 1

I heard these EVs are incredibly silent. This will cost lives unless loudspeakers are installed. Great opportunity for creativity. You could have a lion roaring or something like that. Or just an engine sound.
1. Re:Sound? by SeaFox · 2011-10-04 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  You could have it play ice cream truck music, and troll kids as you drive though residential areas!
2. Re:Sound? by Confusador · 2011-10-04 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  At idle, sure, they're silent (until some ass puts a ridiculous sound system in), and even when driving they can't compare buses and semis. But then, most cars don't either.
  EVs are really not much quieter than a well built gas vehicle. Consider the road noise from a Tesla Model S as an example. The cars are almost as loud as the truck that tows them in.
3. Re:Sound? by rolfwind · 2011-10-04 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just attach a whistle. Much cheaper (construction and energy-wise) than loudspeakers. Not a referee whistle though, something designed with a low, smooth tone, so if a million of these are on the road, it won't drive everyone else nuts.
4. Re:Sound? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-05 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  If the first thing you hear as a modern car approaches is its engine, then there's something wrong with that car.
  True. It's still a safety issue but one that also exists with ICE cars. I often have to beep to let pedestrians know I'm there while driving a sports compact with noisy high-performance tires and metallic brake pads. It's an older car and it might seem noisy at high revs while you're driving it, but from track-side videos I've seen you can't hear the engine at all unless the exhaust is pointed at the camera. In one video I was screaming towards the camera at high revs, and all you could hear was a quiet whine like an idling turbine in the distance (and it's not boosted).
  I'm happy with keeping it quiet, keeps the police attention low on the street...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:Sound? by vsny · 2011-10-05 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine a windy day in a crowded parking lot. That would be pretty annoying. Maybe a mechanical noise maker connected the tires would be better.
6. Re:Sound? by Geminii · 2011-10-08 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'd still like the opportunity to upload sound profiles, though. Have your car sound like a Ferrari, a Harley, or a TIE fighter!
Physics fail by subreality · 2011-10-04 23:12 · Score: 1

capped by a tail fin for speed and agility
Uh, no. It has a fin for stability. The whole design of the car (long and narrow) is set up for linear speed, not agility. The fin doesn't improve the speed other than preventing you from crashing before you top out.
If you want to build an agile electric car, it'd look something like a Tesla Roadster.
1. Re:Physics fail by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-05 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yep fins are bad for speed and agility if anything. They can also help to stabilize cars and make them handle better, but that's not an issue on anything you'd drive on the street...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
they fixed that by justforgetme · 2011-10-04 23:37 · Score: 1

Can't remember which maker but someone of those suits is pushing interchangeable battery liquids.
Which is brilliant actually. it has two big advantages:
A) You actually refuel your car in a couple of minutes
B) No more battery degradation because the liquid gets replenished
Only thing that has to happen is the big petroleum merchants to dig a couple of tanks in each petrol station, one that get's charged and one that gets the used battery fluid and stores it for recycling. :-)

--
-- no sig today
Re:Fastest Student Built EV? by Overzeetop · 2011-10-04 23:51 · Score: 1

"In it's weight class" is the qualifier here.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Unfortunately... by Overzeetop · 2011-10-04 23:54 · Score: 1

Yes, but as the grid gets cleaner, so do the EVs - right up to fully renewable power. Gasoline cars will never improve beyond the limit of the liquid petroleum that they carry.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:BYU? by dbrueck · 2011-10-05 01:04 · Score: 2

Dear user 894406,
We regret to inform you that Mormons stopped practicing polygamy in the late 1800s. Therefore, your humor is behind the times by over 100 years. Once a joke is more than a century out of date, it loses too much of its zing and backfires (cf. asking a Catholic, "how them Crusades goin'? Har har!") While not keeping up is somewhat of an inalienable right on the internet, we do ask that in the future you make sure that any outdated humor is still below the 100 year threshold.
Sincerely,
- The Management
P.S. For your convenience, listed below are some newer-but-outdated memes/jokes to consider. While still behind the times, they are new enough so as to not trigger a warning from the system. Thanks!
Dancing baby!
Will it blend?
Bert is evil!
The Tron guy
O RLY?
Numa Numa
Don't Tase Me, bro!
Rick Roll
Star Wars kid
Got much of an agenda? by A+nonymous+Coward · 2011-10-05 01:22 · Score: 2

Thanks to the fantasy of "cheap oil"
I don't think you know what "fantasy" means. I also think you don't realize that batteries are not a fuel like oil is; batteries have to be charged from something, and it sure wasn't solar power in 1899.

--
Infuriate left and right
1. Re:Got much of an agenda? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2011-10-05 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  They had hydroelectricity back in 1899 in a few places though.
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Unfortunately... by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-05 02:09 · Score: 1

EVs charging on coal power are still cleaner than gasoline cars. And at that point the car is power-source-agnostic, which means the US could potentially get their heads out of their asses and run on a combination of nuclear, solar and wind with no changes required to cars.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Phosphates by goldspider · 2011-10-05 02:29 · Score: 1

Nothing says "green" like phosphates.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Unfortunately... by afidel · 2011-10-05 02:58 · Score: 1

Yep, that's why when we designed our new HQ building we went all electric. Today our local power source is quite dirty, but since we are also involved in one of the largest commercial solar installations in the world we know that the future grid is likely to be much cleaner than even natural gas boilers. However for cars biodiesel holds a significant promise, carbon neutral with significantly more energy density than even the most ambitious lab tech batteries.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
So when do we get to buy one? by hesaigo999ca · 2011-10-05 03:15 · Score: 1

We always see these developing stories about tech that is now coming out into the light, but we never see the tech actually make it to the market.
I am still waiting to see the solar cell paint that you can spray on the side of buildings to turn them all into major electrical generators, yet I have not seen anyone come out with that, let alone see whole cities turn into big generators because of it.
Lithium IRON batteries? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2011-10-05 05:20 · Score: 1

How IRONic!
Nahhh. I'm pretty sure it's Lithium ION batteries. Pretty funny, spell checkers can't handle it when you misspell it to another English word.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
1. Re:Lithium IRON batteries? by TagrenHawk · 2011-10-06 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you read the article ... uh, crap. Yeah, anyway, the article does say that it is lithium iron phosphate. Just sayin'.
This IS NOT a "vehicle" by p51d007 · 2011-10-05 06:23 · Score: 1

Quit calling these "motorcycles with a fiberglass shell" "vehicles". If you really want to impress the public, built a 2000 pound AUTOMOBILE than 99% of the public wouldn't not be afraid to operate on the highways, and get it as an EV that can travel 500 miles or more on a charge. THEN you will impress us. Also, the price will have to be on par with a gas or gas hybrid. What good is a 150mph EV, if it costs 100,000 bucks?
I had a more solid but otherwise similar idea by justthinkit · 2011-10-06 03:16 · Score: 1

What if solid battery units are available everywhere. They are charged in the most efficient way possible -- night time would be at lower rates, for example. Then when someone needs a new battery unit on the road they pull into a "change station" and swap batteries. The battery they leave behind is analyzed to determine how much energy was drained from it (and how quickly, if that harms the battery, etc.). They are charged for the difference in energy. This requires little infrastructure, no change to battery technology, and would be very very fast.

--
I come here for the love
Re:BYU? by Chrisq · 2011-10-06 18:22 · Score: 1

Dear user 894406,
We regret to inform you that Mormons stopped practicing polygamy in the late 1800s.

That's cute. BUT IT'S WRONG.
Though the LDS stopped practicing polygamy in the late 1800s, there are a number of other mormon groups who still practice it today.