I'm not an expert, but I did read the readily available information. Probably did more research than some people who actually bought the thing.
First, the saw DOES have an override if you think you're going to be cutting wood that wet, you can disable the system. The reports I've seen is pretty much 'very'. Hauled in fresh from the rain, for example, or wood so green a chainsaw would be more appropriate. Most of those with such trips were like 'duh, I should have known better; it's not good to cut into wood that wet anyways!'.
The system is quite ingenious, but is destructive, though not to the saw itself. It's designed to survive the activation of the safety system without damage, but due to the forces involved you have to replace two parts to return it to full operation - a brake cartridge and the saw blade itself since the way it works is the brake basically explodes into the blade on a trip. Oh yeah, and it's possible to operate it without a brake cartridge in place, though it should be obvious that it's operating like an old table saw, quite willing to remove fingers and such.
The brake cartridge is $70-90 depending on model. A quick search shows that circular saw blades, contractor grade, run $40. Then again, blades are disposable items. So the cost for a trip would run between $75 (cheaper 10" cartridge, EOL blade), to $130(More expensive 8" cart, New blade).
The point was that they're starting with an 'assault rifle', which while it's the most popular form of rifle at this point, to my knowledge is still 'the largest minority'. IE bolt action + lever action + single shot + pump still outnumbers them.
Rifles are still something like 4% of firearm murders in the USA. Some sort of 'protected' handgun would be far more useful.
Then again, I don't rate any such 'protection' to last beyond the short term(IE the scene, it's broken if the criminal gets the gun 'home'), and the police are at the most risk for being killed with their own firearm that's been taken from them, yet they will fight to the end for any requirement for them to have it. At 6 dead or so from it a year, it's really an insignificant scenario.
Like spending $2.6M on a firearm ballistics database to get ONE match usable as a lead/evidence.
Or, to put it in computer terms, it's like designing a home computer that requires a 22 digit password to log on, while not securing the box itself.
It's more annoying and expensive to the user than it is to the criminal.
Perhaps. But let me first talk about the fire that destroyed parked Karmas after they were flooded by a hurricane [foxnews.com]. They burned up because a short in the system, caused by conductive seawater. The ICE was not involved in that fire.
Don't you love it when people bring up things that you know about already? Yes, I know about the lot of karmas that all burned. I'll note that they burned AFTER they were submerged and the water subsequently receded. Plus, well, it seems to be a Karma thing. I thought about mentioning the hurricane. You also had a volt that caught fire a week or two after being used in an accident test; they failed to follow protocol with the battery and just left it there.
You can say that it's an outcome of a bad design, done by people who don't know a thing about making cars.
Again, new car company, radical new design, The sheer number of them isn't a good thing, but whether or not they 'know a thing' about making cars, they were stretching with the design. Tesla was to, which is why it looks like the "S" is a much better car than the roadster.
Per the evidence, it was lost. Tesla support people *thought* it was underreported, but all that the reporter did, per Tesla's advice, only led to further depletion of the battery. In the end, the car ended up on a flatbed. In hindsight, there was probably something that the reporter could do - like driving back to the supercharger right from the hotel. But he was advised to act differently.
Did you read the whole story? I did back when. He charged it several times between the hotel incident and the final stopping. Given that it made it further than expected at several points, I'd say the charge DID come back, at least partially. It just wasn't happening right then in the morning, which would be expected - to get the capacity back you have to warm the battery up. Which happens in use, driving or charging it.
Water in rivers and ponds is quite conductive because it contains lots of salts that are leeched out of the soil.
Again, you're assuming I don't know things. I'll admit 'that conductive' is a fairly vague measure, but what I was trying to say is that I doubt that the shortage, even from seawater, would be enough to cause the various problems you describe.
Then you propose Tantalum capacitors, and while I have no problems seeing them in EVs, they'd be drained by the water as well.
There is very little of those other liquids, and many of them are alcohol-based, perfectly soluble in water. Only the gasoline has potential to harm the ecology. But when a car falls into a water, it's usually not damaged, so the gas tank will remain intact. Damage to fuel pipes will not result in pollution because the fuel pump is not running.
Now this tells me that you have some ignorance with respect to IC Engines. Unless you meant 'oil based', not alcohol. Let's see: 1. Lubricating oil. Not alcohol based, normally about 5 quarts of it. 1.25 gallons 2. Coolant. 50/50 mix of water and ethylene glycol or maybe propylene. Anther 4-5 quarts of the stuff. Also not alcohol based. Ethylene is highly toxic. 3. Transmission fluid - More oil.
A single quart of used motor oil can pollute 250k gallons of drinking water. So a single car into a lake can pollute well over a million gallons, maybe up to 2.
DC is just as dangerous [control.com] as AC, on average. At those voltages (375V) the contact will result in 3rd degree burns (if you are lucky and the path doesn't go through the heart) or... well, then you don't care anymore.
I'm not going to rate control.com as a reputable source. Besides, you wouldn't be getting the full 375V, that's only if you touch both the positive and negative terminals somewhere. There's going
A lawyer would have a field day with Elon Musk's statement.
Then they'd better back up their warranty claims then, right?
What happened to the Roadster can be written off as ancient history.
I wouldn't so much say 'ancient' as 'prototype'. My family doesn't generally buy first year models anyways(or where they significantly redesign the car), due to the various issues generally found. I'm not surprised that the first car run by a new auto company using new technology suffers from some rather serious 'quirks'. The fact that Musk ended production of the Roadster rather than bring it up to compliance says things to me.
I do not separate plug-in hybrids from EVs because from the electric powertrain point of view they are the same.
They're not the same though. Hybrids have the worst of both worlds from a safety standpoint because they have the IC engine system. Now, the dangers of IC Engines are pretty well known, but EVs don't have them.
That includes fire risk from the gasoline, heat/fire from the exhaust, cooling requirements(often poisonous liquids), carbon monoxide poisoning, etc...
The Fisker Hybrid fire you posted about wasn't from the EV components. It was theorized that it was from an exhaust component - IE they didn't design the engine system right. Also noted in the article is numerous problems wit the exhaust and overheating with the Fiskers. IE it's a design flaw in a hybrid for a completely different company. Remember the rear end fires with the Crown Victoria?
Volt goes pretty far in that aspect - it is entirely electric driven, and its gas engine is only used to charge batteries and to provide additional current at speeds above 70 mph (IIRC.) It's a complicated vehicle.
Yes, hybrids are complicated, having 2 separate drivetrains. Pure EVs are actually simpler.
There are far more links about this incident than these two, and the mudslinging was going strong at some point between Tesla and NYT.
Elan Musk has strong feelings for his cars, we know that. I get the feeling that things wouldn't have been the same if the reporter had reported accurately - lying abut the speed, temperature settings, etc... All under-rating the vehicle. It's the same that happened with Top Gear's review. As for the nighttime - I doubt that half the charge was 'lost', it was more likely under reported because the battery was cold, giving it the appearance of less capacity.
1) The high voltage can leak onto elements of the chassis via water bridges and electrocute occupants. It is hard to predict what parts of the car will become conductive first and second and third. This determines what gets energized. Firemen are slowly getting trained on dealing with "live" EVs.
The trick to this is that it's DC and confined to the drivetrain. It's also why there are safeties designed to trip if voltage is detected going where it's not supposed to.
2) The DC potential that is present in the car will cause the water to conduct current; this will separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is an explosive mixture of gases.
Yes, I've performed that experiment. Unless there's a spark it's not going to do anything(and if the generator is sparking it's going to blow it rapidly itself, before it reaches dangerous buildup), it's probably going to bubble out rather quickly, and in those conditions it's also not going to be an efficient reaction. You're already looking at over an OOM less total energy in the batteries than is contained within a tank of gasoline, and now you're chopping another 75% or so off it in the generation of the hydrogen/oxygen.
3) Overloading of the battery due to high and uncontrolled discharge through water will cause Li-Ion elements of the battery to overheat and self-ignite. Lithium burns in water
Regardless of all that, the exit clause of "deliberate abuse" of the battery is pretty open-ended. Who determines if the battery was abused?
Given the rule about idiot-proofing resulting in the universe coming up with better idiots, it has to be pretty open-ended. As for 'who determines', well, the owner would get the first shot by applying for warranty 'I didn't deliberately abuse the battery', then Tesla gets to agree or disagree, and if the owner doesn't like the answer sufficiently, the courts would get their say, depending on the wording of the contract.
"If you take a blow-torch to the battery pack or blow it up or use it for target practice" the warranty would be voided, Musk said. Also, of course Tesla would not cover battery damage resulting from a crash. Car insurance will have to pay for that.
So crash accident - Insurance. Standard Blow-torch, blowing it up, target practice, all very deliberate abuses of the battery, not simply failing to plug it in or driving it until it dies. I find that acceptable, standard car companies can void warranties for things like not changing the oil on schedule as well.
Well, of course that's not feasible. But an EV in the garage, plugged into 240V, 100A circuit is a dangerous thing.
Do you have sources on the Volt? And reading about the Fisker shows that it's a hybrid, and the damage started from an exhaust point(IE it was caused by the ICE part, not the EV part). Dozens of ICE vehicles catch fire every year in the USA alone, for various reasons.
I'm not so sure. If the power fails one week after the caretaker checks it, the battery in a Roadster will be a brick by the next visit.
There are 4.3 weeks in a month. The battery will last 11 weeks when charged. If it fails a week after a check, that's only 3 weeks until the next check. You could miss it on the next check, and it's only if they miss it the 2nd check that it then becomes a problem.
Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a 'storage mode' where you charge the battery to 70% then disconnect the battery to stop vampire loads. Heck, at pure storage if you're worried about the 100A fast charger you can use the 120V10A slow charger to keep the battery topped off.
I also find it interesting that you have as many links about the Fisker hybrid, as you do about Tesla, and both links about Tesla are for the same incident.
BTW, how do all these EVs react to being submerged? If a car falls into a river, what happens? A gas car just stalls.)
A gas car does a lot more than 'just stall' if submerged. If not specially designed for it, the car is totaled upon submersion. As for EVs, it's my understanding that the most likely scenario is that the safeties trip when you get phantom voltages from all the water, at which point it's a lot like if you dumped several hundred/thousand batteries into the drink - not much as they're DC voltage and aren't separately connected to ground.
There is, eventually, the possibility of a fire, but that should take a while.
Tesla will not honor this warranty. Per Jalopnik [jalopnik.com]:
It appears that Tesla has become a lot more accommodating. Your article is dated Feb 2012, on May 1, 2013 the Detroit Free Press published this blurb:
Tesla Motors says that if the battery pack fails in your sexy Model S electric sedan for any reason except deliberate abuse, you can have a replacement, free, for eight years.
The Jalopnik article is pretty much all about the Roadster, Tesla's first car. It appears that they've learned a lot from that experience, reducing the vampire load when off tremendously. While it makes some predictions about the Model S, it wasn't finalized yet, possibly changing the failure modes substantially.
In essence, if you buy a Tesla car then you also need to hire a chauffeur, so that he will be always on duty.
Seriously? You recommend this much overkill? If you're going to be gone having a service come by once a month to check out your house would be more than sufficient. There are areas in this country where if you're gone for long enough for a Roadster battery to completely discharge to brick state you'd also probably come back to no house, or a house needing more than $30k in repairs(burst pipe system, for example).
Let's examine your scenarios: Sick and become hospitalized, Delayed in another city for urgent work, Return delayed due to storm, GFCI breaker disconnect, nobody else in the house.
Looking online, it seems the target is 11 weeks, assuming it's actually at your house. Personally, I don't park at airports, I always get a friend/coworker to take me, or even just take a taxi. Airport parking costs enough that the taxi is cheaper if it's for more than a couple days.
Still, I consider my situation - I'm actually subject to leaving my home for up to six months at a time. When I do so, I have somebody looking over my house, checking to see that the car is still charging once a month would be more than sufficient.
The road noise also increases with speed. The noise of the engine is linked to RPM, but not to the output power. It doesn't take too much power to propel the car at constant high speed either. As you can see, the formula is not that obvious.
In my truck it certainly is linked to output power. While it is certainly louder at 6k than 2k, it's still louder at 2k@55mph than it is at 2k@25mph, and it's engine noise, not road noise(though that is a factor).
You're all still nitpicking minor points while ignoring the major thrust: Premium auto makers worry about noise. Electric cars produce substantially less noise. Ergo it's easier to make a premium electric car, meaning there is a cost savings there.
It still costs money. More asphalt, more padding = more cost, more labor to put it in. If you don't have to put it in, that saves you money to keep up with the luxury models, which was my only point.
Roughly speaking, when you go to make an EV, you want an efficient motor to better conserve battery power. A more efficient motor can also be used as a more efficient generator when you're doing regenerative braking. One thing about electric motors is that larger, more powerful ones are also more efficient. So when you use a very efficient motor you end up with power levels that can run a luxury performance vehicle.
Now consider long range - batteries are not only limited by the amount of energy they contain, but the amount of power they can provide(IE energy over time). Longer range = more batteries, which also equals more power - indeed, more than enough to run that bigger, more efficient and powerful electric motor at it's full potential. So we're back to luxury performance vehicle levels of power.
As an aside, back in the day auto companies that make hybrids did a lot of research into increasing the power capacity of their batteries so they could put a smaller, shorter ranged battery in. Regenerative braking was seriously limited by the power absorption capabilities of the battery. With a long range EV? Not so much.
But Li-Ion batteries are pushed much harder. If a battery needs replacement, you lose about half of the original cost of the car at that very instant.
With a Leaf, maybe. Tesla warranties their batteries for 8 years/125k miles.
They're on record saying that they expect their 60 kwh pack to last at least 200k miles, and you can pre-purchase a new 60kwh battery pack replacement in 8 years for $10k today.
Batteries can be damaged by full charge and by low charge, so we have to see how it plays out IRL. Traditional cars aren't going to need any such service after only 75K miles. After 150K - maybe. But then an EV would surely be on its second, if not third, battery pack.
Not from what I'm seeing. At 150k there's a chance it'll be on it's 2nd. In addition, Different battery chemistries have different behaviors, characteristics, and quirks. Still, consider that when you have a multi-thousand dollar battery you're not just clamping any old charge system to it. They're carefully mated for optimal performance and lifespan.
For example, from what I've read, '100%' charge for the common EV's is actually only 90% of the battery's capacity, which reduces battery degradation substantially, and we've come a long way in LiIon manufacturing. With long range EV's, the battery pack actually ends up so huge that even a 'fast charge' is more like a normal charge for smaller battery packs. A fast charge for a NiMH cell is something like 10 minutes, and will cause problems with heat and such. An equivalent 'fast charge' for an EV takes over an hour even with a special fast charge station due to the sheer size of the battery pack.
With regard to noise, a lot of that insulation also dampens road noise - which is not going to be any lower, until you switch to antigravity. So you probably still need a lot of that foam and rubber.
As Rioki mentioned, it's been my perception that motor noise has always overpowered road noise, especially at higher speeds, as the engine power necessary to maintain a given speed to goes up exponentially as your speed increases due to wind resistance.
Makes me wish I had my spreadsheet handy. Still... $20k Camry vs $30k Tesla BlueStar. Price difference: $10k.
Assumptions: $4 gasoline, $.10 kwh, 15k miles/year,.3 kwh per mile(Leaf, Roadster, and Model S are all close to this). I'm also assuming the routine maintenance difference(~$600/year for oil/filters/brakes/belts/plugs/etc...) is balanced out by maybe needing to replace the battery.
The Camry is listed as 25/35. If you drive mostly highway and would get 35 with the Camery, you'll use 429 gallons a year, and the EV would save you $1,264 a year in fuel costs alone. More if you can get free charging somewhere, like at work. Still, you're looking at just shy of 8 years to break even(car is expected to last twice that, but odds of needing a new battery go up) If you're a nasty city driver, you're closer to $2k, and you should 'break even' just after 5 years.
If gasoline goes to $5/gallon, you break even at 6 and 4 years, respectively.
One of the 'tricks' with electric cars that make them 'better' suited for the luxury market is that more powerful motors tend to be more efficient - despite being far heavier and more powerful, the shorter ranged model S effectively uses the same amount of electricity per mile. In other words, put in an engine powerful enough for luxury sedans and you also get great efficiency. You also have the potential for smooth acceleration, no shudder, no gas fumes, no needing to pull into smelly stations for a fillup, etc... It's cheaper(and more profitable) at this time to 'finish' dolling the vehicles up and sell them to rich people. That helps pay a startup to continue developing a truly economical vehicle.
Consider how much effort goes into a luxury sedan to make sure the engine's vibrations and noise(beyond a carefully selected amount) don't make it to the passengers. No real need with an EV, so there's some money saved to allow it to compete with the expensive vehicles. They don't worry about it that much with a Camry level vehicle.
The Model S is normally cheaper than the luxury competitors it's placed up against, IE Mercedes S Classes, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8s.
That doesn't mean that you can't find a gasoline vehicle with a lower TCO with the same driving patterns, but you're going to sacrifice 'luxury' for it.
California requires that I own a lock and/or safe which was purchased at the same time as the weapon
Yeah, it's crazy, I mean, I haven't filled my 30 gun safe yet. Most handgun safes hold at least 2-3 weapons. Why force me to buy a lock I'm not going to use because I have a perfectly functional safe at home?
Some of the dealerships I'm at have 'free' cable/trigger locks in a basket. It's up to you whether you take one or not. BTW, I know one guy who uses the cable lock that came with his gun on his gym locker...
Seems to me like most modern 1911 triggers have holes in them.
Mine's a milspec, no holes. A google search of 37 images for "1911" that is actually of a 1911 with the trigger exposed gave me 20 with holes, 17 without. Almost even. Even then, I wouldn't rate all of the holes as suitable for either putting a padlock through, or even if you can get a padlock into the hole, that it would restrain the trigger enough to prevent discharge.
For example, this image has the holes rather far forward...
The lock is for pure child safety. I prefer a safe.
But that is probably exactly what lawmakers want. Since they cannot ban guns outright, make them cost prohibitive to the average person. It's bad enoguh the ones I want are $500 plus. Add in Bio and it's a possible extra $200...
That's exactly what they want. Add $200 to the price of the gun. 20% to the price of ammo. $20 annual registration fee. Make it expensive and a pain to keep legal.
Back in the day there were laws mandating metals with higher melting points and such in order to try to keep 'saturday night specials' off the streets. To be fair, those are actually the weapons most often used in crimes - $2k AR-15s are used in crime extremely rarely. The most common are cheap revolvers/semis in.22 to around.380.
In my life they always seem to go after the wrong guns- The brady bill, the original AWB, targeted rifles in the name of a man harmed by a.22lr six shot revolver. The only things that would have made a difference was that he couldn't have used the gimmicky 'exploding' bullets that don't actually explode, he'd have had to settle for plain lead today*, and from what I've heard he probably would still have passed the background check.
Spree shooter uses a rifle? Ban handguns! Uses a hand gun? Ban scary rifles!
*And butterflies being what they are, hard to say whether that would result in more or less damage.
I don't know of any plan that covers you 100% after you hit the deductible.
His did. It's one of the 'features' of High Deductible Insurance Plans. It might of been watered down since then, but back in the day that was the deal - $5k deductible, certain preventative procedures were paid before that deductible was hit, but after that it was covered 100%.
26 officers over ten years is a TINY casualty rate, not worth bothering about.
The dirty secret is that 'Police Officer' doesn't even make the listings for dangerous jobs; it's not the safest job out there, but it's a lot safer than many. Air Crews, fire fighters, loggers, cabbies, etc... Are all more dangerous.
And that's the thing. Police officers are VASTLY more likely to be shot immediately* with their own weapon in a conflict, and it's STILL insignificant. The real reason behind wanting 'smart guns' is the same as the racist 'Saturday night special' bans on cheap guns back in the day. Make firearms more expensive, less useful, discourage people from buying them.
*As I consider it likely that if a 'protected' gun is stolen, the criminals can unlock/bypass/reprogram the firearm given sufficient time.
1. Even old car brakes are more complicated mechanically than trigger assemblies. 2. Said devices you mention are not only far more complicated, but are far larger - enough to contain multiple redundant systems. 3. Said devices don't have to sustain sharp sudden shocks like you get in firearms. 4. Modern trigger assemblies actually tends towards more simple than the old ones, one of the benefits of being able to make complicated shapes easily. We use a 'complicated' part to reduce mechanical complexity(IE fewer moving parts).
It's not always possible. See the 1911 with the flush trigger. Still, on my 686 a proper rod behind the trigger could even prevent it from being cocked. But I'd be extremely careful when mounting the trigger lock on - place it too far forward initially and you could end up tripping the trigger.
Oh, and I checked with my S&W 686 - with the hammer cocked it does indeed lock the cylinder in place.
Last place I was at had pop, mostly for customers. I always found it directly at odds with the regular drum beat of people losing weight and staying in shape to keep health costs under control.
Quick fix is to offer bottled water as well. As in "Can I offer you a water or soda?"
over time you may wind up hiring a bunch of health nuts of equal or greater skill and suddenly your perks work against you
Then you start offering the perk of an in-house gym, and/or healthy drinks. Heck, your health insurance might cut the business a break for having cardio facilities on location.
Oh yeah, and your turning down jobs because of healthcare premium increase being more than the increase in salary is an example of being locked into your current job, which is a bad thing.
Of course, in a market where you obtain your own healthcare you'd probably find that said businesses pay less anyways...
Same scenario, She pulls her biometric gun, but the man was standing too close and manages to wrestle it from her hands. He aims, the gun doesn't recognize the prints and beeps an error.
You know, my first thought on this was rather than throwing the gun down was that he pistol whips her, before proceeding to do whatever he was wanting to do before? He assaulted her without a weapon of his own, he has hers, so now she's weaponless, might as well get down with business.
Another option is that he keeps hold of the gun(don't want her shooting him in the back), takes it home to jailbreak it, now he has a working gun next time he goes to mug/rape somebody. Of course, most criminals aren't as logical as me.
We'd need something that can recognize it is being held, scan and ready to fire in less than a second.
The tricky part is making it work 99.999% of the time, even through gloves and such.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert, but I did read the readily available information. Probably did more research than some people who actually bought the thing.
First, the saw DOES have an override if you think you're going to be cutting wood that wet, you can disable the system. The reports I've seen is pretty much 'very'. Hauled in fresh from the rain, for example, or wood so green a chainsaw would be more appropriate. Most of those with such trips were like 'duh, I should have known better; it's not good to cut into wood that wet anyways!'.
The system is quite ingenious, but is destructive, though not to the saw itself. It's designed to survive the activation of the safety system without damage, but due to the forces involved you have to replace two parts to return it to full operation - a brake cartridge and the saw blade itself since the way it works is the brake basically explodes into the blade on a trip. Oh yeah, and it's possible to operate it without a brake cartridge in place, though it should be obvious that it's operating like an old table saw, quite willing to remove fingers and such.
The brake cartridge is $70-90 depending on model. A quick search shows that circular saw blades, contractor grade, run $40. Then again, blades are disposable items. So the cost for a trip would run between $75 (cheaper 10" cartridge, EOL blade), to $130(More expensive 8" cart, New blade).
The point was that they're starting with an 'assault rifle', which while it's the most popular form of rifle at this point, to my knowledge is still 'the largest minority'. IE bolt action + lever action + single shot + pump still outnumbers them.
Rifles are still something like 4% of firearm murders in the USA. Some sort of 'protected' handgun would be far more useful.
Then again, I don't rate any such 'protection' to last beyond the short term(IE the scene, it's broken if the criminal gets the gun 'home'), and the police are at the most risk for being killed with their own firearm that's been taken from them, yet they will fight to the end for any requirement for them to have it. At 6 dead or so from it a year, it's really an insignificant scenario.
Like spending $2.6M on a firearm ballistics database to get ONE match usable as a lead/evidence.
Or, to put it in computer terms, it's like designing a home computer that requires a 22 digit password to log on, while not securing the box itself.
It's more annoying and expensive to the user than it is to the criminal.
Perhaps. But let me first talk about the fire that destroyed parked Karmas after they were flooded by a hurricane [foxnews.com]. They burned up because a short in the system, caused by conductive seawater. The ICE was not involved in that fire.
Don't you love it when people bring up things that you know about already? Yes, I know about the lot of karmas that all burned. I'll note that they burned AFTER they were submerged and the water subsequently receded. Plus, well, it seems to be a Karma thing. I thought about mentioning the hurricane. You also had a volt that caught fire a week or two after being used in an accident test; they failed to follow protocol with the battery and just left it there.
You can say that it's an outcome of a bad design, done by people who don't know a thing about making cars.
Again, new car company, radical new design, The sheer number of them isn't a good thing, but whether or not they 'know a thing' about making cars, they were stretching with the design. Tesla was to, which is why it looks like the "S" is a much better car than the roadster.
Per the evidence, it was lost. Tesla support people *thought* it was underreported, but all that the reporter did, per Tesla's advice, only led to further depletion of the battery. In the end, the car ended up on a flatbed. In hindsight, there was probably something that the reporter could do - like driving back to the supercharger right from the hotel. But he was advised to act differently.
Did you read the whole story? I did back when. He charged it several times between the hotel incident and the final stopping. Given that it made it further than expected at several points, I'd say the charge DID come back, at least partially. It just wasn't happening right then in the morning, which would be expected - to get the capacity back you have to warm the battery up. Which happens in use, driving or charging it.
Water in rivers and ponds is quite conductive because it contains lots of salts that are leeched out of the soil.
Again, you're assuming I don't know things. I'll admit 'that conductive' is a fairly vague measure, but what I was trying to say is that I doubt that the shortage, even from seawater, would be enough to cause the various problems you describe.
Then you propose Tantalum capacitors, and while I have no problems seeing them in EVs, they'd be drained by the water as well.
There is very little of those other liquids, and many of them are alcohol-based, perfectly soluble in water. Only the gasoline has potential to harm the ecology. But when a car falls into a water, it's usually not damaged, so the gas tank will remain intact. Damage to fuel pipes will not result in pollution because the fuel pump is not running.
Now this tells me that you have some ignorance with respect to IC Engines. Unless you meant 'oil based', not alcohol. Let's see:
1. Lubricating oil. Not alcohol based, normally about 5 quarts of it. 1.25 gallons
2. Coolant. 50/50 mix of water and ethylene glycol or maybe propylene. Anther 4-5 quarts of the stuff. Also not alcohol based. Ethylene is highly toxic.
3. Transmission fluid - More oil.
A single quart of used motor oil can pollute 250k gallons of drinking water. So a single car into a lake can pollute well over a million gallons, maybe up to 2.
DC is just as dangerous [control.com] as AC, on average. At those voltages (375V) the contact will result in 3rd degree burns (if you are lucky and the path doesn't go through the heart) or ... well, then you don't care anymore.
I'm not going to rate control.com as a reputable source. Besides, you wouldn't be getting the full 375V, that's only if you touch both the positive and negative terminals somewhere. There's going
A lawyer would have a field day with Elon Musk's statement.
Then they'd better back up their warranty claims then, right?
What happened to the Roadster can be written off as ancient history.
I wouldn't so much say 'ancient' as 'prototype'. My family doesn't generally buy first year models anyways(or where they significantly redesign the car), due to the various issues generally found. I'm not surprised that the first car run by a new auto company using new technology suffers from some rather serious 'quirks'. The fact that Musk ended production of the Roadster rather than bring it up to compliance says things to me.
I do not separate plug-in hybrids from EVs because from the electric powertrain point of view they are the same.
They're not the same though. Hybrids have the worst of both worlds from a safety standpoint because they have the IC engine system. Now, the dangers of IC Engines are pretty well known, but EVs don't have them.
That includes fire risk from the gasoline, heat/fire from the exhaust, cooling requirements(often poisonous liquids), carbon monoxide poisoning, etc...
The Fisker Hybrid fire you posted about wasn't from the EV components. It was theorized that it was from an exhaust component - IE they didn't design the engine system right. Also noted in the article is numerous problems wit the exhaust and overheating with the Fiskers. IE it's a design flaw in a hybrid for a completely different company. Remember the rear end fires with the Crown Victoria?
Volt goes pretty far in that aspect - it is entirely electric driven, and its gas engine is only used to charge batteries and to provide additional current at speeds above 70 mph (IIRC.) It's a complicated vehicle.
Yes, hybrids are complicated, having 2 separate drivetrains. Pure EVs are actually simpler.
There are far more links about this incident than these two, and the mudslinging was going strong at some point between Tesla and NYT.
Elan Musk has strong feelings for his cars, we know that. I get the feeling that things wouldn't have been the same if the reporter had reported accurately - lying abut the speed, temperature settings, etc... All under-rating the vehicle. It's the same that happened with Top Gear's review. As for the nighttime - I doubt that half the charge was 'lost', it was more likely under reported because the battery was cold, giving it the appearance of less capacity.
1) The high voltage can leak onto elements of the chassis via water bridges and electrocute occupants. It is hard to predict what parts of the car will become conductive first and second and third. This determines what gets energized. Firemen are slowly getting trained on dealing with "live" EVs.
The trick to this is that it's DC and confined to the drivetrain. It's also why there are safeties designed to trip if voltage is detected going where it's not supposed to.
2) The DC potential that is present in the car will cause the water to conduct current; this will separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is an explosive mixture of gases.
Yes, I've performed that experiment. Unless there's a spark it's not going to do anything(and if the generator is sparking it's going to blow it rapidly itself, before it reaches dangerous buildup), it's probably going to bubble out rather quickly, and in those conditions it's also not going to be an efficient reaction. You're already looking at over an OOM less total energy in the batteries than is contained within a tank of gasoline, and now you're chopping another 75% or so off it in the generation of the hydrogen/oxygen.
3) Overloading of the battery due to high and uncontrolled discharge through water will cause Li-Ion elements of the battery to overheat and self-ignite. Lithium burns in water
Regardless of all that, the exit clause of "deliberate abuse" of the battery is pretty open-ended. Who determines if the battery was abused?
Given the rule about idiot-proofing resulting in the universe coming up with better idiots, it has to be pretty open-ended. As for 'who determines', well, the owner would get the first shot by applying for warranty 'I didn't deliberately abuse the battery', then Tesla gets to agree or disagree, and if the owner doesn't like the answer sufficiently, the courts would get their say, depending on the wording of the contract.
I found an article with actual examples:
"If you take a blow-torch to the battery pack or blow it up or use it for target practice" the warranty would be voided, Musk said. Also, of course Tesla would not cover battery damage resulting from a crash. Car insurance will have to pay for that.
So crash accident - Insurance. Standard
Blow-torch, blowing it up, target practice, all very deliberate abuses of the battery, not simply failing to plug it in or driving it until it dies. I find that acceptable, standard car companies can void warranties for things like not changing the oil on schedule as well.
Well, of course that's not feasible. But an EV in the garage, plugged into 240V, 100A circuit is a dangerous thing.
Do you have sources on the Volt? And reading about the Fisker shows that it's a hybrid, and the damage started from an exhaust point(IE it was caused by the ICE part, not the EV part). Dozens of ICE vehicles catch fire every year in the USA alone, for various reasons.
I'm not so sure. If the power fails one week after the caretaker checks it, the battery in a Roadster will be a brick by the next visit.
There are 4.3 weeks in a month. The battery will last 11 weeks when charged. If it fails a week after a check, that's only 3 weeks until the next check. You could miss it on the next check, and it's only if they miss it the 2nd check that it then becomes a problem.
Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a 'storage mode' where you charge the battery to 70% then disconnect the battery to stop vampire loads. Heck, at pure storage if you're worried about the 100A fast charger you can use the 120V10A slow charger to keep the battery topped off.
I also find it interesting that you have as many links about the Fisker hybrid, as you do about Tesla, and both links about Tesla are for the same incident.
BTW, how do all these EVs react to being submerged? If a car falls into a river, what happens? A gas car just stalls.)
A gas car does a lot more than 'just stall' if submerged. If not specially designed for it, the car is totaled upon submersion. As for EVs, it's my understanding that the most likely scenario is that the safeties trip when you get phantom voltages from all the water, at which point it's a lot like if you dumped several hundred/thousand batteries into the drink - not much as they're DC voltage and aren't separately connected to ground.
There is, eventually, the possibility of a fire, but that should take a while.
Oops, forget the DFP Link.
Tesla will not honor this warranty. Per Jalopnik [jalopnik.com]:
It appears that Tesla has become a lot more accommodating. Your article is dated Feb 2012, on May 1, 2013 the Detroit Free Press published this blurb:
Tesla Motors says that if the battery pack fails in your sexy Model S electric sedan for any reason except deliberate abuse, you can have a replacement, free, for eight years.
The Jalopnik article is pretty much all about the Roadster, Tesla's first car. It appears that they've learned a lot from that experience, reducing the vampire load when off tremendously. While it makes some predictions about the Model S, it wasn't finalized yet, possibly changing the failure modes substantially.
In essence, if you buy a Tesla car then you also need to hire a chauffeur, so that he will be always on duty.
Seriously? You recommend this much overkill? If you're going to be gone having a service come by once a month to check out your house would be more than sufficient. There are areas in this country where if you're gone for long enough for a Roadster battery to completely discharge to brick state you'd also probably come back to no house, or a house needing more than $30k in repairs(burst pipe system, for example).
Let's examine your scenarios:
Sick and become hospitalized, Delayed in another city for urgent work, Return delayed due to storm, GFCI breaker disconnect, nobody else in the house.
Looking online, it seems the target is 11 weeks, assuming it's actually at your house. Personally, I don't park at airports, I always get a friend/coworker to take me, or even just take a taxi. Airport parking costs enough that the taxi is cheaper if it's for more than a couple days.
Still, I consider my situation - I'm actually subject to leaving my home for up to six months at a time. When I do so, I have somebody looking over my house, checking to see that the car is still charging once a month would be more than sufficient.
The road noise also increases with speed. The noise of the engine is linked to RPM, but not to the output power. It doesn't take too much power to propel the car at constant high speed either. As you can see, the formula is not that obvious.
In my truck it certainly is linked to output power. While it is certainly louder at 6k than 2k, it's still louder at 2k@55mph than it is at 2k@25mph, and it's engine noise, not road noise(though that is a factor).
You're all still nitpicking minor points while ignoring the major thrust: Premium auto makers worry about noise. Electric cars produce substantially less noise. Ergo it's easier to make a premium electric car, meaning there is a cost savings there.
It still costs money. More asphalt, more padding = more cost, more labor to put it in. If you don't have to put it in, that saves you money to keep up with the luxury models, which was my only point.
Roughly speaking, when you go to make an EV, you want an efficient motor to better conserve battery power. A more efficient motor can also be used as a more efficient generator when you're doing regenerative braking. One thing about electric motors is that larger, more powerful ones are also more efficient. So when you use a very efficient motor you end up with power levels that can run a luxury performance vehicle.
Now consider long range - batteries are not only limited by the amount of energy they contain, but the amount of power they can provide(IE energy over time). Longer range = more batteries, which also equals more power - indeed, more than enough to run that bigger, more efficient and powerful electric motor at it's full potential. So we're back to luxury performance vehicle levels of power.
As an aside, back in the day auto companies that make hybrids did a lot of research into increasing the power capacity of their batteries so they could put a smaller, shorter ranged battery in. Regenerative braking was seriously limited by the power absorption capabilities of the battery. With a long range EV? Not so much.
But Li-Ion batteries are pushed much harder. If a battery needs replacement, you lose about half of the original cost of the car at that very instant.
With a Leaf, maybe. Tesla warranties their batteries for 8 years/125k miles.
They're on record saying that they expect their 60 kwh pack to last at least 200k miles, and you can pre-purchase a new 60kwh battery pack replacement in 8 years for $10k today.
Batteries can be damaged by full charge and by low charge, so we have to see how it plays out IRL. Traditional cars aren't going to need any such service after only 75K miles. After 150K - maybe. But then an EV would surely be on its second, if not third, battery pack.
Not from what I'm seeing. At 150k there's a chance it'll be on it's 2nd. In addition, Different battery chemistries have different behaviors, characteristics, and quirks. Still, consider that when you have a multi-thousand dollar battery you're not just clamping any old charge system to it. They're carefully mated for optimal performance and lifespan.
For example, from what I've read, '100%' charge for the common EV's is actually only 90% of the battery's capacity, which reduces battery degradation substantially, and we've come a long way in LiIon manufacturing. With long range EV's, the battery pack actually ends up so huge that even a 'fast charge' is more like a normal charge for smaller battery packs. A fast charge for a NiMH cell is something like 10 minutes, and will cause problems with heat and such. An equivalent 'fast charge' for an EV takes over an hour even with a special fast charge station due to the sheer size of the battery pack.
With regard to noise, a lot of that insulation also dampens road noise - which is not going to be any lower, until you switch to antigravity. So you probably still need a lot of that foam and rubber.
As Rioki mentioned, it's been my perception that motor noise has always overpowered road noise, especially at higher speeds, as the engine power necessary to maintain a given speed to goes up exponentially as your speed increases due to wind resistance.
Makes me wish I had my spreadsheet handy. Still...
$20k Camry vs $30k Tesla BlueStar.
Price difference: $10k.
Assumptions: $4 gasoline, $.10 kwh, 15k miles/year, .3 kwh per mile(Leaf, Roadster, and Model S are all close to this). I'm also assuming the routine maintenance difference(~$600/year for oil/filters/brakes/belts/plugs/etc...) is balanced out by maybe needing to replace the battery.
The Camry is listed as 25/35. If you drive mostly highway and would get 35 with the Camery, you'll use 429 gallons a year, and the EV would save you $1,264 a year in fuel costs alone. More if you can get free charging somewhere, like at work. Still, you're looking at just shy of 8 years to break even(car is expected to last twice that, but odds of needing a new battery go up) If you're a nasty city driver, you're closer to $2k, and you should 'break even' just after 5 years.
If gasoline goes to $5/gallon, you break even at 6 and 4 years, respectively.
One of the 'tricks' with electric cars that make them 'better' suited for the luxury market is that more powerful motors tend to be more efficient - despite being far heavier and more powerful, the shorter ranged model S effectively uses the same amount of electricity per mile. In other words, put in an engine powerful enough for luxury sedans and you also get great efficiency. You also have the potential for smooth acceleration, no shudder, no gas fumes, no needing to pull into smelly stations for a fillup, etc... It's cheaper(and more profitable) at this time to 'finish' dolling the vehicles up and sell them to rich people. That helps pay a startup to continue developing a truly economical vehicle.
Consider how much effort goes into a luxury sedan to make sure the engine's vibrations and noise(beyond a carefully selected amount) don't make it to the passengers. No real need with an EV, so there's some money saved to allow it to compete with the expensive vehicles. They don't worry about it that much with a Camry level vehicle.
The Model S is normally cheaper than the luxury competitors it's placed up against, IE Mercedes S Classes, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8s.
That doesn't mean that you can't find a gasoline vehicle with a lower TCO with the same driving patterns, but you're going to sacrifice 'luxury' for it.
California requires that I own a lock and/or safe which was purchased at the same time as the weapon
Yeah, it's crazy, I mean, I haven't filled my 30 gun safe yet. Most handgun safes hold at least 2-3 weapons. Why force me to buy a lock I'm not going to use because I have a perfectly functional safe at home?
Some of the dealerships I'm at have 'free' cable/trigger locks in a basket. It's up to you whether you take one or not. BTW, I know one guy who uses the cable lock that came with his gun on his gym locker...
Seems to me like most modern 1911 triggers have holes in them.
Mine's a milspec, no holes. A google search of 37 images for "1911" that is actually of a 1911 with the trigger exposed gave me 20 with holes, 17 without. Almost even. Even then, I wouldn't rate all of the holes as suitable for either putting a padlock through, or even if you can get a padlock into the hole, that it would restrain the trigger enough to prevent discharge.
For example, this image has the holes rather far forward...
The lock is for pure child safety. I prefer a safe.
But that is probably exactly what lawmakers want. Since they cannot ban guns outright, make them cost prohibitive to the average person. It's bad enoguh the ones I want are $500 plus. Add in Bio and it's a possible extra $200...
That's exactly what they want. Add $200 to the price of the gun. 20% to the price of ammo. $20 annual registration fee. Make it expensive and a pain to keep legal.
Back in the day there were laws mandating metals with higher melting points and such in order to try to keep 'saturday night specials' off the streets. To be fair, those are actually the weapons most often used in crimes - $2k AR-15s are used in crime extremely rarely. The most common are cheap revolvers/semis in .22 to around .380.
In my life they always seem to go after the wrong guns- The brady bill, the original AWB, targeted rifles in the name of a man harmed by a .22lr six shot revolver. The only things that would have made a difference was that he couldn't have used the gimmicky 'exploding' bullets that don't actually explode, he'd have had to settle for plain lead today*, and from what I've heard he probably would still have passed the background check.
Spree shooter uses a rifle? Ban handguns! Uses a hand gun? Ban scary rifles!
*And butterflies being what they are, hard to say whether that would result in more or less damage.
I don't know of any plan that covers you 100% after you hit the deductible.
His did. It's one of the 'features' of High Deductible Insurance Plans. It might of been watered down since then, but back in the day that was the deal - $5k deductible, certain preventative procedures were paid before that deductible was hit, but after that it was covered 100%.
What other 'gates' are you talking about?
26 officers over ten years is a TINY casualty rate, not worth bothering about.
The dirty secret is that 'Police Officer' doesn't even make the listings for dangerous jobs; it's not the safest job out there, but it's a lot safer than many. Air Crews, fire fighters, loggers, cabbies, etc... Are all more dangerous.
And that's the thing. Police officers are VASTLY more likely to be shot immediately* with their own weapon in a conflict, and it's STILL insignificant. The real reason behind wanting 'smart guns' is the same as the racist 'Saturday night special' bans on cheap guns back in the day. Make firearms more expensive, less useful, discourage people from buying them.
*As I consider it likely that if a 'protected' gun is stolen, the criminals can unlock/bypass/reprogram the firearm given sufficient time.
1. Even old car brakes are more complicated mechanically than trigger assemblies.
2. Said devices you mention are not only far more complicated, but are far larger - enough to contain multiple redundant systems.
3. Said devices don't have to sustain sharp sudden shocks like you get in firearms.
4. Modern trigger assemblies actually tends towards more simple than the old ones, one of the benefits of being able to make complicated shapes easily. We use a 'complicated' part to reduce mechanical complexity(IE fewer moving parts).
Plenty of gyms out there that should be able to settle the liability concerns for not much money.
It'd be a balance, I know. I'm willing to bet that the healthcare savings would exceed the facility insurance for a non-extreme gym.
It's not always possible. See the 1911 with the flush trigger. Still, on my 686 a proper rod behind the trigger could even prevent it from being cocked. But I'd be extremely careful when mounting the trigger lock on - place it too far forward initially and you could end up tripping the trigger.
Oh, and I checked with my S&W 686 - with the hammer cocked it does indeed lock the cylinder in place.
Last place I was at had pop, mostly for customers. I always found it directly at odds with the regular drum beat of people losing weight and staying in shape to keep health costs under control.
Quick fix is to offer bottled water as well. As in "Can I offer you a water or soda?"
over time you may wind up hiring a bunch of health nuts of equal or greater skill and suddenly your perks work against you
Then you start offering the perk of an in-house gym, and/or healthy drinks. Heck, your health insurance might cut the business a break for having cardio facilities on location.
I"m not going to finish reading a post from some one who doesn't know maths.
What don't I know? Educate me. I'd rate it higher that you failed to understand my point.
Oh yeah, and your turning down jobs because of healthcare premium increase being more than the increase in salary is an example of being locked into your current job, which is a bad thing.
Of course, in a market where you obtain your own healthcare you'd probably find that said businesses pay less anyways...
They cannot get coverage for less money than they make in a year.
That's what I was talking about with "the system as set up now would be unsuitable"
I understand that there would need to be heavy reforms in the way we do insurance, but I believe that it would be beneficial in the long run.
Same scenario, She pulls her biometric gun, but the man was standing too close and manages to wrestle it from her hands. He aims, the gun doesn't recognize the prints and beeps an error.
You know, my first thought on this was rather than throwing the gun down was that he pistol whips her, before proceeding to do whatever he was wanting to do before? He assaulted her without a weapon of his own, he has hers, so now she's weaponless, might as well get down with business.
Another option is that he keeps hold of the gun(don't want her shooting him in the back), takes it home to jailbreak it, now he has a working gun next time he goes to mug/rape somebody. Of course, most criminals aren't as logical as me.
We'd need something that can recognize it is being held, scan and ready to fire in less than a second.
The tricky part is making it work 99.999% of the time, even through gloves and such.
I think there was an earlier movie where the plot twist was the biometrics failing for one of the bad guys, resulting in him getting shot.