Tesla breaks world distance record!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter mafia_boy
  • 46 comments
  • 3,507 views
That's funny, the Prius I was in the other day drove completely on the electric motor because of gentle takeoffs and not gunning the throttle and it didn't die in the ass after a few miles.

I drive a prius everyday almost. The electric motor is a joke. Every time I take off from a light or stop sign gently, it feels like I'm being pulled by 5 year old on a tricycle. Why are you making it seem like you need to gun it in order to drain the motor? Using almost anything except feather light acceleration reduces the range dramatically.

As to homeforsummer, you don't actually believe GM was the only reason the EV1 was killed off do you?
 
As to homeforsummer, you don't actually believe GM was the only reason the EV1 was killed off do you?

Of course not. It was the whole American car industry and the oil industries too...

While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market as they were only able to lease 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years.[9] An alliance of the major automakers litigated the CARB regulation in court, resulting in a slackening of the ZEV stipulation, permitting the companies to produce super-low-emissions vehicles, natural gas vehicles, and hybrid cars in place of pure electrics. The EV1 program was subsequently discontinued in 2002, and all cars on the road were repossessed. Lessees were not given the option to purchase their cars from GM, which cited parts, service, and liability regulations. The majority of the repossessed EV1s were crushed, and the rest delivered to museums and educational institutes with their electric powertrains deactivated, under the agreement that the cars were not to be reactivated and driven on the road.

The EV1's discontinuation remains controversial, with electric car enthusiasts, environmental interest groups and former EV1 lessees accusing GM of self-sabotaging its electric car program due to its then-unprofitability, while also blaming the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road.

Wiki

It was not killed because it was no good. It was killed because the industry didn't want it. The car actually had a lot of interest from the public - and why wouldn't it? It was a perfectly good car and in terms of engineering and technology, way ahead of anything else the big three were producing at the time. Perhaps they wouldn't have been as knee-deep in manure as they have been recently if they hadn't been as complacent about new technology and simply kept chasing a few quick bucks.

And no, I've not watched "Who killed the electric car?", and I'm not a big conspiracy theory person. I don't need to watch it because it's pretty bloody obvious for all to see.
 
Of course not. It was the whole American car industry and the oil industries too...



Wiki

It was not killed because it was no good. It was killed because the industry didn't want it. The car actually had a lot of interest from the public - and why wouldn't it? It was a perfectly good car and in terms of engineering and technology, way ahead of anything else the big three were producing at the time. Perhaps they wouldn't have been as knee-deep in manure as they have been recently if they hadn't been as complacent about new technology and simply kept chasing a few quick bucks.

And no, I've not watched "Who killed the electric car?", and I'm not a big conspiracy theory person. I don't need to watch it because it's pretty bloody obvious for all to see.

I wouldn't use wiki for this. That doesn't say the whole story. The WHOLE auto industry wasn't behind it. GM gathered a bunch of them and went to CARB, as you said. It was the crooked guy on the CARB board that listened to the dumb automakers, plus he was the head at some pro-hydrogen cell alliance. Who killed the electric car is interesting, entertaining and obviously biased.
 
And why would you force GM to continue producing a car that people were interested in... but only if the price was right?

Now... people would conceivably pay $30,000 today for an electric car like the Volt (and it'll still cost $40,000 before tax breaks), but with the technology back then, producing something with similar performance cost more. GM leased the cars at just over $30k... but it cost them a hell of a lot of money to make them. Even if they spread out costs by producing thousands, they would have had to sell them at around $100,000 to even have a chance of breaking even.

Now, Toyota was happy to take a loss on each Prius made in the first run simply for marketing purposes... but I doubt they would have accepted a $70,000 dollar loss per car. Even today, that's crazy money.

And why is it so bad that they slackened the ZEV regulations? That slackening paved the way for hybrids, making them borderline... and eventually... fully profitable, natural gas vehicles (guilty) and the like. IMHO, that's a good thing. It encouraged manufacturers to take lines of development they wouldn't have if they were all focused on EVs.

-

I know a lot of you are hooked on the idea of a pure-EV or pure-hydrogen future... but let's face it... what works and what doesn't work will be determined by simple economics. And simple economics still don't pan out for EVs. Not when a $10,000 car converted into an EV ends up costing $40,000. (I'm not talking Volt here... I'm talking about the US-Chinese electric startups). And these cars, being based on old Chinese platforms, don't even come halfway close to meeting US crash and safety standards.

As I've said before and elsewhere... if we want an electric transport infrastructure, we have to change our expectations and standards. Mixing EVs with standard sized car bodies that must meet crash regulations and provide a certain amount of performance hikes up the cost to the point that it becomes impractical for 99% of the consumers out there.

Low-speed electric city cars for hire are the logical first step. Everything else is just an expensive toy. (see the price on the i-MIEV? insane! )
 
Last edited:
The solution to the slow recharge rate of current EV batteries and the subsequent problem of where to recharge them could be carbon nanotube batteries as they can be recharged much quicker than lithium-ion batteries and have a similar and potentially higher energy density. The technology has developed further recently and nanotube batteries can now be made out of paper and fabric. Potentially the structure of an EV could be formed from a composite made of nanotube battery material therefore saving weight by negating the need for a separate battery. The main benefit though would be the viability of charging the EV at a filling station as it would take minutes rather than hours.

The implementation of this technology is still a few years away but does look like it will be solution to making EV’s viable for the masses.

The problem with making the battery a part of the structure is going to be replacing the battery. And I think that is a big problem with hybrids that people don't realize they will run into eventually. Replacing a hybrid's battery costs a lot of money and it has to be replaced at a dealership for the most part. Its a very dangerous DIY.
 
The problem with making the battery a part of the structure is going to be replacing the battery. And I think that is a big problem with hybrids that people don't realize they will run into eventually. Replacing a hybrid's battery costs a lot of money and it has to be replaced at a dealership for the most part. Its a very dangerous DIY.

The batteries used in Tesla’s are lithium-ion, the same as laptops and mobile phones, and have a lifespan of approx 2 years so their battery packs will definitely need replacing within the lifespan of the car. The battery used in the Toyota Prius is a Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH), the same as modern AA rechargeable batteries, which can have a very long lifespan if they are used in controlled manner as detailed here and here in the first response. NiMH batteries maintain their performance for many years if they are only recharged up to about 75% and discharged to about 45% which is what happens in the Prius so their batteries should last the lifespan of the car (approx 10 years). A very good source of information is BatteryUniversity.com which explains the different battery technology and their applications. In case you’re wondering why I know any of this my digital camera uses AA batteries which wouldn’t perform very well so after a lot of research I eventually worked out using Sanyo Eneloop rechargeable batteries with a La Crosse Technology BC-900 battery charger would give similar performance to Lithium-Ion batteries.

The carbon nanotube batteries are actually ultracapacitors as they store energy as an electric field as opposed to standard batteries which get their energy from chemical reactions. The carbon nanotube technology increases the surface area of the ultracapacitor electrode which therefore increases the energy density to a point comparable to Lithium-Ion batteries. The main advantage of the ultracapacitor is a 10-year-plus lifetime, indifference to temperature change, high immunity to shock and vibration and high charging and discharging efficiency.

The technology of carbon nanotube ultracapacitor “batteries” will eventually developed to a point where they are commercially viable to be used in EV’s. When this happens EV’s could be made from a composite formed out of the battery, having significant weight gains, and as the battery would last more than 10 years it would likely have a lifespan greater than the car itself. This coupled with the very fast recharge rate appears to make them the ideal energy storage for EV’s in the future.
 
Low-speed electric city cars for hire are the logical first step. Everything else is just an expensive toy. (see the price on the i-MIEV? insane! )

£25k is ridiculous, but then the UK government are thinking of introducing a £10k subsidy for things like that as a kind of "ice breaker". At £15k the i-Miev is still expensive for a city car, but starts to make a lot of sense when you consider where it'll be driven.

At £25 a day congestion charge and a conservative estimate of 200 trips into central London a year, you'd spend £5k on congestion charge a year. In three years an i-Miev at £15k would have paid for itself with the money you saved not driving a regular car. And I reckon a lot of people drive into London more than 200 times a year.

You're completely correct in saying that it's the economics of the EV that are the biggest barrier to their adoption, but you have to consider economics on a wider scale too, not just the barrier of purchase price.

And again, like laptops, phones, and any other piece of shiny new tech, the more early adopters there are, the quicker the price tumbles.
 
£25k is ridiculous, but then the UK government are thinking of introducing a £10k subsidy for things like that as a kind of "ice breaker". At £15k the i-Miev is still expensive for a city car, but starts to make a lot of sense when you consider where it'll be driven.

At £25 a day congestion charge and a conservative estimate of 200 trips into central London a year, you'd spend £5k on congestion charge a year. In three years an i-Miev at £15k would have paid for itself with the money you saved not driving a regular car. And I reckon a lot of people drive into London more than 200 times a year.

You're completely correct in saying that it's the economics of the EV that are the biggest barrier to their adoption, but you have to consider economics on a wider scale too, not just the barrier of purchase price.

And again, like laptops, phones, and any other piece of shiny new tech, the more early adopters there are, the quicker the price tumbles.

Again, from previous threads... I am completely against giving a tax discount or a huge rebate to buyers of alternative energy cars... or congestion charge free passes... or carpool lane passes.

The whole point should be to get people out of cars. Completely. Not that I agree that you should tax and bully them out of them... I prefer that governments instead focus more of their energy on making cities bicycle and pedestrian friendly.

The problem with comparing cars to laptops... and say... cellphones... is that while numerous advances in computing technology have driven the prices down (chips are faster, more compact and more energy efficient... hence cheaper per megahertz and requiring smaller batteries), energy density for electrical storage hasn't really advanced that much. Li-Ions look good nowadays because electronics use them and we now have laptops that can go three times to four times as long as before... but that's because they're more energy efficient.

A big heavy car isn't. The one benefit electrics are seeing from the electronic revolution is advances in battery controllers that are now bringing down charge times (quite quickly), but are not doing much about making the battery packs needed for gasoline-like range cheaper.

Errh... sorry for the sidetrack into stuff that's been covered... anyway... regarding wider economics... government basically subsidizing people into personal electrics doesn't strike me as any more efficient than government subsidizing them into public transport... an area where subsidy money reaches a larger number of people to greater benefit. And, on that note... why not government-subsidized public e-transport instead of subsidizing individuals who obviously aren't starving for funds to buy electrics?

10,000 pound subsidy? You could feed five third world families for a year for that amount. Incredible. So somebody who's already paying a tenth per kilometer in running costs that everyone else is paying and who is exempt from congestion charges also gets a subsidy worth twice my yearly salary? Lucky dog.

I've gotta move to London and sell Chinese-built ZAP Xebras. I'd make a mint in government money, and I'd be able to give them away for free. (cost in China is equivalent to around 2,000 pounds).
 
Li-Ions look good nowadays because electronics use them and we now have laptops that can go three times to four times as long as before... but that's because they're more energy efficient.

A big heavy car isn't. The one benefit electrics are seeing from the electronic revolution is advances in battery controllers that are now bringing down charge times (quite quickly), but are not doing much about making the battery packs needed for gasoline-like range cheaper.

Then surely, the task is to make cars more efficient where it counts. Weight. Aerodynamics. Rolling resistance.

The less work you give the motor to do then the less power it needs, and the less it drains the batteries, however inefficiently they store power. Exactly the same principles as making ICE cars and hybrids more efficient.

Errh... sorry for the sidetrack into stuff that's been covered... anyway... regarding wider economics... government basically subsidizing people into personal electrics doesn't strike me as any more efficient than government subsidizing them into public transport... an area where subsidy money reaches a larger number of people to greater benefit. And, on that note... why not government-subsidized public e-transport instead of subsidizing individuals who obviously aren't starving for funds to buy electrics?

10,000 pound subsidy? You could feed five third world families for a year for that amount. Incredible. So somebody who's already paying a tenth per kilometer in running costs that everyone else is paying and who is exempt from congestion charges also gets a subsidy worth twice my yearly salary? Lucky dog.

I didn't say I agreed with the subsidy (it might not even be quite that much, but the proposed figure is quite a lot) - I was simply stating that it was there.

We're discussing economics, not morals ;) Whether it's reprehensible or not, it's a financial subisidy for those buying electric cars, so it has to be taken into account.

If we were talking morals, you could make an arguement based on the fact that electric cars are still better for the environment than their petrol/diesel counterparts throughout their lifespan so contribute to a reduction of a country's emissions (of any kind, not just CO2) and with no reliance on oil from unstable nations, they contribute to world peace...

...Yeah, taking it a little far there perhaps but again the principle is sound.
 
If we were talking morals, you could make an arguement based on the fact that electric cars are still better for the environment than their petrol/diesel counterparts throughout their lifespan so contribute to a reduction of a country's emissions (of any kind, not just CO2) and with no reliance on oil from unstable nations, they contribute to world peace...

...Yeah, taking it a little far there perhaps but again the principle is sound.

I wasn't actually talking morals... just noting that the size of the subsidy is very large.

Subsidy that targets only individuals who have the means, in the first place, to buy a brand new vehicle that's costly and of little practical use in work other than to get one or two commuters from here to there is a very poor subsidy. A subsidy for vehicles actually used for work, or which the government is assured will carry a full load of passengers is much better. In fact... cash for clunkers actually makes more sense, since it takes the oldest cars off the road, which are the worst polluters and the most fuel inefficient.

Subsidizing an i-Miev would be like giving away free Segways to people. Yes, Segways emit less per mile than motor scooters... but they emit a hell of a lot more than walking. :D
 
Subsidy that targets only individuals who have the means, in the first place, to buy a brand new vehicle that's costly and of little practical use in work other than to get one or two commuters from here to there is a very poor subsidy.

You mean... like the scrappage schemes from the last year or so? :p All that was, was a discount for people who could already afford a new car, rather than something to enable people to chop in their genuinely crusty and polluting cars...

A subsidy for vehicles actually used for work, or which the government is assured will carry a full load of passengers is much better. In fact... cash for clunkers actually makes more sense, since it takes the oldest cars off the road, which are the worst polluters and the most fuel inefficient.

Heh, I see you've noted cash for clunkers/scrappage schemes yourself. It does take older/more polluting cars off the road, but it was very badly thought out. There would be nothing stopping someone using a 10 year old Civic that does 45mpg and isn't particularly "unclean" as the deposit for, I dunno, a Range Rover that does 15mpg. Which is what a lot of people did.

Of course, a lot of people bought Hyundai i10s and the like too, so maybe it's been a good thing in balance. And it's saved jobs too, which can only be a good thing.

I think it's a bad example of a "good" subsidy though as it harms those less fortunate. It's taken tens of thousands of perfectly servicable cars off the road that are the only means of personal transport for people on low wages, or students. The scrappage scheme was only any good if you could afford a new car in the first place.

It's a clean air thing too though, not just economic. On a personal, individual basis, I'd much prefer town to be filled with electric cars in the knowledge that I'm not breathing in fumes the whole time. I kind of agree with encouraging electric cars in urban areas (which after all is exactly where they're most suited until range improves). They're quieter, and they're cleaner. Quiet and clean is exactly how I like my town centres...
 
Of course, a lot of people bought Hyundai i10s and the like too, so maybe it's been a good thing in balance. And it's saved jobs too, which can only be a good thing.

Most of which were in South Korea, who have an auto industry that wasn't exactly drowning anyway.

Having said that, it did shift 2,000 Nissan Micras, which probably did something to help Mr and Mrs Geordie.
 
Most of which were in South Korea, who have an auto industry that wasn't exactly drowning anyway.

Having said that, it did shift 2,000 Nissan Micras, which probably did something to help Mr and Mrs Geordie. Mackem

(Micras are built in Sunderland...)
 
You mean... like the scrappage schemes from the last year or so? :p All that was, was a discount for people who could already afford a new car, rather than something to enable people to chop in their genuinely crusty and polluting cars...

Yes... same as a hybrid subsidy... but very specifically aimed at removing a previous car from the road. I thought they were stupid, actually... but I'll admit they did some tiny bit for job security.

Heh, I see you've noted cash for clunkers/scrappage schemes yourself. It does take older/more polluting cars off the road, but it was very badly thought out. There would be nothing stopping someone using a 10 year old Civic that does 45mpg and isn't particularly "unclean" as the deposit for, I dunno, a Range Rover that does 15mpg. Which is what a lot of people did.

The fault of lawmakers in the way they worded the law. Also thought the US version was incredibly poorly written from a technical point of view.

Of course, a lot of people bought Hyundai i10s and the like too, so maybe it's been a good thing in balance. And it's saved jobs too, which can only be a good thing.

I think it's a bad example of a "good" subsidy though as it harms those less fortunate. It's taken tens of thousands of perfectly servicable cars off the road that are the only means of personal transport for people on low wages, or students. The scrappage scheme was only any good if you could afford a new car in the first place.

Same as with hybrids. Only benefits the "haves". I would have preferred if they'd simply recycled the "scrapped" cars as spare parts or exports or auctioned those off that were still in good condition. Would have deferred the cost to the governments involved partially. Of course, this would have negated the "green" component of the schemes... which is the part that made it more palatable for their constituents.

It's a clean air thing too though, not just economic. On a personal, individual basis, I'd much prefer town to be filled with electric cars in the knowledge that I'm not breathing in fumes the whole time. I kind of agree with encouraging electric cars in urban areas (which after all is exactly where they're most suited until range improves). They're quieter, and they're cleaner. Quiet and clean is exactly how I like my town centres...

Bicycle-friendly urban centers are even better. But you take whatever steps people will swallow. ;)
 
Same as with hybrids. Only benefits the "haves". I would have preferred if they'd simply recycled the "scrapped" cars as spare parts or exports or auctioned those off that were still in good condition. Would have deferred the cost to the governments involved partially. Of course, this would have negated the "green" component of the schemes... which is the part that made it more palatable for their constituents.

To be fair, in the UK this is what happened a lot of the time. Dealers had the option of parting out the cars, and if they didn't, often the people in charge of scrapping them did. Although then, you get stories like this utter nonsense about how people parting out cars and removing engines are "damaging the environment".

Failing to spot obviously, that an engine with no car around it cannot do any damage at all, and that if one of the engines is replacing a unit from a car on the road, you presume that the engine going in will be in better condition than the one coming out...

[/rant]

Bicycle-friendly urban centers are even better. But you take whatever steps people will swallow. ;)

Oh God no. The last thing I want is a bunch of cyclists careering about urban areas. At least car drivers have the decency to stop at traffic signals and generally stick to the road, unlike bloody cyclists...

Nah, I'm quite happy with electric cars thanks :p
 
Cyclists are better than motorcyclists... Getting hit by a bicycle won't kill you... :lol:
 
Back