No fuel costs... ever. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : No fuel costs... ever.


KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 08:35
This is going to change everything:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-motors-launches-revolutionary-supercharger-032000226.html

It can refuel the equivalent of three hours of 60 mph driving in 30 minutes.

FOR FREE.

The charging station actually creates more power than it uses... from the SUN.

I could see myself in a stylish Model S, two trunks, and 0 to 60 mph in under 4.4 seconds, 17" tablet in the dash sometime soon...
:cool:

http://dvice.com/pics/tesla_model_s.jpg

Rabbi
09-25-2012, 08:43
You dont understand how it works.

Adjuster
09-25-2012, 08:50
What if two Teslas pull up to the charging station for a refill at the same time?



/

686Owner
09-25-2012, 08:54
It's only free because the user paid for it with the purchase of the vehicle. Still won't be free at home, and California is a long drive from KY.

hamster
09-25-2012, 08:55
When they can actually produce enough of the damned things to halfway meet demand I'll be impressed.

686Owner
09-25-2012, 08:56
What if two Teslas pull up to the charging station for a refill at the same time?



/

If I understand correctly, then the charging station will create too much energy from the Sun and global warming will be the result? :rofl:

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 08:59
If I understand correctly, then the charging station will create too much energy from the Sun and global warming will be the result? :rofl:

No - it will suck too much energy FROM the sun, resulting in Global Cooling. :tongueout:

RenoF250
09-25-2012, 09:00
I am not going to stand around for half an hour after a measly 180 miles. Last road trip we went 6 hours without stopping and had a 5 and 9 year old in the car. It is cool but still not going to cut it for road trips.

Also, it looks like it is going to fly apart.

hamster
09-25-2012, 09:01
It's only free because the user paid for it with the purchase of the vehicle. Still won't be free at home, and California is a long drive from KY.

To be honest an electric car with a reasonable range (approx 100 to 150 miles) would be more than enough for 99.99% of my needs.

For my commute and daily needs the electric would be great. For the occasional long distance run I could either rent, or buy a small diesel vehicle.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 09:02
Don't hate.

This is going to be HUGE.

You dont understand how it works.

Explain it to me then.

What if two Teslas pull up to the charging station for a refill at the same time?
/

Well, I suppose the same thing as when two cars pull up to the gas pump at the same time...
:dunno:

engineer151515
09-25-2012, 09:06
Free.

Just like my future Health Care.

I see tons of $$$ charges here, starting with the unstated cost of the vehicle itself.

And who said somebody was going to let you use their carport sized solar charging system for free after 3 hours of driving and your trying to get back home? I see McD's adding a nice profit center if you need to charge up while you eat lunch.


No free lunches.


ETA: but it is a stylish looking car.

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:11
From the article:

"Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid. In addition to lowering the cost of electricity, this addresses a commonly held misunderstanding that charging an electric car simply pushes carbon emissions to the power plant. The Supercharger system will always generate more power from sunlight than Model S customers use for driving. By adding even a small solar system at their home, electric car owners can extend this same principle to local city driving too."

So how many Tesla vehicles are they figuring on consuming this energy? 1? 10? 50? Kind of an important detail.

Who drives cross-country at 60 mph? More like 70-80. If I understand it right this will reduce the range by 15-25%.

Will these work in the sunlight-deprived Pacific Northwest? New York during the winter?

I can fill my Civic up in 10 minutes (at most), and considering I paid probably 1/5 of what that car will cost, I can't see it working out favorably, financially speaking.

What happens when Tesla's achillie's heel finally causes them a problem - the fact that they have never made any money?

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:15
Don't hate.

This is going to be HUGE.



Explain it to me then.



Well, I suppose the same thing as when two cars pull up to the gas pump at the same time...
:dunno:

The problem he is asking about is the Solar technology. We have pumping technology that can flow enough gas to multiple vehicles at the same time at an acceptable rate. I do not believe (though I don't know) that this charging system can handle that since the size of the "pump" (the sun) is constant.

IMO the future is a Serial Hybrid paired to either a biodiesel or CNG engine, (or even a flex fuel that can run both).

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 09:15
I see tons of $$$ charges here, starting with the unstated cost of the vehicle itself.

Oh man... talk about rain-on-my-PARADE!!!

You've uncovered the HIDDEN CATCH!

You actually have to buy a Tesla!

And who said somebody was going to let you use their carport sized solar charging system for free after 3 hours of driving and your trying to get back home?

Tesla did... it's part of the deal... if you want to be the proud owner of a supercharger station...

Wait, you didn't read the article... did you?

http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/tesla-supercharger-fast-charging-system-for-electric-cars_100403181_m.jpg

http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tesla-Supercharger-Network-Oct-2012-550x308.jpg

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 09:21
Who drives cross-country at 60 mph? More like 70-80. If I understand it right this will reduce the range by 15-25%.

Who drives cross-country? Chain smokers?

I don't even want to be in a car for more than 2 hours.

Will these work in the sunlight-deprived Pacific Northwest? New York during the winter?

This is a good question for the people that live there. I could see future versions of the Tesla Supercharger being modified to supply grid power when the sun isn't shining, at a cost. They would lose the claim to zero carbon emissions though, so it's important that they at least go through this phase for marketing purposes.

I can fill my Civic up in 10 minutes (at most), and considering I paid probably 1/5 of what that car will cost, I can't see it working out favorably, financially speaking.

Yeah, but it's a Honda Civic... this is a Tesla!
(and... TEN minutes?)

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:30
And who said somebody was going to let you use their carport sized solar charging system for free after 3 hours of driving and your trying to get back home? I see McD's adding a nice profit center if you need to charge up while you eat lunch.


I think these things are like gas stations and are owned by Tesla.

quantum36
09-25-2012, 09:33
"Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. "

This is only true because there are only "3" Tesla vehicles on highway at any time.
:tongueout:




Seriously, the charging station will only be able to charge a few Tesla cars at same time. If in future, more people drive these cars, they will have to build many, many, more charging stations.

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:34
Who drives cross-country? Chain smokers?

I don't even want to be in a car for more than 2 hours.



This is a good question for the people that live there. I could see future versions of the Tesla Supercharger being modified to supply grid power when the sun isn't shining, at a cost. They would lose the claim to zero carbon emissions though, so it's important that they at least go through this phase for marketing purposes.



Yeah, but it's a Honda Civic... this is a Tesla!
(and... TEN minutes?)

In your case this might be the car for you then. I just don't see it as meaning electric cars for the masses. I mentioned cross-country because they mention it in the article. If you are going to do it you are going to do it at above 60 mph.

Ten minutes is a guestimate, and I suck royally at guestimating time. My civic will pass any Tesla - I just wait for him to run out of battery!

Glotin
09-25-2012, 09:43
This is a cool step in the right direction, but I wouldn't call it revolutionary. I'd be surprised if it "changed everything". I think Hybrid electric is a necessary step before full electric is viable.

"The Supercharger system will always generate more power from sunlight than Model S customers use for driving." - Is not a claim they can make.

Still, cool idea. Probably wont be in my price range for a while.

engineer151515
09-25-2012, 09:45
Tesla did... it's part of the deal... if you want to be the proud owner of a supercharger station...

Wait, you didn't read the article... did you?



Oh contraire, my good GT buddy

This can replenish three hours of driving at 60 mph in about half an hour, which is the convenience inflection point for travelers at a highway rest stop. Most people who begin a road trip at 9:00 a.m. would normally stop by noon to have lunch, refresh and pick up a coffee or soda for the road, all of which takes about 30 minutes.


Those future lunch stops don't sound to me like all of them will be owned by Telsa - nationwide. And unless that property it is built on is Tesla owned, you can bet somebody will put up a toll gate so you can drive in. (I would).

And if it is a rainy day or (gasp) nightfall . . . I guess you're back on the grid.


But again, I do like the car's stylish looks.


Edit to add: we are just talking what-if. Who knows? I just hang up on the term "free". Imagine my rants when the kids were growing up and telling me the cereal offer on the box was "free". :)

certifiedfunds
09-25-2012, 09:47
If you're going to plop down a hundred-grand-ish for a car, WTF do you care about the cost of filling it up?

aplcr0331
09-25-2012, 09:48
Who drives cross-country? Chain smokers?

I don't even want to be in a car for more than 2 hours.



Who drives cross country? The problem is that you are lookin at this in a very myopic self interested way.

Who drives cross country? How about those fat assed chain smokers that deliver almost 70% of the freight we utilize in America? The 3 million or so truckers employed to make sure you have everything you need. The chain smokers who average about 100K miles a year to make sure this country runs smoothly and has the goods and products we need. Commercial trucks make up only 10.6% of all registered vehicles, but pay 33.7% or $31.3 billion in combined federal and state highway-user taxes.

Who drives cross country? Nobody.

Think about those tax dollars. Tell me again about the evil oil companies that stifle game changing tech like this? Think about who wants more government revenue and what they will do to get it?

Cognitive dissonance yet?

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:52
What is interesting in this is the tech behind the solar panels themselves. If they are as powerful as stated, then this could be a big step for that technology.

For the electric car to be viable it will need the range and longevity of a gasoline car. That means 400 miles per charge and no major repairs (including expensive battery pack replacements) for 100K miles at least IMO.

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 09:56
Who drives cross country? The problem is that you are lookin at this in a very myopic self interested way.

Who drives cross country? How about those fat assed chain smokers that deliver almost 70% of the freight we utilize in America? The 3 million or so truckers employed to make sure you have everything you need. The chain smokers who average about 100K miles a year to make sure this country runs smoothly and has the goods and products we need. Commercial trucks make up only 10.6% of all registered vehicles, but pay 33.7% or $31.3 billion in combined federal and state highway-user taxes.

Who drives cross country? Nobody.

Think about those tax dollars. Tell me again about the evil oil companies that stifle game changing tech like this? Think about who wants more government revenue and what they will do to get it?

Cognitive dissonance yet?

I believe he was referring to people driving passenger cars that distance, not truckers. This technology is probably a long way from powering 18 wheelers.

certifiedfunds
09-25-2012, 09:56
Just give me a dual fuel natural gas and gasoline/diesel car and shuddup

aplcr0331
09-25-2012, 10:00
I believe he was referring to people driving passenger cars that distance, not truckers. This technology is probably a long way from powering 18 wheelers.

I know, my point is that there is a lot going on throughout the country that most people don't see. It's not just redneck losers or slave holding white people that use the roads. When we solve the freight movement portion of this then we'll have a game changer. Until then it's just more self masturbatory feel good puff pieces for people who look down their noses at the wrong kinds of white people, i.e. chain smoking cross country drivers.

Geko45
09-25-2012, 10:01
They're only free because Tesla is trying to promote its product. If these cars were adopted en masse then recharging stations would have to be at least as plentiful as gas stations. No way one company is going to be able to build all those. And once you have multiple players in the market it quickly becomes no longer free. At best, it's free if you use a station from your manufacturer, but if you need to use an "out of network" station from a competitor, well you didn't by the car from them so they'll want payment of some sort.

Plus, this is still just pushing the carbon around. Do you realize what it takes to manufacture a photovoltaic cell? To build enough to make a complete infrastucture of recharging stations would be an enormous undertaking. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the net gain in carbon footprint would be only a few percent at best.

686Owner
09-25-2012, 10:02
Who drives cross-country? Chain smokers?


People that don't want to be fondled by the TSA and have their constitutional rights trampled on? Probably a discussion for another thread though.

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 10:04
Just give me a dual fuel natural gas and gasoline/diesel car and shuddup

I like that idea. I'd definitely be interested in that but there is a problem there too with natural gas. I'm a little sketchy on the details but I'll attempt to explain what I read:

Natural gas flows from the "grid" at a fairly low psi (10-20 maybe). Current technology requires the natural gas tank of a car to be charged to 3600 psi. The issue is you can't store natural gas at that pressure on private property so you have to compress it from the line directly into the tank. To fill a tank will require something like 8 hours.

Of course, you could charge from a filling station just like gasoline but there is an infrastructure problem. It still solves the biggest problems with gasoline - dependance on foreign oil and dwindling supply - but does not have all the convenience some people expect.

You can buy a kit now that will allow certain cars to be a dual fuel vehicle. It was in this month's Popular Mechanics (where I also read about the issues).

Still, pair hybrid technology with CnG or Biodiesel and you have a promising solution to the gas problem IMO.

larry_minn
09-25-2012, 10:05
I can "claim" anything I want. Real life does not go according to predictions.
Lets say they were close to accurate. IF the car goes 150 miles before it gets slugish... Can recharge in less then hr. It would be a great 2nd car for most folks. Few folks drive over 100 miles each way to work. (percentage wise) most are IIRC under 40 miles.
The charging stations are hooked to "grid" When energy is not going to charge cars it goes to grid. When solar is not producing enough energy it takes energy from grid.
Hopefully this will bring a increased efficency of solar systems/reduction in costs.
While solar can't replace other electric generations methods. It can help.

aplcr0331
09-25-2012, 10:06
They're only free because Tesla is trying to promote it's product. If these cars were adopted en masse then recharging stations would have to be at least as plentiful as gas stations. No way one company is going to be able to build all those. And once you have multiple players in the market it becomes no longer free. At best, it's free if you use a station from your manufacturer, but if you need to use an "out of network" station from a competitor, well you didn't by the car from them so they'll want payment of some sort.

Plus, this is still just pushing the carbon around. Do you realize what it takes to manufacture a photovoltaic cell? To build enough to make a complete infrastucture of rechraging stations would be an enormous undertaking. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the net gain in carbon footprint would be only a few percent at best.

This is never about "reducing" the carbon footprint or the "environment". It's just for the SWPLS to look down at us Proles driving gas guzzlers. Why don't we all live in Austin or New York and ride bikes to and fro?

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 10:47
Seriously, the charging station will only be able to charge a few Tesla cars at same time. If in future, more people drive these cars, they will have to build many, many, more charging stations.

This really is the catch.

We can hope though that this will catch on and they will build more.

If I were building a Luxury Condo somewhere on that map I'd probably price out and look at putting superchargers in at least some of the spaces.

(and pass the cost along to the buyer, of course)

Those future lunch stops don't sound to me like all of them will be owned by Telsa - nationwide. And unless that property it is built on is Tesla owned, you can bet somebody will put up a toll gate so you can drive in.

I would assume that it's part of the agreement that you not do that if you want to operate one of their stations.

They're trying to get this tech out ASAP and dominate the market.

And if it is a rainy day or (gasp) nightfall . . . I guess you're back on the grid.


But again, I do like the car's stylish looks.


Edit to add: we are just talking what-if. Who knows? I just hang up on the term "free". Imagine my rants when the kids were growing up and telling me the cereal offer on the box was "free". :)

What are you one of those "that will never work" or "we can't do this" kind of engineers???

Back on the grid is not a huge deal for people like me who don't care about being carbon free. It is a selling point though that will help spread the tech in it's early phases.

If you're going to plop down a hundred-grand-ish for a car, WTF do you care about the cost of filling it up?

This.

For at least the next 15 years, all-electric cars aren't going to be for poor people.

certifiedfunds
09-25-2012, 10:52
I like that idea. I'd definitely be interested in that but there is a problem there too with natural gas. I'm a little sketchy on the details but I'll attempt to explain what I read:

Natural gas flows from the "grid" at a fairly low psi (10-20 maybe). Current technology requires the natural gas tank of a car to be charged to 3600 psi. The issue is you can't store natural gas at that pressure on private property so you have to compress it from the line directly into the tank. To fill a tank will require something like 8 hours.

Of course, you could charge from a filling station just like gasoline but there is an infrastructure problem. It still solves the biggest problems with gasoline - dependance on foreign oil and dwindling supply - but does not have all the convenience some people expect.

You can buy a kit now that will allow certain cars to be a dual fuel vehicle. It was in this month's Popular Mechanics (where I also read about the issues).

Still, pair hybrid technology with CnG or Biodiesel and you have a promising solution to the gas problem IMO.

The Australians are doing it. They fill up at home.

Dual fuel alleviated much of the infrastructure issue while the demand for infrastructure builds.

I'll look into the fill time more. I know my vehicles sit idle for at least 8 hours each night.

Gallium
09-25-2012, 11:17
...

Will these work in the sunlight-deprived Pacific Northwest? New York during the winter?

I can fill my Civic up in 10 minutes (at most), and considering I paid probably 1/5 of what that car will cost, I can't see it working out favorably, financially speaking.

What happens when Tesla's achillie's heel finally causes them a problem - the fact that they have never made any money?


The article says they are building stations across the nation. For now, the use fee for those proposed stations is $0, but I think that pricing structure will go the way of promises made by the cable industry with regards to advertisements.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 11:26
The article says they are building stations across the nation. For now, the use fee for those proposed stations is $0, but I think that pricing structure will go the way of promises made by the cable industry with regards to advertisements.

What would be really cool would be if they licensed their tech, or just gave it away on the refueling end to tighten their grip on the market.

Competition will keep the prices low too... or low relative to a fill up of gasoline.

I want to see these NOW.

Let's stop throwing money at developing potential future green tech and start building the infrastructure to support what we have NOW.

Glock20 10mm
09-25-2012, 11:34
The simple fact that the technology exists means that it will improve. We have to start somewhere and some time. Why not here and now? Sure Tesla and other electric vehicles don't meet your needs, but there are people out there whose needs they do meet. Hell, I would love to have an electric car that uses a solar array to charge with for my daily commute. Can I afford it right now? No, but eventually yes.

The idea of driving to work, plugging my car in and not having to worry about making an additional stop for gas when it's time to go home. I like that. And the truth is MOST American's only travel 20-40 miles a day, well within the range of MOST current electric cars. The problem as I have stated before is a complete lack of infrastructure to handle electric vehicles and the start up costs to get them off the ground.

And on the subject of infrastructure, using the grid to charge your car is a bad idea. The grid is already strained and failing. The truth of the matter is this nation is facing several crisis in the making, and power distribution, not generation, is one of them. We have the capacity to generate the power... the problem is the infrastructure that is old and deteriorating. See maintenance is expensive as is upgrading... which is why utilities don't put a lot of money into it. But what happens is well... what has happened here in San Bruno CA already.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/san-bruno-explosion_n_1731030.html

DanaT
09-25-2012, 11:48
Here is the simple problem with electric cars.

1 Liter of Gasoline has 34.8 MJ of energy
1MJ = 0.2777 kWh of energy
This means gasoline has 9.66kWh per liter
or.. 36.7kWh per gallon

I can refuel my vehicle with 15 gallons of fuel in about 5 minutes.

So, in 5 minutes I am able to place 551kWh of energy into my vehicle.

Lets say I am really dedicated to the environment and I dont have a problem waiting a half hour to "fill my batteries". This means I need to have wiring cable of handling 1102kW of power for a half hour.

Now, basic calculations tell me that 1102kW is 110200 Watts.

Lets assume I want to be a little quicker and will go for 230 volts.

1102000/230 volts = 4791 Amps

Now just a quick look tells me that a 0000 AWG wire is 0.46 coppercore diameter and it is only able to handle power transmission of 302 amps.

Does anyone know what a minor arc or short with 230V and 4800 AMPS will do?

Next up, battery. The fastest that the bets most stable batteries can be charged at for a reasonable life is capacity/2. This means if you need a battery with 4 times the capacity that you actually need if you want to recharge in a half hour. Add to the the 30% degradation in capacity you will have (with the most stable Li-ion batteries) and you are up to a battery that is 5.7 times your requirement.

Add the 551kWh of capacity that is needed about every 3rd or 4th day per household (most households have more than one car). We are talking adding 4000kWh of power to each house each month. That is probably 6 time the capacity of the electrical grid right now.

There is a difference between saying "it can't be done" and "it is not practical to do"

We CAN make a rocket that would get to mars in a week. It just takes a lot of fuel and thrust to attain that speed. That doesnt make it practical to do.

Don H
09-25-2012, 11:52
Free.

Just like my future Health Care.



:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Bilbo Bagins
09-25-2012, 11:56
Well it WILL NOT BE FREE.

So let me get this straight, they are going to set up these "stations" and charge your car for free, out of the goodness of their hearts?

No, either they will charge you a fee to re-charge your car, or they will get you in other ways, like tolls to enter the charging station, or sole ownership of the shops around the charging station.

Ohh boy we can drive 3 hours then stop at a charging station for lunch.

"I'll have a burger, fries and a coke."

"That will be $55 dollars."

:shocked:

I use to run up and down the east coast, from Tampa to Philadelphia. There is nothing like hitting a fuel stop like you are in the "Cannonball Run." Fuel up, pee, grab some food to eat, and your back on the road in less than 10 minutes.

It may have some application for "rich folks" , but how many people out there have the property size and the money to build a carport recharging station in there driveway for EACH car in the household.

Also how long dose the car battery last, can it be replaced, and how much will that cost?

The move is to make fossil fuel more expensive, so lower class people cannot afford it. Having an electric car will make long distance travel more difficult, and will be something that again will be less feasible to lower income people.

Bruce M
09-25-2012, 12:02
Who knows whether this will become the next common means of transportation. I am guessing that in 1912 there were not as many gas stations as there are now especiallly in rural areas. I also remember a time when the liquor stores were closed on Sunday and one had to do some advance planning there also.

I am guessing a considerable number of cars are driven primarily close to the home of the owner. It is not necessary that the car will be driven across the country but rather that it could or perhaps more importantly for the few times a year it is used on a trip away from home that it can be recharged while on the road.

DanaT
09-25-2012, 12:05
The move is to make fossil fuel more expensive, so lower class people cannot afford it. Having an electric car will make long distance travel more difficult, and will be something that again will be less feasible to lower income people.

Cool. Less traffic blocking the left lane! Maybe after we get the proletarians off the road, we can have unlimited speed limits!!

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 12:37
The simple fact that the technology exists means that it will improve. We have to start somewhere and some time. Why not here and now?

Exactly. It's time to clock in NOW and start investing in this infrastructure. Costs will go down as economies of scale take effect.

Then we can talk about retrofitting/upgrading the units... not always looking for the next best/ most efficient unit or worse, different/ competing tech.


Here is the simple problem with electric cars...

Next up, battery...

This is all wrong.

Well it WILL NOT BE FREE.

So let me get this straight, they are going to set up these "stations" and charge your car for free, out of the goodness of their hearts?

No... as part of the agreement with Tesla for hosting a station.

No, either they will charge you a fee to re-charge your car, or they will get you in other ways, like tolls to enter the charging station, or sole ownership of the shops around the charging station.

No. It's really going to be free to charge up. Really.

I find your disbelief humorous.


I use to run up and down the east coast, from Tampa to Philadelphia. There is nothing like hitting a fuel stop like you are in the "Cannonball Run." Fuel up, pee, grab some food to eat, and your back on the road in less than 10 minutes.

How come you didn't just fly?

:dunno:

That actually sounds quite terrible to me- public restrooms and roadside fast food... :shocked:

I am guessing that in 1912 there were not as many gas stations as there are now especiallly in rural areas.

And if you bought a gas station back then the "MusketTalk" geniuses of the day would have said:

"You're going to put a tank... underground... full of highly volatile liquid... that gets transported across the globe from the most empty and otherwise useless part of the planet... and use it to fuel a noisy dirty car??? That breaks down all the time and costs so much to fix??

Well I can buy some feed from my cousin for 2 cents that comes from this very county!"

Having an electric car will make long distance travel more difficult, and will be something that again will be less feasible to lower income people.

Maybe after we get the proletarians off the road, we can have unlimited speed limits!!

+1

Maybe the time has come that poor people don't need to be big wheeling it all over the road, polluting our precious earth just so they can make it to the big box store for a sale on 50 lbs of Beef Jerky... Or to a fast food restaurant...

You know DUI would go down.

:supergrin:

Zombie Surgeon
09-25-2012, 12:39
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/fearless_reader_snake_oil_salesman.jpg

Diesel. It's the only solution for the next half century.
Europeans figured that out already twenty years ago.

Here is what Ford is manufacturing and selling in the EU:
58 mpg Ford B-Max (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2012/08/made-in-romania-58-mpg-ford-b-max.html)

Who needs a stinkin' Prius or an $100,000 Tesla fire hazard when you can get a nice turbo diesel car with a range of 370+ miles for 1/4 of the price ?

DanaT
09-25-2012, 12:44
This is all wrong.


Show me in my calculations where I am wrong.

Show me a lithium-ion (or any battery) that can survive 3000 complete charging cycles with less than or equal to a 30% capacity loss when charged at a rate greater than C/2.

Or better, yet, lets us see how much basic understanding of lithium ion batteries (the highest capacity commercial batteries made) by telling us what mitigation are take during Li-ion battery manufacturing to prevent the most common problem associated with lithium hexafluoride.

Would you really like to discuss your knowledge of lithium-ion batteries?

Beware Owner
09-25-2012, 12:47
We should all have solar panels at home and screw the electricity companies!

hamster
09-25-2012, 12:47
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/fearless_reader_snake_oil_salesman.jpg

Diesel. It's the only solution for the next half century.
Europeans figured that out already twenty years ago.

Here is what Ford is manufacturing and selling in the EU:
58 mpg Ford B-Max (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2012/08/made-in-romania-58-mpg-ford-b-max.html)

Who needs a stinkin' Prius or an $100,000 Tesla fire hazard when you can get a nice turbo diesel car with a range of 370+ miles for 1/4 of the price ?

Who need's Edison's new fangled "light bulbs" when the trusty ol' gas lamp works just fine?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Thomas_edison_gl%C3%BChbirne.jpg/434px-Thomas_edison_gl%C3%BChbirne.jpg

certifiedfunds
09-25-2012, 12:57
I was promised one of those flying cars from the Jetsons and I want it now dammit!

DanaT
09-25-2012, 13:00
I was promised one of those flying cars from the Jetsons and I want it now dammit!

You dont get one. You didn't vote for Obama.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 13:09
Show me in my calculations where I am wrong.

Show me where you're right.

Joules... electric... volts... amps... Oh, my!

By those "calculations" we shouldn't have battery powered anything.

And helicopters shouldn't fly...


Diesel. It's the only solution for the next half century.
Europeans figured that out already twenty years ago.


Funny.

Your post promotes old, outdated tech as a solution for the next... 50 years???

Go back and read the article. Then google another.

This is what we have NOW. The future is HERE!!!1!

We should all have solar panels at home and screw the electricity companies!

We should.

When I first heard about the work that barefoot university was doing I didn't think, "Now the villages in Ooz-becky-becky-stan-stan can have electricity!"

I thought:

"How much can I hire these grandmas for to wire up a ranch somewhere... private..."

http://www.barefootcollege.org/sol_approach.asp

Now I wonder how much to throw them on the roof of my condo building since our deck size is limited up there anyway by some stupid building code.

DanaT
09-25-2012, 13:21
Show me where you're right.

Joules... electric... volts... amps... Oh, my!

By those "calculations" we shouldn't have battery powered anything.

And helicopters shouldn't fly...

Sorry that I laid it out very clearly, yet you dont understand it.

Energy and power are basic science concepts.

But lets start and help you..

1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 amp

1 Joule = 2.7777777777778E-7 kWh

You obviously aren't getting how much energy moving a car takes.

Also, you are discounting the rate of charge. Why do you think your laptop (or iphone or li-ion powered personal massager) doesnt charge in 5 minutes? There is PLENTY of power in a 120V household circuit to charge a 1200mAh battery in a minute. So why doesn't your battery charge in a minute?

Geko45
09-25-2012, 13:27
Show me where you're right.

Joules... electric... volts... amps... Oh, my!

Um, that's exactly what he did. His math is right there in the post. Are you suggesting he made a mistake somewhere? Which figure or calculation are you taking issue with?

Go back and read the article. Then google another.

This is what we have NOW. The future is HERE!!!1!

What is and is not possible from an enginerring point of view is not a function of how many articles are written on the topic.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 13:36
Why do you think your laptop (or iphone or li-ion powered personal massager) doesnt charge in 5 minutes? There is PLENTY of power in a 120V household circuit to charge a 1200mAh battery in a minute. So why doesn't your battery charge in a minute?

What?

Not a cell phone... a CAR.

30 minutes = 3 hours @ 60 mph.

I'm not sure how many kilojoules that is though.

:dunno:

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 13:45
Everything is in a smoking pile... as usual.

1) Tesla charging station is not free. It's subsidized. Know the difference ?

2) The cost of this car is $50K. Sell 100 of them near Tesla HQ and you can afford to subsidize a few charging stations. My guess is the cost of these stations is somewhere in the $15-20K range. They make great promo material.

3) Nobody knows yet how much the real cost of ownership of electric cars is going to be. It's a brand new tech. We don't know how much the repair and disposal of (highly dangerous and expensive) batteries is going to cost, for one. We don't know the cost of maintenance of these charging stations. There's no common network of charging stations that can be used to recharge any electric vehicle on the road, be it Tesla, Volt, Leaf or something else. The electrical vehicle industry is in it's infancy, the market has not yet really started to take shape. It is silly to argue over costs at this point, as they are bound to be high and the real long term costs are bound to be, largely, unknown, even to the people at Tesla, at least for a while. As it is with any emerging technology.

I do believe that electrical vehicles are the way of the future, perhaps as early as 20 years from now. But right now, anyone who's buying one is a beta tester. And beta product simply can't be cheap without being subsidized by somebody.

DanaT
09-25-2012, 13:45
What?

Not a cell phone... a CAR.

30 minutes = 3 hours @ 60 mph.

I'm not sure how many kilojoules that is though.

:dunno:

miles 180
divide by 27mpg 6.666666667
Convert to liters 25.33333333
Convert to MJ 881.6
Convert to kWh 244.882032
Convert to Watts 244882.032
Using 230V - How Many Amp 1064.704487
Divide by 0.5 hours 2129.408974 AMPS

Thats a lot of amps@230V

Now you will try and figure out why 27mpg....go find fuel mileage for the most similar car..a Lotus Elise BTW...and it is 27 hwy.

frizz
09-25-2012, 13:50
What if two Teslas pull up to the charging station for a refill at the same time?


Depends on whether or not they are on a conveyer belt.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 13:52
Now you will try and figure out why 27mpg....go find fuel mileage for the most similar car..a Lotus Elise BTW...and it is 27 hwy.

Nah, I'm not even thinking about it that hard. :yawn:

I didn't invent it, so I don't understand how it works or why "Supercharge" is such an innovation.

I read 30 minutes of charge = 3 hours @ 60 mph.

I'll wait to see if it's the real deal in a few weeks.

Geko45
09-25-2012, 13:54
Nah, I'm not even thinking about it that hard. :yawn:

Clearly.

KalashniKEV
09-25-2012, 13:56
Everything is in a smoking pile... as usual.

:rofl:

1) Tesla charging station is not free. It's subsidized. Know the difference ?

Yeah... if I buy a Tesla for $50K, and fuel it at one of the Tesla stops, it's free.

If I buy an A5 for $50K, I still have to pay for gasoline.

2) The cost of this car is $50K. Sell 100 of them near Tesla HQ and you can afford to subsidize a few charging stations. My guess is the cost of these stations is somewhere in the $15-20K range. They make great promo material.

I don't even know why you broke out this bullet.

Yes, this is an excellent promo to shake things up and generate interest.

3) Nobody knows yet how much the real cost of ownership of electric cars is going to be. It's a brand new tech.

Already been discussed above.

Not for poor people, smokers, or the obese.

Gotta be a cool guy to rock .300 BLK.

Wait... what??? I mean you gotta be a cool guy to whip a Tesla.

(Awww jeez... please don't tell me the 500 reasons why .300 BLK is a fad or a boutique round now...)
:supergrin:

Geko45
09-25-2012, 14:00
I don't even know why you broke out this bullet.

Yes, this is an excellent promo to shake things up and generate interest.

Because it's not a sustainable promo. They can do this for awhile to try and build interest in their product, but if a bunch of these were sold they would most definitely start charging.

TANSTAAFL

Bilbo Bagins
09-25-2012, 14:01
Cool. Less traffic blocking the left lane! Maybe after we get the proletarians off the road, we can have unlimited speed limits!!

+1

Maybe the time has come that poor people don't need to be big wheeling it all over the road, polluting our precious earth just so they can make it to the big box store for a sale on 50 lbs of Beef Jerky... Or to a fast food restaurant...

You know DUI would go down.

:supergrin:


True but we have a limited supply of mineral and chemical resources to build billions of car batteries. At the end of the day, the only people who have money to buy a car will be those who can afford it.

So the poor will be left out. Ok you all seem OK with that.

But how about the middle class. How about the fact that China and India are rapidly growing economies with a lot of population.

Right now there are about 1 billion cars and trucks in the world and all the world auto maufactures are on track to build 60 million cars in 2012. All that for 7 billion people in the world.

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html


What happens when the mining of metals, minerals, and chemicals that make up batteries for these complicated electric cars slows up the manufacturing process so that the world can only produce 50 million electric cars a year for 7 billion people, no wait we are talking a few years from now. Lets bump that to 8 billion people which is a figure we should hit in 2027

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

So you will have a shortage of electric cars due to the complexity of the vehicle vs gas engine cars and bringing the elements to build it to one place in a timely manner. Less supply and more demand will drive up prices. Also the average Lithium-Ion hybrid/full electric car battery will last 7 to 10 years, then it needs a new one.

All this may make owning multiple cars in a household a thing of the past, and it may put lower income and even the middle class out of reach of car ownership.

But the big issue is the elements and materials needed to build the batteries and the solar panels will not last forever. Unlike Fossil Fuels, we will reach a "Peak" crisis on Lithium much quicker then with Oil. You see to build a Tesla or other electric car battery you need mostly lithium, other elements, and a lot of eletro-chemical magic

Currently the world uses 34,000 tons of lithium a year. With the introduction of Lithium ion batteries in electric cars that number will go up exponentially. Then add the fact that every 10 years or so the vehicles that are a decade old will need a new battery.

The current world reserve of Lithium is 13 million tones. Over 3.5 million of that reserve is in China, while 7.5 million is in Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

Unless we run out of some other important manufacturing element first, having electric cars on a worldwide market will put us in a major lithium battery crisis in a few decades.

Ironically compared to Lithium, We have more Oil to run fuel burning cars and trucks for a longer period of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 14:07
I thought the argument was over actual costs of owning an electrical vehicle. Not some promo deal from Tesla that may or may not be available 5 years from now.

And 15 years from now, this Tesla would long be gone, while A5 would still be asking for more gas ;). A '97 BMW 5 series in good shape now sells for around $5k, that's about 13% of original cost.

I am not saying Tesla is not cool, or that EV's are not the future. Merely, that the entire fight over the cost of ownership, impact on environment etc. is sort of silly now, since we simply don't know yet.

@Bilbo - yes. AFAIK the modern batteries need rare earths and China is #1 producer of them (and they are already flexing their muscle, rationing the supply, etc.) So the future of this technology is not certain. Perhaps they would come up with a different way to do it..

DanaT
09-25-2012, 14:07
All this may make owning multiple cars in a household a thing of the past, and it may put lower income and even the middle class out of reach of car ownership.

I kinda missed a lot of your post.

All I understood was...

blah blah blah blah. poor people cant drive. blah blah blah blah.

Last time I filled up (Saturday) diesel was $7.38 a gallon. Fuel consumption is much less as 75mph than at 115mph. I drove closer to 115mph. Get the poor people off the road so I can burn more fuel quicker!

DanaT
09-25-2012, 14:09
I am not saying Tesla is not cool, or that EV's are not the future. Merely, that the entire fight over the cost of ownership, impact on environment etc. is sort of silly now, since we simply don't know yet.

What is actually embarrassing is that the one tesla I saw at a drag strip was kicking the crap out of the C6 vettes, camaros, 5.0 mustangs, etc.

OF course, at 6000ft, power is down for most cars by about 25%..electric motors dont lose power at altitude....

here is the car..

Tesla Roadster drag racing at Bandimere - YouTube

the mph isnt "great" (100mph is what a new Camaro SS / Mustang 5.0 / Charger SRT8 will do at that track) but the 12s at that altitude are impressive. It is the instant power off the line that is impressive.

Of course, my comments have nothing to do with how practical the car is..only commenting on speed...

watch thsi one come out of the hole

Tesla Roadster vs Mustang Muscle Car at PIR July 2009 - YouTube

Bilbo Bagins
09-25-2012, 14:14
I kinda missed a lot of your post.

All I understood was...

blah blah blah blah. poor people cant drive. blah blah blah blah.

Last time I filled up (Saturday) diesel was $7.38 a gallon. Fuel consumption is much less as 75mph than at 115mph. I drove closer to 115mph. Get the poor people off the road so I can burn more fuel quicker!

Long story short, a combustable fuel system is more economically viable. Electric will never be free, and because of the lithuim-ion batteries the vehicles be will more and more expensive and harder to get over time.

I'm talking about the poor in the near future, but cars will eventually be a rich person only thing if we continue on an electric only path. You wouldn't need to worry about the price od Diesel because you would be walking or taking the train.

BTW do you live in the country or the city, If you live in the city how are you going to charge your vehicle, and how will it be "free"

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 14:20
From Wiki:

The Model S Signature model with a 85 kWh pack rated by EPA has a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h) and accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds.[4] The Model S Signature Performance model has a top speed of 130 mph (210 km/h) and accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. The 60 kW·h battery model has a top speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) and accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 5.9 seconds, and the base model with the 40 kW·h battery has a top speed of 110 mph (180 km/h) and accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds.[28]

Oh, and I was wrong about price. It starts at $57K and all the way to $75K.

AFAIK, the top trim Corvettes (Z06 and such) have 0-60 in under 4 sec.

DanaT
09-25-2012, 14:23
BTW do you live in the country or the city, If you live in the city how are you going to charge your vehicle, and how will it be "free"

Easy.

I am going to buy a $109 Tesla

Then I am going to get my $7500 federal tax credit
Then I am going to get my $42,083 state tax credit

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13622627


Then I am going to ship the car to my apartment.

Then I will just drive across the boarder into Switzerland where there is a big nuke power plant and plug in.

I may try and take this as a business expense too.

I am sure there are ways I can make someone else pay for the other $50k I am spending...

See my plan here? I intend to have someone else pay for this. Kind of like a SS entitlement.

I may even have solar panels installed and get it paid for by the electric company (who is required by law to subsidize me) who actually add a surcharge to everyone bills to cover what they have to pay for the solar panelsto people who have them installed.

As long as someone else pays..what the hell..I can spend money like a drunken sailor

tsmo1066
09-25-2012, 14:29
The "Performance S" starts at around 85K, has a 300 mile range at 60 MPH (translates to about a 225 mile range at 80 MPH) and does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds.

Not bad AT ALL.

I don't see myself buying one just yet, but that price point isn't that far off from a fully loaded BMW 5 Series and the range is good for just about anything shy of long-haul, cross-country touring.

I'm impressed.

Glock20 10mm
09-25-2012, 14:33
We should all have solar panels at home and screw the electricity companies!

Already doing it... off grid and happy as hell that it's finally working now.

Glock20 10mm
09-25-2012, 14:37
Everything is in a smoking pile... as usual.

1) Tesla charging station is not free. It's subsidized. Know the difference ?

2) The cost of this car is $50K. Sell 100 of them near Tesla HQ and you can afford to subsidize a few charging stations. My guess is the cost of these stations is somewhere in the $15-20K range. They make great promo material.

3) Nobody knows yet how much the real cost of ownership of electric cars is going to be. It's a brand new tech. We don't know how much the repair and disposal of (highly dangerous and expensive) batteries is going to cost, for one. We don't know the cost of maintenance of these charging stations. There's no common network of charging stations that can be used to recharge any electric vehicle on the road, be it Tesla, Volt, Leaf or something else. The electrical vehicle industry is in it's infancy, the market has not yet really started to take shape. It is silly to argue over costs at this point, as they are bound to be high and the real long term costs are bound to be, largely, unknown, even to the people at Tesla, at least for a while. As it is with any emerging technology.

I do believe that electrical vehicles are the way of the future, perhaps as early as 20 years from now. But right now, anyone who's buying one is a beta tester. And beta product simply can't be cheap without being subsidized by somebody.

Ummm, no it's not brand new technology we just finally got to a point where it can actually be a reality!

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

Bilbo Bagins
09-25-2012, 14:41
Easy.

I am going to buy a $109 Tesla

Then I am going to get my $7500 federal tax credit
Then I am going to get my $42,083 state tax credit

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13622627 (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13622627</p><p>)
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13622627</p><p>"]
(http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13622627</p><p>)

Then I am going to ship the car to my apartment.

Then I will just drive across the boarder into Switzerland where there is a big nuke power plant and plug in.

I may try and take this as a business expense too.

I am sure there are ways I can make someone else pay for the other $50k I am spending...

See my plan here? I intend to have someone else pay for this. Kind of like a SS entitlement.

I may even have solar panels installed and get it paid for by the electric company (who is required by law to subsidize me) who actually add a surcharge to everyone bills to cover what they have to pay for the solar panelsto people who have them installed.

As long as someone else pays..what the hell..I can spend money like a drunken sailor

Yea, umm ask an old East German how that whole getting free bread and Toilet paper thing worked out under the Soviets :rofl:
http://www.realussr.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/0000ywag-500x336.jpg

Have fun while it last.

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 14:45
Ummm, no it's not brand new technology we just finally got to a point where it can actually be a reality!

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

It's a new technology when it comes to business / retail application.

Nuclear reactors aren't "new" but if any company was crazy enough to actually build and market a retail nuclear powered vehicle, it would definitely be a new tech.

tsmo1066
09-25-2012, 14:51
Nuclear reactors aren't "new" but if any company was crazy enough to actually build and market a retail nuclear powered vehicle, it would definitely be a new tech.

Baloney! We've had nuclear powered cars since the 80's!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/files/2008/04/mr-fusion.jpg

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 14:53
Baloney! We've had nuclear powered cars since the 80's!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/files/2008/04/mr-fusion.jpg

She looks even better in this pic than she did in the movie.

Glock20 10mm
09-25-2012, 15:03
It's a new technology when it comes to business / retail application.

Nuclear reactors aren't "new" but if any company was crazy enough to actually build and market a retail nuclear powered vehicle, it would definitely be a new tech.

1897 - The first electric taxis hit the streets of New York City early in the year. The Pope Manufacturing Company of Connecticut becomes the first large-scale American electric automobile manufacturer.

1900 - The electric automobile is in its heyday. Of the 4,192 cars produced in the United States 28 percent are powered by electricity, and electric autos represent about one-third of all cars found on the roads of New York City, Boston, and Chicago.

History... it's there and at one time they were a large part of the market. The problems arose due to a lack of technology to keep them competitive.

1988 - Roger Smith, CEO of G.M. , agrees to fund research efforts to build a practical consumer electric car. G.M. teams up with California's AeroVironment to design what would become the EV1, which one employee called "the world's most efficient production vehicle." Some electric vehicle enthusiasts have speculated that the EV1 was never undertaken as a serious commercial venture by the large automaker.

The electric car was killed by big oil, anyone that says otherwise is fooling themselves. Watch http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ we had a viable car that was working from a major manufacture. Had that program been left alone imagine where electric cars would be today. Imagine the infrastructure... jobs and the fact we could potentially reduce our dependence on foreign oil to power our vehicles.

It is a viable tech, but as I noted the lack of infrastructure is a large reason it's having trouble taking hold. The other part is the fact that lobbiests for big oil are working diligently to ensure the electric car doesn't take off.

The simple reality is the number of jobs that can be created just by that industry alone...

- Solar power plants
- Wind power plants
- Nuclear power plants
- Update electrical power distribution grid nationally
- Update parking lots with a wide array of options for EV charging
- Infrastructure support jobs

The list goes on AND we reduce our need to depend on foreign old and this in turn means we can consume what we produce, giving our nation it's power back in the economic picture. But no... let just keep doing things the way we are as it's working so well for us.

RonS
09-25-2012, 15:13
200 or so days a year I drive 20 miles to work and 20 miles back home. I seldom vary that by more than a few miles on any given day, any errends I need to take care of are close by anyway. We have a family car for family car things.

My questions are

Will the charging station work in sunny Ohio in the winter when the days are short, dark and dreary and I am at work from before dawn until at most an hour before dusk?

How much energy does the heater consume when it is -20 outside?

How much does the air conditioning consume when it is 98 degrees and 98% humidity?

Ummagumma
09-25-2012, 15:38
1897 - The first electric taxis hit the streets of New York City early in the year. The Pope Manufacturing Company of Connecticut becomes the first large-scale American electric automobile manufacturer.

1900 - The electric automobile is in its heyday. Of the 4,192 cars produced in the United States 28 percent are powered by electricity, and electric autos represent about one-third of all cars found on the roads of New York City, Boston, and Chicago.

History... it's there and at one time they were a large part of the market. The problems arose due to a lack of technology to keep them competitive.

1988 - Roger Smith, CEO of G.M. , agrees to fund research efforts to build a practical consumer electric car. G.M. teams up with California's AeroVironment to design what would become the EV1, which one employee called "the world's most efficient production vehicle." Some electric vehicle enthusiasts have speculated that the EV1 was never undertaken as a serious commercial venture by the large automaker.

The electric car was killed by big oil, anyone that says otherwise is fooling themselves. Watch http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ we had a viable car that was working from a major manufacture. Had that program been left alone imagine where electric cars would be today. Imagine the infrastructure... jobs and the fact we could potentially reduce our dependence on foreign oil to power our vehicles.

It is a viable tech, but as I noted the lack of infrastructure is a large reason it's having trouble taking hold. The other part is the fact that lobbiests for big oil are working diligently to ensure the electric car doesn't take off.

The simple reality is the number of jobs that can be created just by that industry alone...

- Solar power plants
- Wind power plants
- Nuclear power plants
- Update electrical power distribution grid nationally
- Update parking lots with a wide array of options for EV charging
- Infrastructure support jobs

The list goes on AND we reduce our need to depend on foreign old and this in turn means we can consume what we produce, giving our nation it's power back in the economic picture. But no... let just keep doing things the way we are as it's working so well for us.

GM has problems selling $44K-per-vehicle Volt in $4 per gal market. And from what I read the per vehicle amortized cost is even higher. Tesla prices their cars at $60K. Nissan Leaf is heavily subsidized at $35K. None are really making any money yet.

Remember, in 1996 an average decent car was around $15K, a Corolla was selling below $13K, gas was just over buck a gallon. This was the beginning of SUV craze driven by cheap fuel prices. The research into smart battery technology was just starting, the laptops were still somewhat rare. The technology was undeveloped and about twice as expensive as today. How could GM possibly make any money on an electric car in that environment ? The EV-1 was killed not by "big oil" but by $80K per vehicle price tag, in an economy where nobody would want one anyway. Back in these days, and up to around 2004, everyone I knew was buying SUVs .

janice6
09-25-2012, 15:44
I think Cold Fusion will beat them to market. (Free energy.............):rofl:




Energy will be sold by the Joule, no matter where it comes from.

engineer151515
09-25-2012, 15:55
.......


What are you one of those "that will never work" or "we can't do this" kind of engineers???

.........

:supergrin::supergrin:

Oh the stories I could tell.

Except for the secrecy agreements.

Bruce M
09-25-2012, 16:03
As suggested in some ways electric automobiles really are not new.

http://www.american-automobiles.com/images2/Electric-Car-3.jpg



I am not an electrical engineer but my guess is that the charging station will function quite fine on cloudy days or after dark. I am going to guess that since it will charge the car in thirty minutes that it does not use only the current that is generated by its solar panels. Unless it has say 50,000 solar panels.

Rabbi
09-25-2012, 16:14
Some of you simply dont understand the math of this issue. there is no other detail, belief, conspiracy that can overcome that. You would have to convert much of the land mass of a major city into solar power cells to power the transportation needs of that city. Let that sink in for a minute.

YOU CANT GET PAST THE FACT THAT YOU CAN ONLY EXTRACT AS MUCH POWER FROM THE SUN AS HITS A GIVEN SURFACE AREA (it will always be less actually)

If you cover an Accord in solar panels, at a theoretical 99% conversion rate, you have created an accord that will be able to drive about 4 mph, steady as long as the sun is out.

It takes a lot of power to move a car.

aplcr0331
09-25-2012, 16:19
Some of you simply dont understand the math of this issue. there is no other detail, belief, conspiracy that can overcome that. You would have to convert much of the land mass of a major city into solar power cells to power the transportation needs of that city. Let that sink in for a minute.

Ah, here you go with that damn math stuff again. It just feels good to talk about electric cars and the end of zomfg*BIGOIL*lolBBQ!!!

Math schmath.

jlprtr
09-25-2012, 16:50
Acording to Tesla's web site, you will only get 150 miles out of the thirty minute charge for the 85KWh battery pack.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

Scroll to Supercharger Hardware to read it in their own words.
300 miles is not going to happen after only 30 minutes (yet, anyway).

njl
09-25-2012, 16:56
This is a cool step in the right direction, but I wouldn't call it revolutionary. I'd be surprised if it "changed everything". I think Hybrid electric is a necessary step before full electric is viable.

"The Supercharger system will always generate more power from sunlight than Model S customers use for driving." - Is not a claim they can make.

Still, cool idea. Probably wont be in my price range for a while.

In theory, that could be true, if the solar collectors would generate more power than the # of charging sockets provided could deliver to charging Teslas.

In reality, I seriously doubt that's the case...and they're connected to the grid and will be pulling power from the grid most (if not all) of the time cars are charging...and they figure since the charging stations will be largely unutilized, their net usage of the power grid is negative.

aircarver
09-25-2012, 17:01
Tesla-

Aren't they the ones that 'brick' the batteries ? ... :frown:

.

Al Czervik
09-25-2012, 17:10
When it will keep pace with my motorhome, I'll look at one. I can drive about 14 hours or 1000 miles without stopping for fuel.

jp3975
09-25-2012, 17:24
tagged

Ironbar
09-25-2012, 17:59
This is going to change everything:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-motors-launches-revolutionary-supercharger-032000226.html

It can refuel the equivalent of three hours of 60 mph driving in 30 minutes.

FOR FREE.

The charging station actually creates more power than it uses... from the SUN.

I could see myself in a stylish Model S, two trunks, and 0 to 60 mph in under 4.4 seconds, 17" tablet in the dash sometime soon...
:cool:

http://dvice.com/pics/tesla_model_s.jpg

All this for only a gajillion dollars per car!

podwich
09-25-2012, 18:20
:rofl:



Yeah... if I buy a Tesla for $50K, and fuel it at one of the Tesla stops, it's free.

If I buy an A5 for $50K, I still have to pay for gasoline.


If I buy a car that has prepaid gasoline, is the gasoline free?

If you're prepaying the cost of fuel for your vehicle (even electricity), how do you feel about subsidizing those who will drive much more than you and end up costing you more?

Why do you trust some pie-in-the-sky story about free electricity and disregard hard calculations?

SC Tiger
09-25-2012, 18:28
The Australians are doing it. They fill up at home.

Dual fuel alleviated much of the infrastructure issue while the demand for infrastructure builds.

I'll look into the fill time more. I know my vehicles sit idle for at least 8 hours each night.

I found the article. NFPA fire codes forbid the storage of CNG at a residence. The other problem with home fueling a CNG car is that the current compressors take 22 hours to refuel a standard tank (depending on size I assume) .

Sent from my Kindle Fire

tsmo1066
09-25-2012, 18:39
Solar power alone won't be able to provide energy for most of America's transportation, but that doesn't mean that the old myth of "electric vehicles just push the pollution from the car to the power plant" holds any water, either.

Most power grids in the United States have vast amounts of excess "baseload" electricity that never gets tapped into on most nights. This is because large power plants require ramp-up and ramp-down times for their turbines and it simply isn't efficient to constantly spin them up or down to accomodate fluctuations in power demand at any given time (much like constantly accelerating and decelerating your car causes you to waste gas). As a result, most large coal and gas power plants, and nearly all nuke plants, run at an optimum setting the majority of the time, with "peaker" plants (smaller turbine plants) kicking in during peak demand periods during the day as needed to accomodate periods when power demand starts exceeding baseload capacity.

During evening hours, however, when people are asleep, lights aren't on, AC units aren't straining and running to keep up with daytime heat and office buildings are shut down, there is typically a large amount of excess baseload power on any given grid. This is important because that excess baseload represents power that, for all intents and purposes, simply doesn't get used.

If people charge their electric cars in the evening, the way most folks charge their cell phones, they really aren't causing any additional generation to be required on the part of the power plants servicing their grid, as they are essentially tapping into excess baseload power that would otherwise not be utilized during these off-peak times.

Granted, if everyone goes pure electric and starts charging their cars at night, it could conceivably reach a point where plants would have to actually start generating additional night-time power to service automobile charging, but that's a very long way off. For now, anyone considering electric cars can rest easy knowing that while the power they use to charge them wouldn't be "free" (the utilities will still charge you for it!), that power also won't be causing TVA, Duke, SoCal Edison and other major power utilities to add to their carbon footprint by having to burn more coal or gas to provide power to charge these electric vehicles.

Bruce M
09-25-2012, 19:08
Sorry - now I am confused. Do the power companies generate excess electricity at night and if so what do they do with it? Or are the capabilities similar to a smaller generator that spins at a (nearly) constant speed but uses more fuel if there is more load on the generator?

certifiedfunds
09-25-2012, 19:21
How many miles does it get with the A/C and headlights on?

tsmo1066
09-25-2012, 19:43
Sorry - now I am confused. Do the power companies generate excess electricity at night and if so what do they do with it? Or are the capabilities similar to a smaller generator that spins at a (nearly) constant speed but uses more fuel if there is more load on the generator?

You're right that as load increases, the fuel consumption increases as well. This is true of large plants and smaller ones alike. As for what happens to excess baseload at night, if it can be sold or pushed off to other grids where there is more demand, it is transferred via interconnects, but if there is no demand for it at all, it is simply wasted unless there is some creative way to store a portion of it, such as with a dual-dam hydro system where excess power at night is used to pump water into an upper storage reservoir so it can be released through turbines during the day and flows into a lower reservoir.

Bilbo Bagins
09-25-2012, 20:37
:rofl:



Yeah... if I buy a Tesla for $50K, and fuel it at one of the Tesla stops, it's free.

If I buy an A5 for $50K, I still have to pay for gasoline.

If I buy a car that has prepaid gasoline, is the gasoline free?

If you're prepaying the cost of fuel for your vehicle (even electricity), how do you feel about subsidizing those who will drive much more than you and end up costing you more?

Why do you trust some pie-in-the-sky story about free electricity and disregard hard calculations?

+1

There wlll be no free electricity.

There is no way they will have free charging stations. Its a pipe dream. You know most bridge tolls started out as a temporary measure. Pay the toll for a few years to pay for the project then it will be free...yea right.

With the limited range you will need tens of thousands of recharging stations around the country. Where is Tesla going to get the money to do that?

Also if you buy a $50K Tesla car, you need a solar recharging car port built at you house. Is that going to be free? Probably not.

Say it cost $40K to put in the recharging car port in my driveway. No problem you will make that money back in savings right.

A $22K base model Toyota Camry 4cylinder has get 25 in the city and 35 on the highway and has a 17 gallon tank. But lets make the math easy

A gas car that gets an average 30MPG requires on average 10 gallons of gas a week to travel 300 miles. The Tesla will require 2 half hour charges.

10 Gallons a week for 52 weeks out of the year = 520 gallons. Over 10 years that is 5,200 gallons of gas. If gas was $5 a gallon that is $26,000 total spent on gas. Ohh but if gas was $8 a gallon like DanaT pays for diesel in europe the total fuel cost would be $41,600, so you would save $1,600...right?

But now your Tesla is 10 year old and over the last 2 years your battery has been holding less and less of a charge. Now it is officially dead and you will either need to replace it or get a new Tesla car. Also lets not forget the life span of the carport's batteries and the solar cells. The whole charging carport will need to be refurbished too.

Meanwhile the guy with the 10 year old fuel burning car drove 300 miles a week for 10 years. Now he has a car with 156K on the odometer. It still has some value if he wants to sell it or he can keep driving it for a few more years if he so chooses.

So who made out at the end :dunno:

Again ladies and gents...NOTHING IS FREE.

janice6
09-25-2012, 20:47
http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html

Watch out for the "Qualifiers" in this.

"In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year."

(That's 1 X 10^ 12. but assume only 50% efficiency, that is only 0.5 X 10^12.
----I love this logic)

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 06:49
Because it's not a sustainable promo.

Yeah... but it's a badass promo if you're rollin' in a Tesla.

If they chambered a Glock in proprietary "Gecko45 .45" and it cost $10K and they were giving away free ammunition from now until ??? (maybe next week, maybe next year, maybe 5 years) I'd buy one and shoot the hell out of it.

BTW- my unlimited data plan for my smartphone has been "unsustainable" for many years now. :supergrin:

At the end of the day, the only people who have money to buy a car will be those who can afford it.

So the poor will be left out. Ok you all seem OK with that.

Blah Blah Blah... OK, poor people won't be big wheeling like they were back in the day. So what?

The corporations will build them a nice little campus to live on like Fox Conn and they can ride the electric monorail to work. :supergrin:


Not bad AT ALL.


I'm impressed.

You should be... it's a cool car with impressive capabilities and a cool promo plan.

This is something we should all get behind. I'd rather see my tax money go to gov funded infrastructure for something like this than "affordable housing" or agricultural subsidies or tax breaks for churches...

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:07
True but we have a limited supply of mineral and chemical resources to build billions of car batteries. At the end of the day, the only people who have money to buy a car will be those who can afford it.

So the poor will be left out. Ok you all seem OK with that.




:dunno: Isn't that how it is now?

I would imagine the poor will be able to buy used electric cars once the batteries are crapped out to the point that they can only get a few miles per charge.....from JD Byrider

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:09
This is something we should all get behind. I'd rather see my tax money go to gov funded infrastructure for something like this than "affordable housing" or agricultural subsidies or tax breaks for churches...

Um, no.

Quit confiscating so much tax money and let people buy the car they choose.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 07:13
All this for only a gajillion dollars per car!

If 50 G's is "a gajillion dollars" to you, you've been on Obama's unemployment line for too long.


Why do you trust some pie-in-the-sky story about free electricity and disregard hard calculations?

I can disregard the calculations because they are made by people who think Keltec is something to bet your life on, Bushmaster is a decent rifle, and Invicta is a tasteful timepiece.

:rofl:

+1

There wlll be no free electricity. There is no way they will have free charging stations. Its a pipe dream.

No, there will be. At the locations posted on the map.

You can go there and get your charge on for free starting next month. It's real.


A $22K base model Toyota Camry 4cylinder...

:upeyes:

This has already been addressed.

My 10/22 puts .22 caliber holes in paper just like my Noveske Crusader, but it's not the same thing.


Now he has a car with 156K on the odometer. It still has some value if he wants to sell it...

What is the residual value of a vehicle with 156K on it that still runs?

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 07:16
Um, no.

Quit confiscating so much tax money and let people buy the car they choose.

They're going to take it for something.

If they're going to blow my cash on science, I want green tech focused on reducing our dependence on foreign oil- NOT ROVERS ON THE PLANET MARS!!!

:steamed:

If they're going to blow my cash on green tech, I want infrastructure investments and implementation of current cutting edge innovations, NOT "RESEARCH" OR SOLYNDRA SCAMS!

:upeyes:

But yes, you're absolutely correct, it would be nice if we could all pay 66% less in taxes and not have as much nonsense going on.

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:17
I'm seeing charging stations now even in the south. It sucks because they're usually just empty parking places. Prime spaces too.

So, I pull my regular rental car up to them, pull the cord in the door and close it.

Prove I'm not recharging mallcop

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:18
They're going to take it for something.

If they're going to blow my cash on science, I want green tech focused on reducing our dependence on foreign oil- NOT ROVERS ON THE PLANET MARS!!!



Electric cars aren't needed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 07:20
So, I pull my regular rental car up to them, pull the cord in the door and close it.


You sound like a great citizen and neighbor.

:upeyes:

Electric cars aren't needed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Every little bit counts. Even driving less or using mass transit.

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:22
You sound like a great citizen and neighbor.

:upeyes:


No one is using them. How many people do you know with plug in cars?

Every little bit counts. Even driving less or using mass transit.

How are you going to feel about dependence on foreign lithium?

Natural gas is the answer. Building the canadian pipeline is the answer. We don't need electric cars for another 100 years.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 07:40
No one is using them. How many people do you know with plug in cars?

LOL... actually a few in my building.

One of my neighbors (not sure who) has a Tesla Roadster.


How are you going to feel about dependence on foreign lithium?

Better than Oil.

How do you think Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile are going to feel? :supergrin:

Natural gas is the answer. Building the canadian pipeline is the answer. We don't need electric cars for another 100 years.

That's old tech.

We're moving right past that garbage.

(OT: There's got to be some link politically/ culturally here between the fear of something new and distaste for things that are just different than the old way. This is PROGRESS, Tovaraschi! :supergrin: )

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 07:51
LOL... actually a few in my building.

One of my neighbors (not sure who) has a Tesla Roadster.



Better than Oil.

How do you think Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile are going to feel? :supergrin:



That's old tech.

We're moving right past that garbage.

(OT: There's got to be some link politically/ culturally here between the fear of something new and distaste for things that are just different than the old way. This is PROGRESS, Tovaraschi! :supergrin: )

I get it. You don't really care about the foreign oil thing. You want a cool electric car and you want your fellow citizens to pay for it.

just be straight up. It's easier.

Bilbo Bagins
09-26-2012, 07:55
What is the residual value of a vehicle with 156K on it that still runs?

A 2002 Toyota Camry with 156000 miles has a trade in value between $3,200 and $4,925. The Retail value if its very clean is $7,225. Remember this car sold for around $20K new, so its a loss $13K if you are able to sell the car yourself.

http://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/2002/Toyota/Camry-4-Cyl/Sedan-4D-LE/Standard-Equipment

How much 10 year old Telsa, with 156K miles and a dead battery, be worth...who knows :dunno:

SC Tiger
09-26-2012, 08:14
A 2002 Toyota Camry with 156000 miles has a trade in value between $3,200 and $4,925. The Retail value if its very clean is $7,225. Remember this car sold for around $20K new, so its a loss $13K if you are able to sell the car yourself.

http://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/2002/Toyota/Camry-4-Cyl/Sedan-4D-LE/Standard-Equipment

How much 10 year old Telsa, with 156K miles and a dead battery, be worth...who knows :dunno:

I had a thread a while back where I posted about a Tesla owner leaving their car unplugged for two months and the battery "bricked" (ie went dead and could not be charged). The "friends and neighbors" price for a new battery was $40,000 at the time. This design flaw (that's what it is regardless of what Tesla says) was fixed but the price for the battery is probably about the same or more.

SC Tiger
09-26-2012, 08:23
You're right that as load increases, the fuel consumption increases as well. This is true of large plants and smaller ones alike. As for what happens to excess baseload at night, if it can be sold or pushed off to other grids where there is more demand, it is transferred via interconnects, but if there is no demand for it at all, it is simply wasted unless there is some creative way to store a portion of it, such as with a dual-dam hydro system where excess power at night is used to pump water into an upper storage reservoir so it can be released through turbines during the day and flows into a lower reservoir.

Duke Power does that here - pumps water from Hartwell to Keowee and Keowee to Jocassee. Probably part of the reason Hartwell tends to be low. During the day they release water from Jocassee to Keowee and Keowee to Hartwell through Hydroelectric generators. I think the Keowee to Hartwell dump may be done at the Oconee Nuclear Site.

Geko45
09-26-2012, 08:33
Solar power alone won't be able to provide energy for most of America's transportation, but that doesn't mean that the old myth of "electric vehicles just push the pollution from the car to the power plant" holds any water, either.

Your argument completely ignores the added pollution involved in manufacturing a tremendous amount of solar panels to support such a system (as well as representing an incomplete understanding of the issue you do address).

A typical solar panel gives only a 1.5:1 to 1.7:1 return on energy invested over the course of it's entire useful life. To say that differently, if you use one unit of energy to create the solar panel then it will give you back 1.5 to 1.7 units during it's total service life (a 50% to 70% return on energy invested). Add to that the extremely noxious and toxic nature of photovoltaic manufacturing processes and the pollution effects are much more significant.

Combine that with the previously mentioned fact that powerplants do use more fuel under load than not (just to spin at a constant optimum rate) and what little net savings you had gets used up and you are barely even positive for having gone through all the extra effort (if not slightly in the red).

Thermodynamics, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Geko45
09-26-2012, 08:59
And a practical consideration on photovoltaics... Let's say I have one unit of energy right now. I can either use it to move my car down the road about 100 miles or I can use it to build a photovoltaic cell that can move my car too (ignore the engineering aspects for a moment). If I choose to use the energy to move my car then I can do that right now. I just get in and go and in about an hour and a half I've gone 100 miles. All is good.

If I choose to use my unit of energy to build the photovoltaic cell then I will get back my initial investment of one unit, plus about 60% more (on average). Great, right? I can now move my car 160 miles for the same initial energy investment. Well, yes, but with a catch. That 1.6 units I get back are over the entire useful life of the panel. They aren't avaiable to me immediately, so I can't use them right now. If I wait 10 years and store up all that energy then I will be able to travel 160 miles, but for today I'm stuck right here.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 09:10
I get it. You don't really care about the foreign oil thing. You want a cool electric car and you want your fellow citizens to pay for it.

just be straight up. It's easier.

Nah, I'm pretty big on the foreign oil thing. And the getting something both tangible and useful for my tax money thing.

Also I want a cool electric car. :cool:

Just be straight up... the world is changing and it scares you.

Well, yes, but with a catch. That 1.6 units I get back are over the entire useful life of the panel. They aren't avaiable to me immediately, so I can't use them right now.

That's why you shouldn't buy new PVC's every week. It wouldn't be efficient.

I don't know anyone who would actually do that... but ummm... tharrrr ya' go!

Geko45
09-26-2012, 09:15
That's why you shouldn't buy new PVC's every week. It wouldn't be efficient.

I don't know anyone who would actually do that... but ummm... tharrrr ya' go!

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here or how it relates to my post.

:dunno:

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 09:18
Nah, I'm pretty big on the foreign oil thing. And the getting something both tangible and useful for my tax money thing.

Also I want a cool electric car. :cool:

Just be straight up... the world is changing and it scares you.



That's why you shouldn't buy new PVC's every week. It wouldn't be efficient.

I don't know anyone who would actually do that... but ummm... tharrrr ya' go!


You aren't big on the foreign oil thing or you wouldn't dismiss the obvious solution in favor of electric cars.

We have a solution available today. Natural gas.

This wouldn't be about MMGW would it?

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 09:25
This wouldn't be about MMGW would it?

Making Middle Grades Work?

:dunno:

Zombie Surgeon
09-26-2012, 09:28
Who need's Edison's new fangled "light bulbs" when the trusty ol' gas lamp works just fine?


Are we talking cars or flashlights?
:whistling:

MtBaldy
09-26-2012, 09:44
Then there's this:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tesla-shares-drop-after-cutting-outlook-3894159.php

Zombie Surgeon
09-26-2012, 09:49
Funny.

Your post promotes old, outdated tech as a solution for the next... 50 years???



Old? Yes.

Outdated?

I don't think so.

Pound per pound, a diesel engine is more efficient than a gasoline one. It lasts longer. It gives the automobile longer range between fueling. It is more reliable and requires less maintenance. It runs on practically almost anything that burns including coal (yes, you read that right, coal (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html)), vegetable grease and used motor oil? Did you know that its inventor Rudolf Diesel original intention was to make it to run on peanut oil? Petroleum based diesel fuel was ultimately used by vehicle manufacturers because at the time it was cheaper than peanut oil. Did you know the new engines equipping European cars are cleaner and have less environmental impact than their gasoline versions? And that in many European countries like France, Italy, Spain, Belgium or Netherlands diesel automobiles on the road surpass gasoline automobiles 60% to 40% and their percentage increases every year? And finally, did you know that BMW's rally cars are diesel engine equipped and they beat the crap out of their competition?

So yes, the diesel may be old. But the modern ones are refined efficient and clean and they are no longer your dad's '81 Mercedes 300.
Please come back and tell me diesel are outdated when you'll have an electrical automobile that you can drive 450-600 miles between charging station visits and when the charging station visit is only gonna take 5 minutes.

Until then, clean diesel is the future for the next 50 years:

http://autoya.info/img/content/1224/BMW_735d_engine_diesel.jpg

SC Tiger
09-26-2012, 10:03
Old? Yes.

Outdated?

I don't think so.

Pound per pound, a diesel engine is more efficient than a gasoline one. It lasts longer. It gives the automobile longer range between fueling. It is more reliable and requires less maintenance. It runs on practically almost anything that burns. Did you know that its inventor Rudolf Diesel original intention was to make it to run on peanut oil? Diesel fuel was ultimately used by vehicle manufacturers because it was cheaper than peanut oil. Did you know the new engines equipping European cars are cleaner and have less environmental impact than their gasoline versions? And that in many European countries like France, Italy, Spain, Belgium or Netherlands diesel automobiles on the road surpass gasoline automobiles 60% to 40% and the ir percentage increases every year? And finally, did you know that BMW's rally cars are diesel engine equipped and they beat the crap out of their competition?

So yes, the diesel may be old. But the modern ones are refined efficient and clean and they are no longer your dad's '81 Mercedes 300.
Please come back and tell me diesel are outdated when you'll have an electrical automobile that you can drive 450-600 miles between charging station visits and when the charging station visit is only gonna take 5 minutes.

Until then, clean diesel is the future for the next 50 years:

http://autoya.info/img/content/1224/BMW_735d_engine_diesel.jpg

Valid points but Diesel is still a fossil fuel refined from crude oil, so we will still be dependent on foreign oil unless we start using either biodiesel or some other fuel source.

I do think shifting the majority of passenger cars to Diesel would be a good move for one reason though. Currently oil refineries have to decide whether to produce either gasoline or Diesel. If all IC engines were diesel (a pipe dream I know but this is a theoretical argument) then the price of Diesel should drop which should result in cheaper transportation and lower prices for shipped goods. I know the word "should" is in there an awful lot, primarily because I don't trust big oil 100%.

However I must agree that CNG is a viable solution that should be explored, especially as a bi-fuel car (these exist now). Electric cars are a great concept but I don't think the technology is ready, and I'm quite sure the US population is not ready for them.

One other question - can a modern Diesel run on the fuels you listed (with or without modification)? I am referring to the engine itself, as I am sure the fuel delivery system would be different.

tsmo1066
09-26-2012, 10:10
Your argument completely ignores the added pollution involved in manufacturing a tremendous amount of solar panels to support such a system (as well as representing an incomplete understanding of the issue you do address).

A typical solar panel gives only a 1.5:1 to 1.7:1 return on energy invested over the course of it's entire useful life. To say that differently, if you use one unit of energy to create the solar panel then it will give you back 1.5 to 1.7 units during it's total service life (a 50% to 70% return on energy invested). Add to that the extremely noxious and toxic nature of photovoltaic manufacturing processes and the pollution effects are much more significant.

Combine that with the previously mentioned fact that powerplants do use more fuel under load than not (just to spin at a constant optimum rate) and what little net savings you had gets used up and you are barely even positive for having gone through all the extra effort (if not slightly in the red).

Thermodynamics, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.


Not sure if I missed something, but I wasn't talking about solar energy at all. :dunno:

As for the additional fuel use created by charging cars at night, that is a truly negligible amount AT BEST considering that baseload generation is often being utilized at less than 60% capacity at night to begin with in many regions. Plug every electric car in Atlanta up to a power outlet at night and you would MAYBE increase load in that area from, say, 65% on a given evening to 65.01%. That wouldn't realistically require any measurable amount of additional fuel to service.

And that doesn't even consider additional factors like Nuke plants that service some grids. The Okonee Nuclear Station, the Santa Onofre plant in California and other nuclear facilities run at flat-out maximum temperature and capacity 100% of the time regardless of load, and additional demand on the grid does not cause them to chew up more fissile material one way or another.

That being said, in the distant future, if electric cars become the norm rather than the exception, this would all change as the act of charging such a vast number of vehicles WOULD be enough to put some real demand on the grid and could conceivably constitute enough of an additional load to require significantly more fuel to service (at least in areas not being serviced by nuclear facilities).

Geko45
09-26-2012, 10:17
Plug every electric car in Atlanta up to a power outlet at night and you would MAYBE increase load in that area from, say, 65% on a given evening to 65.01%. That wouldn't realistically require any measurable amount of additional fuel to service.

If every car in Atlanta were electric (even just a significant pecentage) then those figures would be off by several orders of magnitude.

DanaT
09-26-2012, 10:21
Acording to Tesla's web site, you will only get 150 miles out of the thirty minute charge for the 85KWh battery pack.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

Scroll to Supercharger Hardware to read it in their own words.
300 miles is not going to happen after only 30 minutes (yet, anyway).

Go to the charging page....

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/charging#/installation

Read "prep your garage"

It says you need a 240V / 50Amp circuit.

Lets do some basic calculations

Going back to the link in the quoted area above:
10kW on board charger. Upto 31 miles charging rate per hour.

So lets look at that

10kW = 10000W

10000W/230V = 44 Amps.

You must use the next biggest amp rating for a fuse...50 amps.

Go back to my original calculations...guess what...these numbers match my calculations.

To charge the equivalent of 15 gallons of fuel in one half hour, it would take more than 4000 amps at 230V.

Also, with a 400hp car, how long do you really think the battery will last (hint...all the calculations you can do easily) if you use any real acceleration. Lets ask it easy..how long will the battery last (lets say the 85 kWh) if you use an average of 56.5 hp?

DanaT
09-26-2012, 10:30
As for the additional fuel use created by charging cars at night, that is a truly negligible amount AT BEST considering that baseload generation is often being utilized at less than 60% capacity at night to begin with in many regions. Plug every electric car in Atlanta up to a power outlet at night and you would MAYBE increase load in that area from, say, 65% on a given evening to 65.01%. That wouldn't realistically require any measurable amount of additional fuel to service.

Lets explore this.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

The average house in the USA uses 958kWh / month

Now lets say that you have two cars in a household. Both drivers are very green and buy they really efficient teslas. Probably will need to charge that tesla 2 twice a week (at a minimum) using 85kWh each charge. So two cars, 85kWh,8 times a month.

2*8*85 = 1360kWh of energy used.

How do you figure more than doubling (load would go up by (1360+958)/958 = 2.4 times the electricity used) would only result in a situation where the power grid could support 2.4X the load it already has?

At peak times, the grid already cannot handle the load in some places.

fnfalman
09-26-2012, 10:37
If I were to spend 100K on a car, it'd best be a chick magnet.

tsmo1066
09-26-2012, 11:15
If every car in Atlanta were electric (even just a significant pecentage) then those figures would be off by several orders of magnitude.

I agree. Like I said, if electric cars ever become the norm (or a significant percentage, as you note) rather than the exception all bets are off, but that's not realistically going to happen anywhere in the next decade or two. For now, however, the argument that going electric simply pushes pollution from the car to the power plant remains false. There's more than enough "slack" in the power grid to absorb a great deal of electric car usage without significantly increasing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions.

DanaT
09-26-2012, 11:20
If I were to spend 100K on a car, it'd best be a chick magnet.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/pimpcar.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JzUx44lr8WA/SJs75tge0MI/AAAAAAAACS4/vrrVd-n2MqI/s1600/medium_2737259675_03fd797ddf_o.jpg

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 11:52
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JzUx44lr8WA/SJs75tge0MI/AAAAAAAACS4/vrrVd-n2MqI/s1600/medium_2737259675_03fd797ddf_o.jpg

What a DBag :rofl:

DanaT
09-26-2012, 11:59
What a DBag :rofl:

Yeah, but you should see the jet ski in his garage. Occasionally an old lady rides a bike by his house and yells profanity his way....

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 12:16
Yeah, but you should see the jet ski in his garage. Occasionally an old lady rides a bike by his house and yells profanity his way....

Oh noes lololol

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 14:02
Upto 31 miles charging rate per hour.


This arithmetic is still wrong.

31 miles/ charge hour is the travel charger.

62 miles/ charge hour is the home (twin) charger.

300 miles/ charge hour is the super charger.

180 miles/ 30 min. charge hour is the super chargers quoted capacity from the article. This one says 150 though:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0925/Tesla-superchargers-up-the-ante-for-green-technologies

Geko45
09-26-2012, 14:06
This arithmetic is still wrong.

31 miles/ charge hour is the travel charger.

62 miles/ charge hour is the home charger.

300 miles/ charge hour is the super charger.

180 miles/ 30 min. charge hour is the super chargers quoted capacity from the article. This one says 150 though:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0925/Tesla-superchargers-up-the-ante-for-green-technologies

I think you lost the adapter somewhere along the way so now you're screwed.

:tongueout:

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 14:07
What's the charge time on USB?

DanaT
09-26-2012, 14:13
This arithmetic is still wrong.

31 miles/ charge hour is the travel charger.

62 miles/ charge hour is the home charger.

300 miles/ charge hour is the super charger.

180 miles/ 30 min. charge hour is the super chargers quoted capacity from the article. This one says 150 though:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0925/Tesla-superchargers-up-the-ante-for-green-technologies

Your reading ability is as poor as your math ability.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/highpowerwallconnector.pdf

If you look at the 62 mile charge per hour...it is called a "twin charger".

And it says exactly how many amps are needed at 250V???

100 AMPS

How about that. You want to charge at twice the race using the same voltage, you need twice the amps.

I bet you wonder why it needs TWO chargers? Well, show me a house that has 250V/100amp receptacle...

So, you cant multiply, cant read, and yet you are to be taken seriously????

DanaT
09-26-2012, 14:16
What's the charge time on USB?

Well...lets assume 5 volts max USB voltage.

Now lets assume 1.02 megaAmps current.

Right at one minute for a 85kW battery...


I need to add to this...I hope it is a battery under 5V or it wont charge...

Bilbo Bagins
09-26-2012, 14:30
A typical solar panel gives only a 1.5:1 to 1.7:1 return on energy invested over the course of it's entire useful life. To say that differently, if you use one unit of energy to create the solar panel then it will give you back 1.5 to 1.7 units during it's total service life (a 50% to 70% return on energy invested). Add to that the extremely noxious and toxic nature of photovoltaic manufacturing processes and the pollution effects are much more significant.

+1 and we still have the issues of the batteries. The manufacturing process involves a lot of chemicals, and raw material. Right now, just like oil, we are running short on easy to find Lithium sources like extracting it from salt flats. Eventually higher lithium demand will lead to strip mining of mountain ranges like the Andes.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10077965-54.html

And everyone is forgetting what happens a decade after the mass prduction of electric cars. What happens to all the old batteries? Sure some componet can be re-cycled, but what about all the waste chemicals and materials. Do we just bury them or dump them in the ocean?

Strip mining mountain ranges, toxic manufacturing, and Chemical waste. Sounds real Green does it?

DanaT
09-26-2012, 14:35
+

And everyone is forgetting what happens a decade after the mass prduction of electric cars. What happens to all the old batteries? Sure some componet can be re-cycled, but what about all the waste chemicals and materials. Do we just bury them or dump them in the ocean?

Lithium hexaflouride when in contact with any amount of water has a chemical reaction and one of the products is HF. HF is really nice stuff to deal with....and safe too....

aplcr0331
09-26-2012, 14:47
Lithium hexaflouride when in contact with any amount of water has a chemical reaction and one of the products is HF. HF is really nice stuff to deal with....and safe too....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDm9RG-Jfpse7GtekogX7tEhFx6UZ6MTDaAXFrQytKHwvgH10n60F0yjsE

edit: Nevermind, I just read the wiki on Hydrogen fluoride.

Zombie Surgeon
09-26-2012, 14:49
Valid points but Diesel is still a fossil fuel refined from crude oil, so we will still be dependent on foreign oil unless we start using either biodiesel or some other fuel source.



As I already mentioned: we have the technology to make diesel fuel from coal. Never mind VVO (veggie diesel) or biodiesel - that's simple technology that many Americans already have and use to make fuel in their backyard shed. (http://www.springboardbiodiesel.com/)

All we need to do is to build coal-based synthetic diesel plants. In America we have more coal that we could ever burn in 400 years so why not use it? We do not need to create a special infrastructure for distribution, new plug-in stations, nothing that would take decades to build and would be prohibitively expensive.

Just build the synthetic diesel plant and use the existing infrastructure to transport it and sell it. Simple.

Jack23
09-26-2012, 14:51
Someday probably be the way to go; probably be accepted in Europe before the US. I just don't think the American people are ready for this yet

Merlin40
09-26-2012, 14:54
We had some of these "green" cars in Oklahoma the last 2 years. We had 26" of snow. All those little green fellers were flat out stuck. I pulled one or two out with my Dodge RAM 4x4. One guy was from CA. He told me it wasn't supossed to snow like this in OK. I just smiled. I also did some pricing on the replacement batteries for these cars. A replacement battery for a Toyota is like 2700 dollars. That doesn't count the labor, and downtime spent while they replace it. The total is like 3800 dollars. They say these batteries are good for like 10 years. I'll keep my gas guzzling Dodge, thank you. (The wife has a Pathfinder) We go WHERE we want, WHEN we want.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 14:56
Your reading ability is as poor as your math ability.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/highpowerwallconnector.pdf

If you look at the 62 mile charge per hour...it is called a "twin charger".

And it says exactly how many amps are needed at 250V???

100 AMPS

How about that. You want to charge at twice the race using the same voltage, you need twice the amps.

I bet you wonder why it needs TWO chargers? Well, show me a house that has 250V/100amp receptacle...

So, you cant multiply, cant read, and yet you are to be taken seriously????

The home charger is a twin charger. I will revise my previous post.

I have 200 AMP service... so I guess I'd need to install a 100 AMP receptacle. A few of the new places around here already have them in certain garage spots.

They can't be too expensive... Target has them and you're starting to see them all over...

You're going to have to try harder to kill the awesome. This arithmetic just isn't working...

Merlin40
09-26-2012, 15:21
The home charger is a twin charger. I will revise my previous post.

I have 200 AMP service... so I guess I'd need to install a 100 AMP receptacle. A few of the new places around here already have them in certain garage spots.

They can't be too expensive... Target has them and you're starting to see them all over...

You're going to have to try harder to kill the awesome. This arithmetic just isn't working... Not trying to "kill the awesome", but you do understand that unless you are licensed as an electrician, you can install anything you like, But you CANNOT hook it up to live power. Doing so would put you in violation of most city codes. That would be an additional cost from the electrician. And something else you may not have considered. I've heard that if that battery sits for a bit, it "self-drains", i.e. loses its charge. Not sure if that's true. In any event, Both the wife and I keep both of our 4-wheel drives full at all times. We also have 5 5-gallon gas cans that we keep full. If SHTF, we are ready to git gone. I'm thinking your electric thing can't do that. I know those itty bitty cars are cute, and cool. But if you ever REALLY need it to bug out, you're gonna be left short. JMHO.

certifiedfunds
09-26-2012, 16:33
Well...lets assume 5 volts max USB voltage.

Now lets assume 1.02 megaAmps current.

Right at one minute for a 85kW battery...


I need to add to this...I hope it is a battery under 5V or it wont charge...

I'm thinking......if you charge the car fully, then get a cigarette lighter adapter and plug the car's charging cord into the cigarette lighter, I believe you could drive indefinitely.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 17:49
Doing so would put you in violation of most city codes.

Stop the insanity.

My parking space cost $20K (or at least that's what I was asked to factor into my bid :upeyes:) and my garage has no hookups. Everything else being built new around here does have hookups (which I assume could be made compatible).

There's probably even some bizarre tax incentive if you DO install hookups... probably linked to some LEED certification scam (OMG... don't get me started!).

So yeah, basically the opposite of what you think.


If SHTF, we are ready to git gone. I'm thinking your electric thing can't do that.

Put it away, junior... and don't be waving that thing around me...

:upeyes:

larry_minn
09-26-2012, 19:53
Not trying to "kill the awesome", but you do understand that unless you are licensed as an electrician, you can install anything you like, But you CANNOT hook it up to live power. Doing so would put you in violation of most city codes. That would be an additional cost from the electrician. And something else you may not have considered. I've heard that if that battery sits for a bit, it "self-drains", i.e. loses its charge. Not sure if that's true. In any event, Both the wife and I keep both of our 4-wheel drives full at all times. We also have 5 5-gallon gas cans that we keep full. If SHTF, we are ready to git gone. I'm thinking your electric thing can't do that. I know those itty bitty cars are cute, and cool. But if you ever REALLY need it to bug out, you're gonna be left short. JMHO.

Dang I thought the rules/laws in my area were bad. You honestly can't hook up electrical on your own property??
I was ticked enough that I had to get a permit to BUILD a shed. Then I had to get a insepctor take a look after I was done. (basicly he came over/plugged into couple outlets, asked to find if I knew anything about GFI/had done it)
Said "looks good to me" and signed off.
We got a new one. He was a little more fussy at first. Then got to where he ok'd stuff.
BTW I did not put in 220 plug in my garage. Would take me longer to get stuff from town then to do it.

podwich
09-26-2012, 19:54
Your reading ability is as poor as your math ability.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/highpowerwallconnector.pdf

If you look at the 62 mile charge per hour...it is called a "twin charger".

And it says exactly how many amps are needed at 250V???

100 AMPS

How about that. You want to charge at twice the race using the same voltage, you need twice the amps.

I bet you wonder why it needs TWO chargers? Well, show me a house that has 250V/100amp receptacle...

So, you cant multiply, cant read, and yet you are to be taken seriously????

He doesn't like facts. They don't fit his worldview. Therefore, they are wrong.

Sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

KalashniKEV
09-26-2012, 20:17
He doesn't like facts. They don't fit his worldview. Therefore, they are wrong.

Sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

OK... but here's the really funny part...


If you plug in at the Tesla Supercharger:

1) You get 300 miles/ charge hour.
2) It's free.


If you plug in at the home... I mean, ummm, "twin" charger:

1) You get 62 miles/ charge hour.


If you plug in at your buddies place, and he's not drying clothes that night:

1) You get 31 miles/ charge hour.



I was starting to think he may be a competing designer in the electric car business, until I realized his mathematics are false.

Them's the facts (above).

Pick a different angle for your naysaying- something like:

1) You only save X number of dollars per day, so it takes Y days to save $100.
2) PVC manufacturing pollutes.
3) The supercharger stations won't be self sustaining after everyone buys a Tesla.
4) Poor people can't big wheel it like they used to.
5) Taxes are for subsidized housing, not strategic energy planning.

This whole, "Coke Zero has 100 calories because it's sweet and 100 calories = 418.4 joules" is just wacky...

tsmo1066
09-26-2012, 22:43
Lets explore this.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

The average house in the USA uses 958kWh / month

Now lets say that you have two cars in a household. Both drivers are very green and buy they really efficient teslas. Probably will need to charge that tesla 2 twice a week (at a minimum) using 85kWh each charge. So two cars, 85kWh,8 times a month.

2*8*85 = 1360kWh of energy used.

How do you figure more than doubling (load would go up by (1360+958)/958 = 2.4 times the electricity used) would only result in a situation where the power grid could support 2.4X the load it already has?

At peak times, the grid already cannot handle the load in some places.

You need to re-read my posts. I'm not talking about charging cars during peak periods, but rather doing so during off-peak periods, mainly at night.

You are also assuming that EVERY house would have not one, but two electric cars to charge and I was quite explicit in stating that if the use of electric vehicles ever became the norm, rather than the exception, the concept of using off-peak power without impacting overall pollution levels would collapse.

It's the "stadium principle" at work. If one person, or a few, stand up in a stadium, they get a better view of the game. If everyone stands up to watch, nobody gets a better view of anything.

DanaT
09-27-2012, 00:31
OK... but here's the really funny part...


If you plug in at the Tesla Supercharger:

1) You get 300 miles/ charge hour.
2) It's free.


If you plug in at the home... I mean, ummm, "twin" charger:

1) You get 62 miles/ charge hour.


If you plug in at your buddies place, and he's not drying clothes that night:

1) You get 31 miles/ charge hour.



I was starting to think he may be a competing designer in the electric car business, until I realized his mathematics are false.

Them's the facts (above).

Pick a different angle for your naysaying- something like:

1) You only save X number of dollars per day, so it takes Y days to save $100.
2) PVC manufacturing pollutes.
3) The supercharger stations won't be self sustaining after everyone buys a Tesla.
4) Poor people can't big wheel it like they used to.
5) Taxes are for subsidized housing, not strategic energy planning.

This whole, "Coke Zero has 100 calories because it's sweet and 100 calories = 418.4 joules" is just wacky...

No it's not wacky.

What it is is showing that you are completely uneducated fool.

It doesnt matter if I have driven 1600 meters or 1 mile...I have driven the same distance, I just measured it in two different ways.

It doesn't matter if I talk about joules (which is a watt second) or a kilowatt hour (1000 watts for 3600 seconds). It just shows how much energy is available and the basic lack of education you have.

And we wonder why the country is in trouble.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MrGlock21
09-27-2012, 00:38
The sound of music.
Electric cars don't sound and smell right.

KalashniKEV
09-27-2012, 04:48
It doesn't matter if I talk about joules (which is a watt second) or a kilowatt hour (1000 watts for 3600 seconds). It just shows how much energy is available and the basic lack of education you have.

How long to charge at the super charger and what is the cost?

At home?

engineer151515
09-27-2012, 05:33
OK... but here's the really funny part...


If you plug in at the Tesla Supercharger:

1) You get 300 miles/ charge hour.
2) It's free.


If you plug in at the home... I mean, ummm, "twin" charger:

1) You get 62 miles/ charge hour.


If you plug in at your buddies place, and he's not drying clothes that night:

1) You get 31 miles/ charge hour.



I was starting to think he may be a competing designer in the electric car business, until I realized his mathematics are false.

Them's the facts (above).

Pick a different angle for your naysaying- something like:

1) You only save X number of dollars per day, so it takes Y days to save $100.
2) PVC manufacturing pollutes.
3) The supercharger stations won't be self sustaining after everyone buys a Tesla.
4) Poor people can't big wheel it like they used to.
5) Taxes are for subsidized housing, not strategic energy planning.

This whole, "Coke Zero has 100 calories because it's sweet and 100 calories = 418.4 joules" is just wacky...


You weren't an early investor in the Moller Skycar, were you?

SC Tiger
09-27-2012, 07:18
I'm thinking......if you charge the car fully, then get a cigarette lighter adapter and plug the car's charging cord into the cigarette lighter, I believe you could drive indefinitely.

For that matter, just put a wind turbine on top of the car. As you drive the air going over the car will spin the propeller and run the generator, recharging the car. :tongueout:

certifiedfunds
09-27-2012, 07:20
For that matter, just put a wind turbine on top of the car. As you drive the air going over the car will spin the propeller and run the generator, recharging the car. :tongueout:

You are a thinking man. :cool:

John Rambo
09-27-2012, 07:22
The sound of music.
Electric cars don't sound and smell right.

Damn skippy.

Its like Turkey Bacon or being a male vegan. Just wasn't meant to be.

John Rambo
09-27-2012, 07:24
For that matter, just put a wind turbine on top of the car. As you drive the air going over the car will spin the propeller and run the generator, recharging the car. :tongueout:

Why get so high tech? Engines are very wasteful, so just recycle all those unburnt and perfectly usable fumes that get pumped out of your engine. I bet you could pick up at LEAST 40MPG more with it. I've attached a diagram below.

http://www.eugeneleafty.com/DEI/Nebraska%20GM%20Modern%20Muscle%20%20View%20topic%20-%20Turbo%20Questions%20(pg%201)_files/mht2993(1).jpg

PEC-Memphis
09-27-2012, 17:03
"Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid. In addition to lowering the cost of electricity (:rofl: solar can't beat coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro in terms of cost per kWh over the lifetime of the system. - If all cost were taken into account - this would actually result in a net INCREASE in the cost of electricity) this addresses a commonly held misunderstanding that charging an electric car simply pushes carbon emissions to the power plant. (:rofl: Ok - your right - only 99.99997% of the electricity consumed by electric vehicles gets pushed back to the power plant) The Supercharger system will always generate more power from sunlight than Model S customers use for driving. By adding even a small solar system at their home, electric car owners can extend this same principle to local city driving too. (:rofl: - Ok your correct - an installed cost $10,000 system will produce maybe 2 kWh per day - based upon 0.32 kWh per mile - a day's worth of solar charging at home would get you about 6 miles additional range)"

PEC-Memphis
09-27-2012, 17:21
Diesel. It's the only solution for the next half century.
Europeans figured that out already twenty years ago.

Here is what Ford is manufacturing and selling in the EU:
58 mpg Ford B-Max (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2012/08/made-in-romania-58-mpg-ford-b-max.html)

Who needs a stinkin' Prius or an $100,000 Tesla fire hazard when you can get a nice turbo diesel car with a range of 370+ miles for 1/4 of the price ?


How about a 2004 Honda turbo diesel getting 77 mpg on the autobahn?



From Honda Article:

Honda’s new Accord 2.2 i-CTDi Sport has this week set no fewer than 19 world speed records and achieved 3.07 litres / 100 km (92 imperial mpg, ~76.6 US mpg) fuel economy to boot. British racing driver Robin Liddell and freelance journalist Iain Robertson were part of the European record-setting team.

Amongst the speed records set, which were all achieved in Production Car Class B (2000 – 2500 cc), were 133.04 mph (1 mile flying start), 84.25 mph (1 mile standing start) and an average speed of 130.38 mph over a 24-hour endurance period. These records were all set at Papenburg high-speed oval test track in north-west Germany on 1 and 2 May, and are all subject to FIA ratification.

Two production cars, randomly selected by FIA officials, were used to undertake the speed records, and apart from the fitting of roll-cages, racing harnesses and radio equipment for track-to-pits communication, no other modifications were made to the cars.

Following the speed record attempts, the same two cars were then driven 419 miles from Papenburg test track to Wiesbaden, near Frankfurt in order to complete the fuel economy run. The route comprised of a mixture of motorway and non-motorway driving, during which one of the Accords achieved a staggering 92 imperial mpg (US mpg=~76.6) average.

The project, whose aim was to demonstrate the performance and economy of the Accord i-CTDi, was a joint production between Honda, the FIA and Italian-based JAS Motorsport, who managed fuelling and pit-stops.

Honda UK’s driver in the speed record attempt, Robin Liddell, who has previously raced at Le Mans 24-hours, as well as the American Le Mans Series and the BRDC British GT championship, commented: "The car’s performance is very impressive, demonstrated by the records we’ve achieved. Honda has made real steps forward in styling, ergonomics and interior design with the new Accord Diesel and now has a package that can take on the best cars in its class."

PEC-Memphis
09-27-2012, 17:40
You need to re-read my posts. I'm not talking about charging cars during peak periods, but rather doing so during off-peak periods, mainly at night.

If a significant quantity of EV are in a particular area, the night time IS the peak. You've just shifted the peak time.

And for the guy who has a the 200A service and just wants to add a receptacle for his 100A charging station - the 200A load is for the house. Unless you are willing to do some load shedding for your home - you'll need to upgrade your service to 320A (next standard size).

Nashville did a study of the impact of plug-in hybrids on their electric system several years ago. Even with a population of ~15% (IIRC) of PHEVs, their distribution system would need significant upgrades.

larry_minn
09-27-2012, 19:14
If a significant quantity of EV are in a particular area, the night time IS the peak. You've just shifted the peak time.

And for the guy who has a the 200A service and just wants to add a receptacle for his 100A charging station - the 200A load is for the house. Unless you are willing to do some load shedding for your home - you'll need to upgrade your service to 320A (next standard size).

Nashville did a study of the impact of plug-in hybrids on their electric system several years ago. Even with a population of ~15% (IIRC) of PHEVs, their distribution system would need significant upgrades.

I agree "peak" will move. What COULD be done is similar to "off Peak" water heaters. The power plant controls when the water heater kicks in. (radio control) So they COULD set it up so 1/3 charge at 9-12 pm, then 1/3 12-3am, 3-6am (you get general idea) So peak load is spread over low (normally) use times.
Also in MN it is legal to have more amps available out then main breaker. I.E. your 200 amp 220 service can have combo of 110/220 that add up to OVER 200 amps at 220. They just can't all be at full load at once (or main blows.) :0

PEC-Memphis
09-27-2012, 21:32
I agree "peak" will move. What COULD be done is similar to "off Peak" water heaters. The power plant controls when the water heater kicks in. (radio control) So they COULD set it up so 1/3 charge at 9-12 pm, then 1/3 12-3am, 3-6am (you get general idea) So peak load is spread over low (normally) use times.
Also in MN it is legal to have more amps available out then main breaker. I.E. your 200 amp 220 service can have combo of 110/220 that add up to OVER 200 amps at 220. They just can't all be at full load at once (or main blows.) :0

Yep folks are going to be pretty happy when their car doesn't make it to their destination because their car isn't fully charged. That's why PHEVs make much more sense than all (only) electric.

Per NEC breakers are rated to 80% continuous of "nameplate", so a 200A breaker is really rated to 160A cont.

If the charger really takes 100A, it is going to take a 125A breaker. That leaves all of 60A for the rest of the home. No matter how you "slice" it, for all practical purposes, a service upgrade will almost always be necessary to accommodate one, much less two, EVs if charged at a residence.

I know the folks who did the (utility-EV) study at NES, I was present at their industry presentation and have over 30 years in the utility industry.

The power plants do not RF control of electric water heater / HVAC. It is usually done at the feeder circuit level at each distribution station via SCADA monitoring & control.

larry_minn
09-27-2012, 22:07
Yep it power company. Not sure why I said plant. Opps. It is in conjunctions with it.
.

fwm
09-28-2012, 10:19
Who drives cross-country? Chain smokers?
I don't even want to be in a car for more than 2 hours.


My wife and I quit frequently get in the car for a quick 12 hour trip from KC, MO to Cody, WY, or a quick 15 hour trip from KC, MO to Pensacola, FL and have a really good time doing it. (Usually). Can you image the tediousness of those trips if every 1 1/2 hours we had to stop for 30 minutes to 'refuel'. UUUGH.

Battery driven systems will NEVER have that kind of endurance. Electric cars will only work for me if they can use hydrogen cells with refill stations every couple of hundred miles.

While this car system may work for you and a few of your friends, my friends and I have lifestyles that make this automobile system as useless as balls on a trailer hitch.

ETA: And no, I quit smoking 34 years age and my wife never did. And yes, I do enjoy flying. Found out I was diabetic taking an FFA pilot medical.

ETA: and at 33.7 kilowatts per gallon of gas equivalent, This charging station takes 1/2 hour to transfer the energy of only 3 gallons of gas. Whhhoopppeeee. Hold my cola while I rejoice.

KalashniKEV
09-28-2012, 10:30
My wife and I quit frequently get in the car for a quick 12 hour trip from KC, MO to Cody, WY, or a quick 15 hour trip from KC, MO to Pensacola, FL and have a really good time doing it.

I don't believe you.

In fact... I'm not even sure if Cody, WY is a real place...

Can you image the tediousness of those trips if every 1 1/2 hours we had to stop for 30 minutes to 'refuel'. UUUGH.

You missed it again... didn't you?

30 minutes of charge is good for 3 hours of driving at 60 MPH from the supercharger... or 300 miles/ charge hour. It's free too.

If you plug in at the home... I mean, ummm, "twin" charger:

1) You get 62 miles/ charge hour.


If you plug in at your buddies place, and he's not drying clothes that night:

1) You get 31 miles/ charge hour.


Battery driven systems will NEVER have that kind of endurance.

:rofl:

You must have been skeptical when quartz watches came out too.

*grumble, grumble*

"I don't want to replace my watch battery every week!"

While this car system may work for you and a few of your friends, my friends and I have lifestyles that make this automobile system as useless as balls on a trailer hitch.

OK... so we've already determined that Electric Cars are not suitable for:

1) Poor People.
2) Ice Road Truckers... or whatever that bizarre rant was about.

Now we can add:

3) Geographically isolated or displaced persons/ Hermits.

to the list!

SC Tiger
09-28-2012, 11:26
How about a 2004 Honda turbo diesel getting 77 mpg on the autobahn?

I still don't understand why we can't have that kind of efficency in cars in the US. Are they using UK Gallons (120% of a US Gallon approximately)? Emissions regulations? Or are these cars just too "slow and wet" for the US market?

My Civic gets 34 mpg. Even converting that to UK Gallons it gets 40.8 mpg (UK). Most hybrids only get into the low 50s.

SC Tiger
09-28-2012, 11:27
OK... so we've already determined that Electric Cars are not suitable for:

1) Poor People.
2) Ice Road Truckers... or whatever that bizarre rant was about.

Now we can add:

3) Geographically isolated or displaced persons/ Hermits.

to the list!

4) Anyone who does not live where these "Superchargers" are and had to drive more than 40 miles to work (for the economical electrics) or either can't afford or doesn't trust this new Tesla.

Snaps
09-28-2012, 11:33
Seems like another overprices save the world "fix" that in no way appeals to me. Until they can go 500 miles and recharge in 10 mins they're a pointless and extremely overpriced gimmick

Bilbo Bagins
09-28-2012, 13:16
4) Anyone who does not live where these "Superchargers" are and had to drive more than 40 miles to work (for the economical electrics) or either can't afford or doesn't trust this new Tesla.

5) Anyone who likes to take road trips, or travels to remote areas. Charging stations along the major highways in one thing, but what if you want to drive along historic Route 66, Drive thru rural Montana, or go to those vast national parks. Are they really going to stick charging stations every 100 miles along the Blue Ridge Parkway, or inside Yosemite and Yellowstone.

SC Tiger
09-28-2012, 13:45
5) Anyone who likes to take road trips, or travels to remote areas. Charging stations along the major highways in one thing, but what if you want to drive along historic Route 66, Drive thru rural Montana, or go to those vast national parks. Are they really going to stick charging stations every 100 miles along the Blue Ridge Parkway, or inside Yosemite and Yellowstone.

The Blue Ridge Parkway I could actually see. Not the rest. At least not in the near future.

Perhaps eventually but I still think the alternative diesel/serial hybrid model is the best (a biodiesel fueled small engine turning a generator). Solar could be used to supplement the electrical demand (panels on the roof to help run the AC, radio, etc).

PEC-Memphis
09-28-2012, 16:36
I still don't understand why we can't have that kind of efficency in cars in the US. Are they using UK Gallons (120% of a US Gallon approximately)? Emissions regulations? Or are these cars just too "slow and wet" for the US market?

My Civic gets 34 mpg. Even converting that to UK Gallons it gets 40.8 mpg (UK). Most hybrids only get into the low 50s.

Are they using UK Gallons (120% of a US Gallon approximately)?

It is mentioned in my original post - 92 miles per imperial gallon.

I still don't understand why we can't have that kind of efficiency in cars in the US. Emissions regulations?

Bingo. Those "green" Europeans have different emission regulations for diesel passenger vehicles than the US (more lenient). Also the taxing structure in Europe is to encourage diesel use over gasoline.


Or are these cars just too "slow and wet" for the US market?

The article is really about the speed records set - not necessarily mileage. This vehicle set 19 speed records for Class B - Production vehicles (any type of fuel).

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040506.html

I rented a turbo-diesel C-Class Mercedes a few years ago in Germany. 0-10 (maybe 0-15) mph was pretty sluggish, after that it was very good in the 15-65 mph range, and downright peppy from 65-100 or so. It was comfortable at 135 mph.

As stated, or implied by others, very good, very real, very practical, solutions exist currently. This car is just one of them. The Volvo V40 turbo-diesel is another at 78 MPG (imperial)

http://www.worldcarfans.com/112062545709/2013-volvo-v40-pricing-announced-for-uk-from-19745-otr

Another is the Volvo V60 PHEV at 124 phevMPG (US). 0-62 mph in 6.2s. Diesel hybrids really make a lot of technical sense. Electric motors produce maximum torque at zero RPM (which is where turbo-diesels suffer) and the electric systems on hybrids are virtually dead weight in sustained highway use - where the turbo-diesel excels.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/111121338970/volvo-v60-plug-in-hybrid-priced-at-eur-57000-for-europe

Biodiesel has some problems relating to shelf life, bacteria growth, gel temperature, oxidation/rancidity - but it can, in a very practical way, supplement petrodiesel in many parts of the country at varying times of the year.

This technology could be right here in the US if the EPA weren't out of control.

Glock20 10mm
09-28-2012, 18:22
Diesels slow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10_TDI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R15_TDI

I had the pleasure of watching 2 of these R10's tear the track up at Laguna Seca speedway... they whipped the snot out of all the competitors. The Germans have the diesel dialed in tight for power, efficiency and power.

kat1950
09-29-2012, 11:30
Its a joke, and a 8 hour drive to me is nothing.

DanaT
09-30-2012, 11:09
I rented a turbo-diesel C-Class Mercedes a few years ago in Germany. 0-10 (maybe 0-15) mph was pretty sluggish, after that it was very good in the 15-65 mph range, and downright peppy from 65-100 or so. It was comfortable at 135 mph.

As stated, or implied by others, very good, very real, very practical, solutions exist currently. This car is just one of them. The Volvo V40 turbo-diesel is another at 78 MPG (imperial)

Yeah, no its not happening.

The V40 is the same size a BMW 1er, Audi A3. They compete in the same area

Today I drove to Freiburg. Most of the way is 120kmh with areas without speed limits. I typically was driving about 135kmh in the 120 zones and 180-190 in the non-limited zones.

Here is fuel mileage from my BMW 118d.

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/BMWfuelmileage.jpg

5.3l/100km = 44mpg

Yesterday evening, I drove from Gruyeres back to Germany. There was almost no traffic and Swiss speed limits (this means absolutely no speeding and go at least 5 under). I was driving about 116kmh with cruise control on and ECO mode. All highway driving with almost perfect conditions I was seeing 4.5l/100kmh (52mpg).

The rumors of 78mpg diesel cars (that people want to drive) are not true.

PEC-Memphis
09-30-2012, 21:28
Yeah, no its not happening.

The rumors of 78mpg diesel cars (that people want to drive) are not true.

So the article, and FIA and JAS, are fiction?

I'd be quite satisfied with a 60+ mpg highway Acura TSX.

DanaT
10-01-2012, 01:18
So the article, and FIA and JAS, are fiction?

I'd be quite satisfied with a 60+ mpg highway Acura TSX.

Well how about this.

I was able to, in one day of real world driving disprove your statement.

Prove me wrong. Show me real world fuel mileage from something the same size (not a twizy) as you have claimed (Volvo v40 size) with a diesel engine getting real world 3.0l/100km on a highway at real world speeds.

I seem to have been able to show actual fuel mileage in real world driving and my evidence. Prove me wrong.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

PEC-Memphis
10-01-2012, 08:37
Well how about this.

I was able to, in one day of real world driving disprove your statement.

Prove me wrong. Show me real world fuel mileage from something the same size (not a twizy) as you have claimed (Volvo v40 size) with a diesel engine getting real world 3.0l/100km on a highway at real world speeds.

I seem to have been able to show actual fuel mileage in real world driving and my evidence. Prove me wrong.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Better yet - you prove Honda, FIA and JAS wrong.

Just because you are driving a BMW doesn't mean that Honda can't make a car which, in some ways (but not in others), out performs your BMW.


ETA:

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/05/84-mpg-couple-break-mileage-record-with-passat-tdi.html

http://jalopnik.com/356497/hypermiling-the-honda-civic-and-audi-q7-diesels

http://actualmpg.com/MPG_For/HONDA/Accord_06_Saloon/2.2_i-CTDi_Sport.htm

http://actualmpg.com/MPG_For/HONDA/Civic_06/2.2_i-CTDi_SE.htm

SC Tiger
10-01-2012, 09:13
Are they using UK Gallons (120% of a US Gallon approximately)?

It is mentioned in my original post - 92 miles per imperial gallon.

I still don't understand why we can't have that kind of efficiency in cars in the US. Emissions regulations?

Bingo. Those "green" Europeans have different emission regulations for diesel passenger vehicles than the US (more lenient). Also the taxing structure in Europe is to encourage diesel use over gasoline.


Or are these cars just too "slow and wet" for the US market?

The article is really about the speed records set - not necessarily mileage. This vehicle set 19 speed records for Class B - Production vehicles (any type of fuel).

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040506.html

I rented a turbo-diesel C-Class Mercedes a few years ago in Germany. 0-10 (maybe 0-15) mph was pretty sluggish, after that it was very good in the 15-65 mph range, and downright peppy from 65-100 or so. It was comfortable at 135 mph.

As stated, or implied by others, very good, very real, very practical, solutions exist currently. This car is just one of them. The Volvo V40 turbo-diesel is another at 78 MPG (imperial)

http://www.worldcarfans.com/112062545709/2013-volvo-v40-pricing-announced-for-uk-from-19745-otr

Another is the Volvo V60 PHEV at 124 phevMPG (US). 0-62 mph in 6.2s. Diesel hybrids really make a lot of technical sense. Electric motors produce maximum torque at zero RPM (which is where turbo-diesels suffer) and the electric systems on hybrids are virtually dead weight in sustained highway use - where the turbo-diesel excels.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/111121338970/volvo-v60-plug-in-hybrid-priced-at-eur-57000-for-europe

Biodiesel has some problems relating to shelf life, bacteria growth, gel temperature, oxidation/rancidity - but it can, in a very practical way, supplement petrodiesel in many parts of the country at varying times of the year.

This technology could be right here in the US if the EPA weren't out of control.

I responded to your post but my question is more about the European cars in general. They seem to have several non-hybrid options that get 60+ mpg. Even taking Imperial gallons into account that comes out to 50 mpg. I have seen very few US cars that can do that.

DanaT
10-01-2012, 12:10
Better yet - you prove Honda, FIA and JAS wrong.

Just because you are driving a BMW doesn't mean that Honda can't make a car which, in some ways (but not in others), out performs your BMW.


ETA:

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/05/84-mpg-couple-break-mileage-record-with-passat-tdi.html

http://jalopnik.com/356497/hypermiling-the-honda-civic-and-audi-q7-diesels


You should read your own links.....

"hypermiling" "mileage record"

You cannot read well. I posted real world numbers for real world car being driven in a real world manner.



http://actualmpg.com/MPG_For/HONDA/Accord_06_Saloon/2.2_i-CTDi_Sport.htm

http://actualmpg.com/MPG_For/HONDA/Civic_06/2.2_i-CTDi_SE.htm


Here is the the acura TSX that you think gets 60mpg

http://www.honda.de/automobile/modelle_accord_limousine_technische_daten.php#breadcrumb

I will translate for you:

Kraftstoffart Diesel****
Verbrauch in Liter / 100 km
Städtisch, Liter 6,8
Außerstädtisch, Liter 4,4
Kombiniert, Liter 5,3

City use: 6.8 l/100km = 35mpg
Highway: 4.4l/100km = 53mpg
Combined Cycle: 5.3l/100km = 44mpg

Wait. Did I see a 5.3l/100km. What did the picture I posted above show in normal driving?

Then what did I say above aboyt the fuel mileage on careful, speed controlled highways, with no traffic that I got? Did I not say I got 4.5l? Hmm...that is right in line with what your magical Acura TSX with a diesel engine gets (keeping in mind I picked the most fuel efficient, 150hp model). Step up to the 180hp model and the fuel consumption changes:

http://www.honda.de/automobile/modelle_accord_limousine_technische_daten.php#breadcrumb

Städtisch, Liter 7,1
Außerstädtisch, Liter 4,8
Kombiniert, Liter 5,6Verbrauch*

Here is what the manufacturer claims for the 118d

http://www.bmw.de/de/de/newvehicles/1series/3door/2012/showroom/technical_data/index.html


Innerorts in l/100 km 5,5-5,4 (43mpg)
Außerorts in l/100 km 3,9-3,8 (61mpg)
Kombiniert in l/100 km 4,5-4,4 (54mpg)

Magically, I am not posting these numbers.

And this is a small, 143hp diesel car.

Americans wouldnt buy these cars.

My proof. In the USA, there is a BMW 335d. Where is the 116hp BMW 116d in the USA? Why dont they import this? If they would make money on it because people would buy it, they would sell it.

http://www.bmw.de/de/de/newvehicles/3series/touring/2012/showroom/technical_data/index.html

People in the USA simply wont accept a 116hp car of that size. And a 3 series is no a big car.

DanaT
10-01-2012, 12:13
I responded to your post but my question is more about the European cars in general. They seem to have several non-hybrid options that get 60+ mpg. Even taking Imperial gallons into account that comes out to 50 mpg. I have seen very few US cars that can do that.

To answer this how many people will accept a small car the size of a VW golf / Audi A3 / BMW 1er / etc. Next how many will accept it with right around 100hp and a 0-60 time of 10 to 12 seconds?

The answer: not enough to make it economically viable to bring the engines to the USA and certify them.

If auto manufacturers thought they could make money on them and the consumer wanted them (enough to make money on them) they would bring them.

PEC-Memphis
10-01-2012, 12:22
People in the USA simply wont accept a 116hp car of that size. And a 3 series is no a big car.

There are plenty of 1 series BMW's around here (I see them all of the time - the convertible is pretty popular), as well as smart cars, Honda civics, Honda Fits, TSX's - so I guess USA folks will accept cars of this size.

And most folks can beat "rated/standardized" mileage for non-hybrids. I know I have. The car I drive routinely is a 2000 Acura 3.2 TL rated at 17 city, 20 combined, 27 highway. I usually get 25-26 city and have gotten as much as 36 highway. My wife had a 1986 Toyota Corolla rated at 30 highway - she drove from Memphis to Maine mostly highway with some city and got 41 MPG.

SC Tiger
10-01-2012, 12:25
To answer this how many people will accept a small car the size of a VW golf / Audi A3 / BMW 1er / etc. Next how many will accept it with right around 100hp and a 0-60 time of 10 to 12 seconds?

The answer: not enough to make it economically viable to bring the engines to the USA and certify them.

If auto manufacturers thought they could make money on them and the consumer wanted them (enough to make money on them) they would bring them.

I just looked up the Fiat 500 (the smallest car I could think of that was available in the US) and even it only gets 40 mpg highway (so 48 using Imperial gallons). It is smaller than any of the cars you mentioned (though it is gas engined). The Honda Fit and Civic are right up there with it, along with the Ford Fiesta, etc.

Is it that the automakers don't want to certify the engines here or that they won't pass?

I'm sure GM and Ford could come up with something just as efficient.

DanaT
10-01-2012, 12:34
There are plenty of 1 series BMW's around here (I see them all of the time - the convertible is pretty popular), as well as smart cars, Honda civics, Honda Fits, TSX's - so I guess USA folks will accept cars of this size.

And most folks can beat "rated/standardized" mileage for non-hybrids. I know I have. The car I drive routinely is a 2000 Acura 3.2 TL rated at 17 city, 20 combined, 27 highway. I usually get 25-26 city and have gotten as much as 36 highway. My wife had a 1986 Toyota Corolla rated at 30 highway - she drove from Memphis to Maine mostly highway with some city and got 41 MPG.

And what is the smallest engine that BMW sells in the 1 series in the USA? Is it anywhere near 116hp? (hint the smallest is a 128 with 230hp in the USA).

I doubt people are getting 25% better fuel consumption than EPA ratings (that is what 9 mpg better than 27mpg...I will let you figure out why 9mpg more is only 25% better fuel consumption than 27mpg).

DanaT
10-01-2012, 12:37
I just looked up the Fiat 500

It is a boutique car that will never sell in large quantities. It is a car that Fiat wants to bring to the USA to show "we are back" and get women into the cars. Watch Fiat 500 commercials. They are geared towards women. Fiat is using it as a marketing strategy.

So far only 19000 Fiat 500s have been sold in the USA to date. That isnt even a good week for Ford F150 sales.

SC Tiger
10-01-2012, 12:42
It is a boutique car that will never sell in large quantities. It is a car that Fiat wants to bring to the USA to show "we are back" and get women into the cars. Watch Fiat 500 commercials. They are geared towards women. Fiat is using it as a marketing strategy.

So far only 19000 Fiat 500s have been sold in the USA to date. That isnt even a good week for Ford F150 sales.

I agree that it is a girly car (the sell them in "Studios" for goodness sake). However, IIRC the engine had to be modified to come to the US. I don't know if that was for emissions or to make it more palatable for the US market though.

The Smart car is even smaller but IMO it's a car for idiots.

PEC-Memphis
10-01-2012, 12:51
People in the USA simply wont accept a 116hp car of that size. And a 3 series is no a big car.

There are plenty of 1 series BMW's around here (I see them all of the time - the convertible is pretty popular), as well as smart cars, Honda civics, Honda Fits, TSX's - so I guess USA folks will accept cars of this size.

And most folks can beat "rated/standardized" mileage for non-hybrids. I know I have. The car I drive routinely is a 2000 Acura 3.2 TL rated at 17 city, 20 combined, 27 highway. I usually get 25-26 city and have gotten as much as 36 highway. My wife had a 1986 Toyota Corolla rated at 30 highway - she drove from Memphis to Maine mostly highway with some city and got 41 MPG.

To answer this how many people will accept a small car the size of a VW golf / Audi A3 / BMW 1er / etc. Next how many will accept it with right around 100hp and a 0-60 time of 10 to 12 seconds?

The Golf TDI is sold in the US.

The BMW 1 series is sold in the US.

The A3 is sold in the US.

The current Honda Fit is 118 HP and are sold in the US, 0-60 in 8.2s - The 2.2L i-DTEC Accord is 0-62 in 9.7s.

My (former) 1986 Honda Accord falls into under this description. There was a 4 month waiting list for it, and some dealers were charging a "limited availability" markup over MSRP.

DanaT
10-01-2012, 13:02
The Golf TDI is sold in the US.

And what were sales like before the 140hp TDI? (hint the low hp TDI)

The BMW 1 series is sold in the US.

And reading seems to be hard. You are ignoring the fact that I said they wont accept a 116hp version. What is the smallest sold in a 1er? (hint...above...230hp...the 128)

QUOTE=PEC-Memphis;19474501]The A3 is sold in the US.[/QUOTE] The new engine that is available in the USA is the 140hp TDI. The other version is the 2.0TFsi (200hp). There have also been the A3 3.2. Why is the 2.0TDI now available. It is emissions certified with the VW engines.

Are you seeing the volume of sales required to make an engine worth selling in the USA? Where are higher mileage around 100-120hp diesel engines in the USA.

So what engines are sold in the USA??



The current Honda Fit is 118 HP and are sold in the US, 0-60 in 8.2s - The 2.2L i-DTEC Accord is 0-62 in 9.7s.

My (former) 1986 Honda Accord falls into under this description. There was a 4 month waiting list for it, and some dealers were charging a "limited availability" markup over MSRP.

And how well accepted is the Fit in the USA. How many fit size cars do you see on the road compared to say an accord sized car or bigger?

The fit is again, a boutique car.

PEC-Memphis
10-01-2012, 14:56
And reading seems to be hard.

You posted while I was typing a reply, therefore I didn't see your post before replying.

I am able to read fairly well. No need to be a SA if you can help it.

Your are right, the lowest output 1-series BMW is the 128. In the US, BMW is synonymous with performance ("we build only one thing - the ultimate driving machine"); the "take" may be somewhat different in Europe.

Your claim is that US buyers will not buy a car below a certain size and/or below a certain level of performance; and that is why they are not sold in the US. My reply is that cars below this size and/or performance are sold here. VW, Toyota and Honda have more of an image of utility than performance (at least in the US).

I have friends who have manual transmission diesel VW-Beatles / Jettas, and they are quite pleased with the size and performance; they are enthusiastic about the range/mileage - not so pleased with the reliability/maintenance.

You claim that they can't get a certain mileage - and yet I've provided links to indicate that they are capable of the mileage. You've ignored the FIA - you know the folks who certify automobile performance records (as well as a governing body for several motor racing organizations).

Are the folks getting 70+ mpg in these vehicles "eeking" out every mpg they can - sure, absolutely. But "everyday drivers" are getting 55 mpg in them.

jp3975
10-01-2012, 15:04
And how well accepted is the Fit in the USA. How many fit size cars do you see on the road compared to say an accord sized car or bigger?

The fit is again, a boutique car.

I see several around here. I drive one and its surprisingly roomy. Everyone that's ever gotten in it has said the same. Most people like it who drive it. Even skeptics.

It also seems to have more pep than my mom's civic hybrid at 10k less in cost. More trunk space too.

DanaT
10-02-2012, 00:09
I have a friend whos daily driver is a bentley. He has two ferrari f430s. A 911. Wife has a phantom.

The amount of people I know driving $100k + cars is large. So I see them "all over"

Seeing something around or knowing something with a strange car doesn't make it a marketplace success.

Just take the claim of a manual. What transmission has the us market accepted? Hint: you are hard pressed to find a clutch on a dealer lot. I would estimate that 95% + of all vehicles sold in USA are automatics.

I actually see more 911s on the road than Honda fits. That tells you something about how well it has been received in the marketplace.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SC Tiger
10-02-2012, 06:33
I have a friend whos daily driver is a bentley. He has two ferrari f430s. A 911. Wife has a phantom.

The amount of people I know driving $100k + cars is large. So I see them "all over"

Seeing something around or knowing something with a strange car doesn't make it a marketplace success.

Just take the claim of a manual. What transmission has the us market accepted? Hint: you are hard pressed to find a clutch on a dealer lot. I would estimate that 95% + of all vehicles sold in USA are automatics.

I actually see more 911s on the road than Honda fits. That tells you something about how well it has been received in the marketplace.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Ok, you have rich friends and you yourself have done well. Congratulations - (I mean that).

I have never seen a Bentley on the road, could count the number of Ferarri's on one hand, and don't remember ever seeing a Rolls. I rarely see 911s but they are probably the most common "high end" sports car (aside from the Corvette). I've seen Fits and Civics all over the place. I literally see 5-6 a day outside of work (so it isn't the same 5 or 6). It doesn't hurt that the darn things run forever. Mostly Civics - probably because the Civic isn't much more expensive, has as good a mileage and is bigger. I would guess if I drove down to Atlanta I would see more Fits due to the fact it seems to work well in traffic.

And probably some Stupid (Smart) cars.

I'm assuming you meant "Fit" and not "Fiat." If you meant "Fiat" then I agree it is a boutique car. One look at their website will tell you it isn't meant for men.

DanaT
10-02-2012, 07:50
I mean Honda fit.

I would agree that a civic is all over. But that is about the smallest car that americans will tolerate. Yes, there are some people that will buy something smaller, they even sell a few smarts a year in the USA, but in general a fit size car or smaller probably accounts for much less than. 1% of vehicles sold for personal use in the USA.

Although I don't have the data, and no computer at the moment, I would guess that fit and 911 sales are similar in number.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SC Tiger
10-02-2012, 07:56
I mean Honda fit.

I would agree that a civic is all over. But that is about the smallest car that americans will tolerate. Yes, there are some people that will buy something smaller, they even sell a few smarts a year in the USA, but in general a fit size car or smaller probably accounts for much less than. 1% of vehicles sold for personal use in the USA.

Although I don't have the data, and no computer at the moment, I would guess that fit and 911 sales are similar in number.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IMO, the Smart isn't a car. It's a lawn mower that someone forgot to take out of the box.

I just don't get that car. Costs almost as much (if not more than) as a Fit but with no better mileage, less space, takes premium fuel, and according to the data I've seen, unreliable as ####.

Their new roadster (probably not sold here yet) looks to be even worse. I saw an ad for it (on Top Gear UK) and it is definitely a car for the person who doesn't know a thing about cars but is looking for an "image." Not that different than the Fiat in that way.

I see small cars catching on as gas prices continue to rise. People are starting to figure out that gasoline will never go to the good side of $3.00 a gallon again. I even went from a Silverado to a Civic (but kept the Silverado for a backup car and hauling stuff).

DanaT
10-03-2012, 05:19
So today, i decided to try and push the limits and do hypermiling to see what kind of fuel consumption I could get.

Conditions.
Zurich to Basel (actually crossing a little before that to exit into Germany)

I only measured highway consumption.

There was almost no traffic and no truck traffic going towards Germany because of a holiday and no trucks are allowed on German roads today.

Speed limit was in general 120kmh. Traffic for the most part was going 120kmh. I got many flashes at me (even staying in the right lane) because I set the cruise on 101kmh (GPS was showing about 98kmh) and turned on the "ECO pro" setting.

I never accelerated at a normal rate. Basically as carefully as I could drive and maintain 100kmh (20 under the speed limits mind you)

One person in the car.

Zurich to Basel is in general an altitude decrease so some gravity benefit (more downhills than uphills).

I also grabbed the keys for the smallest car available instead of the other ones I normally take. It was a BMW 116d (116hp diesel). (I am normally "assigned" a 120d with a sport package but sometimes other people take that car and I am stuck with a different car..but there are times I justify taking the E350GDI too...)

None of this would I in anyway say is "real world driving". The real world highway driving (more than one person, realistic speeds and acceleration, more powerful "normal" car) fuel consumption is around 5l/100km

So what were the results of hypermiling:

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/3point3.jpg

DanaT
10-03-2012, 05:26
I just don't get that car. Costs almost as much (if not more than) as a Fit but with no better mileage, less space, takes premium fuel, and according to the data I've seen, unreliable as ####.

What the Smart is good for is parking it in european cities where parking is very limited.

This is very typical parking of Smart cars in the cities:

http://www.ilankelman.org/themes/trafficsmartcar1.jpg

The USA doesnt really have this problem (and if you parked like that in a parallel parking space I am sure the police would send a SWAT team out) so it doesnt make so much sense.

The reasons for the very small cars (city cars) in Europe is the total lack of space. Its not that Europeans think small is better (they like their S-class cars), its that at times, parking is more important for day to day activities size/speed. If you can park in 2 minutes versus spending a half hour finding a spot...which car makes most sense? You also see many more very small cars in the larger cities and fewer very small cars in the villages (burbs)

fwm
10-03-2012, 09:14
Just take the claim of a manual. What transmission has the us market accepted? Hint: you are hard pressed to find a clutch on a dealer lot. I would estimate that 95% + of all vehicles sold in USA are automatics.



Just because most people here are not 'drivers' any more. They are 'system monitors'.

On slick roads, manual transmissions give much better control.

I have only had one automatic, had to rebuild it TWICE (over $5K total) in just 5 years. Every other vehicle since my 58 GMC truck through my current truck has been a manual transmission and I have NEVER had a failure of clutch or transmission. Don't care what is on the lot, I always order special from the factory to get what I prefer.

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 09:38
What the Smart is good for is parking it in european cities where parking is very limited.

This is very typical parking of Smart cars in the cities:

http://www.ilankelman.org/themes/trafficsmartcar1.jpg

The USA doesnt really have this problem (and if you parked like that in a parallel parking space I am sure the police would send a SWAT team out) so it doesnt make so much sense.

The reasons for the very small cars (city cars) in Europe is the total lack of space. Its not that Europeans think small is better (they like their S-class cars), its that at times, parking is more important for day to day activities size/speed. If you can park in 2 minutes versus spending a half hour finding a spot...which car makes most sense? You also see many more very small cars in the larger cities and fewer very small cars in the villages (burbs)

That makes sense. What I should have said is why is there a market for it here? Why would someone in Pickens, South Carolina or Seneca, South Carolina buy one (I've seen at least one in each town)?

In the US they strike me as being driven by eco-mentalists who don't understand how stupid they look.

New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta I might could see. Even Charleston, SC I guess (though you can't throw a Smart car without hitting a parking garage there). But for 95% of the US it makes no sense and is a waste of money. A Fit or Toyota Yaris will do the same job cheaper, more reliably, and with more space.

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 09:39
Just because most people here are not 'drivers' any more. They are 'system monitors'.

On slick roads, manual transmissions give much better control.

I have only had one automatic, had to rebuild it TWICE (over $5K total) in just 5 years. Every other vehicle since my 58 GMC truck through my current truck has been a manual transmission and I have NEVER had a failure of clutch or transmission. Don't care what is on the lot, I always order special from the factory to get what I prefer.

Within 10 years I forsee both the automatic and the manual going away in favor of either the CVT or the servo-shifted manual.

DanaT
10-03-2012, 09:52
Within 10 years I forsee both the automatic and the manual going away in favor of either the CVT or the servo-shifted manual.

My wife has a murano with a cvt. Personally, I find it strange. Accelerating and hearing a constant whine and no change in engine rpm isn't normal. What I dislike most is mountain driving. It is in either drive or low. At highway speeds on a long downhill it can't be downshift to 4th or 5th gear for some compression braking. But one positive thing I have heard is how "smooth" it is riding in it. There are no gear changes. Me. I don't like that.

I have only driven one automatic shifting manual. The one I have driven is my friends f430. The shifting is "right now". Damn fun. But part of that is the whole experience of the engine behind your head, loud exhaust, butt on the ground. I am not sure a ford focus with a similar transmission would offer the same level of excitement over shifting.

The Manu-matics are still much too expensive to be practical. Look at the base price of the cars it's on and then the option price for the transmission. It is like ceramic brakes. Much better than other brakes, just not affordable enough for mass markets.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DanaT
10-03-2012, 10:01
Just because most people here are not 'drivers' any more. They are 'system monitors'.

On slick roads, manual transmissions give much better control.

I have only had one automatic, had to rebuild it TWICE (over $5K total) in just 5 years. Every other vehicle since my 58 GMC truck through my current truck has been a manual transmission and I have NEVER had a failure of clutch or transmission. Don't care what is on the lot, I always order special from the factory to get what I prefer.

This is what you believe but not true.

I have an article at my house where they had two 911 turbos that were identical except one was 6 speed and one was automatic.

They had various people drive them. All but the professional racer was faster around a road course with the auto. Even the amateur racers were faster in the auto.

The big difference is people were not caught in the wrong gear and had one less variable to worry about. They were able to concentrate on the line, braking points, etc and not on re gear change.

As far as bad weather modern AWD, traction control, ABS, and stability control can outdrive 99.999999% of people and react much faster. They can also do things a driver can't. For example, a driver cannot apply a single brake, ease up on a single caliper, etc.

But all that said...for poor weather (snow and ice) the BEST thing isn't transmission, abs, etc. It's actual snow and ice tires (not all season). Everything else helps after traction has been lost, tires help before traction is lost.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Rabbi
10-03-2012, 10:14
This is what you believe but not true.

I have an article at my house where they had two 911 turbos that were identical except one was 6 speed and one was automatic.

They had various people drive them. All but the professional racer was faster around a road course with the auto. Even the amateur racers were faster in the auto.

The big difference is people were not caught in the wrong gear and had one less variable to worry about. They were able to concentrate on the line, braking points, etc and not on re gear change.

As far as bad weather modern AWD, traction control, ABS, and stability control can outdrive 99.999999% of people and react much faster. They can also do things a driver can't. For example, a driver cannot apply a single brake, ease up on a single caliper, etc.

But all that said...for poor weather (snow and ice) the BEST thing isn't transmission, abs, etc. It's actual snow and ice tires (not all season). Everything else helps after traction has been lost, tires help before traction is lost.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I can agree with this. Modern cars are better than most drivers. It is that simple.

I have a fair amount of track time. At the track, I am a nobody in terms of skill. However, next to the guy who has no track time, I am very good.

Most people will turn a better time/be safer in a modern car that does everything for you.

Drain You
10-03-2012, 10:34
You've piqued their interest
http://i.imgur.com/yz8uj.jpg

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 11:24
I have only driven one automatic shifting manual. The one I have driven is my friends f430. The shifting is "right now". Damn fun. But part of that is the whole experience of the engine behind your head, loud exhaust, butt on the ground. I am not sure a ford focus with a similar transmission would offer the same level of excitement over shifting.

The Manu-matics are still much too expensive to be practical. Look at the base price of the cars it's on and then the option price for the transmission. It is like ceramic brakes. Much better than other brakes, just not affordable enough for mass markets.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I believe the manumatics will become cheaper as the technology develops. Plus I'm guessing they are lighter than automatics since they are essentially a manual transmission with servos and a computer. I could be wrong on that though. With the new fuel efficiency requirements I picture carmakers doing all kinds of stuff to reduce weight.

PEC-Memphis
10-03-2012, 16:32
So what were the results of hypermiling:

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/3point3.jpg

Looks like about 70 mpg US @ 60-65 mph?

DanaT
10-03-2012, 23:18
Looks like about 70 mpg US @ 60-65 mph?

About 58-59 mph actual (speedo error)

But again, look at all the other things I had to do to do it. One of the big ones is get the smallest company car and essentially no traffic.

I could not repeat that today (no holiday and trucks are on the road). I also don't generally go just down hill.

Just to put a little more detail. Within 7km of side road (this isn't city driving but also not highway) where speed limit is 100kmh on small roads, average consumption already was 3.9. That is after highway miles between Zurich and Basel.

Getting that kind of consumption is possible (as shown) but not easy to do and harder yet in a real life day to day setting


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine