"Mod edit?" Pardon, but I sincerely hope that editing other people's posts isn't a common practice here (with obvious exceptions like deleting vulgarity, ****, etc.)

 

I think it was a helpful edit, to direct attention to the appropriate link.

 

Yep. Now there's more incentive to invest R&D for battery technology than ever.

Pure electric vehicles are very likely to make hybrids obsolete.

 

If the founding fathers saw this thread they would be embarrassed at our casual submission to authoritarian censorship of our posts for the sake of clarity.

Either that or they'd call us all witches because of our magic devil boxes we call computers.

 

If they saw this thread, they'd all be whining about the fuel efficiency of the rotary.

 

I see absolutely no reason for them NOT to edit a post? Care to explain any reason why they should not?

Lets see. Someone see's this persons post, clicks the cnet.com link..searches around..finally finds the pictures.


Or...they see this persons post (edited), and find the direct link instead. Time saved = money made = more happy people. Do you want unhappy forum-people?! Ahhh!

 

In the article:

"There is no reverse gear; to back up, the engine is just run backwards meaning that, in theory, the car could reach its top speed--130 miles an hour--in reverse. When designing the drivetrain, Tesla commissioned a company that specializes in transmissions for Formula One cars."

HOT DAMN imagine going in reverse at 130 mph lol

 

Note:

It also takes 5 hours to a day to charge on a regular outlet. It takes 3 hours on a special outlet ><

 

What do you mean imagine? How do you get home from work if not in reverse at 100+ mph?

 

When they change the wording of someone's post to remove something they personally didn't like. (Ajax did not do that, but it's happened before.)

Slippery slope.

 

On Tesla's website they specifically say that reverse is speed controlled. So that means no 130MPH reverse for you.

 

Those are the exact three questions I'm asking myself. I'd also love to know if they'd need an additional 900lb motor to power the front wheels or if there's a way to go the AWD route with just one front or rear mounted electrical motor.

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if these guys end up being successful? GM dumped its electric car development and Lotus engineers (Lotus belongs to GM) develop a new electric vehicle.
(Well there's still a big IF).

Btw oversteering could, for instance, be prevented with a monster sway bar in the front and none in the rear.

 

My theory is that hybrids will be necessary as a way to smoothly transition away from gasoline. 3.5 hours chargup time is not good enough for many people, and 10 minute charging would require expensive infrastructure for cars that don't exist in significant numbers yet. So, an onboard generator will be necessary for a while.

Once there are lots of hybrids on the roads, some gas station owners will start selling electricity alongside gasoline, because it's cheaper. Once charging stations are as widespread as say, diesel pumps, people will start looking at all-electric vehicles and wondering why they even need to pay an extra $5k for an onboard gas engine they hardly ever use.

I do think batteries will end up making hydrogen cars obsolete though. You only need one good breakthrough for batteries: the batteries themself. For hydrogen you need mass generation and pipelines and tanker trucks and compact storage, and cheap fuel cells. 1 breakthrough which is just over the horizon, or a half dozen breakthroughs which are far off. Hmmm.

 

As far as editing posts goes, I edit posts whenever there is a need. In the case above, I did it to clarify what the original poster was trying to say, as I clicked his original link and had to go looking to find the article. I saved everyone some time by spending a bit of my own.

Now normally, I don't edit anyone's posts unless it's to do something helpful or because it violates a rule. If I do the former, I always leave the original post intact so you can read it and put a Mod Edit: message at the bottom. That's pretty common practice.

Rule violations are totally different though. If it breaks a rule, and I'm not going to delete the entire post, I'll just remove the sections that breaks a rule unless it means that the post doesn't make sense.

So as far as your questions, yes, edits happen around here, but more often than not, it's to do something that helps our user base not my own personal ego because that needs no help.

 

really? i was impressed when i read this number...

cant wait to see what happens in the next few years.

 

I agree. For commuting a 250 mile range is more than what I get out of my 8 on a single tank of gas. If all I have to worry about is plugging in my car every couple of days, then I'm all for it.

The Tesla may not be great for long trips, but it would make a great daily driver. Plus given the fact that new battery technologies are on the horizon, I'd say we're off to a good start.

 

It depends on your use, if you drive as part of your job then the fast refueling of gasoline outweighs the negatives.

3.5 hours is pretty good considering the range of the car. Actually the lithium cells are probably capable of absorbing power much faster, but you're limited to how much power your home connection can supply. 70 amps x 220V = 15,400 watts = 20.6 horsepower. Even if we used a 100 amp breaker and used 240V (why is it listed as 220 sometimes and 240 other times? anyone know?), you're looking at 32 horsepower max.

So for just cruising along, a 2500 lb. car like this is using....I dunno, I think I've heard 50 hp for regular cars? So maybe 30 hp for a lightweight car. So for 3 hours of cruising (200~250 miles) you've got 3~4 hours or so chargeup time.

The only way to get around this and have a fast chargup would be to call the power company and get an industrial power connection, 480V or whatever, or to have some kind of megabattery in your garage, charging up at night. Neither one is cheap. I tend to think a battery could win out because:

A) Power companies have excess capacity at night
B) Making more capacity during the day means more power plants and a much beefier power grid

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...edox_Batteries
www.europositron.com

Either way, I really doubt that fast-charging will be an option for home users. It would be reserved for gas stations with the right equipment most likely.

 

Anybody else already seeing the day when there's 5 pumps at the local 76..87 octane, 89 octane, 91 octane, diesel and "battery recharge" pump? I'm guessing we'll have to pay between $10 and $20 to recharge a fuel cell once they figure out a way (and they will) to replenish these things in minutes rather than hours.

 

 

I can see it now: Regular - Unleaded - Premium - Zap

Dunno... Going from a 3-hour charge to minutes-only is a helluva big change. That's why I think it's more feasible at hotels/motels where you park your car for the night. Of course they'd have to buy some sort of meter to show how much electricity you used. Interesting possibilities.

I could see some forward-thinking hotel owner halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco installing meters for people making the trek between those 2 cities. Or maybe between LA and Las Vegas. Hell, there's probably a couple of them thinking of it already...

 

I guess I'd see Ethanol and Biodiesel first.
And after that maybe Methanol: http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2004_06/pr2401.htm (The Methanol fuel cell might eventually reach higher power levels as well)

Keep in mind everybody has a a battery operated cell phone but there aren't any 'cell phone recharging stations'. Why would there? There are enough electric outlets elsewhere.

 

That's because ordinary 110V outlet current has enough power to charge a cell phone in a few minutes. On the other hand, even a humongous 100 amp charger will not put out enough power to give you much better than 1 hour recharge = 1 hour run time.

 

^ I guess you should really ask why we have fuel stations in the first place. It's because most houses are not connected to a gasoline pipeline. But every house is connected to the electric power net.
No gasoline fuel station will have an electric outlet as long as one can provide parking spots with electric outlets. I don't see a reason why not have parking meters with electric outlets. People can charge the car while there in a store shopping or watching a movie or eating a pizza or sleeping or working or fishing or skiing or dancing or jogging or...

The question is how many times do people drive longer than 4 hours at the time? Once a year? (This is really the only time when charging time really matters.)

Besides the US is not the world. In Europe pretty much every house comes with a 380V electric outlet.

 

Yeah, that's a good point about having low-power chargers everywhere. Still, people are lazy and stupid and they will hear stories about how Joe Dumbass went to the mall but forgot to plug in his car and he was stuck for a couple hours and (etc), so they buy a hybrid instead of an electric.

Then again on the other hand...if the price/performance of the new batteries improves as expected, you'll probably see a lot of battery cars around $10k with 10 year warranties. Combine that with gas savings and I think a lot of people would handle the small adjustment in lifestyle necessary to make them work. Especially if you can go to your electric car dealer and rent a generator trailer for your once-a-year road trip.