Wapsi Square Forum

On the subject of electric cars, if anyone does not believe large commercial forces are deliberately sabotaging the transition to electric, you can start by watching Who Killed the Electric Car. What GM did to kill their own product, the EV1, was disgusting.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:

jwhouk wrote:I dunno. Tucker, had he been born 70 years later, may very well have tried developing an electric car.

Yeah, and he'd be about as ultimately successful as Tesla and all the others are gonna be.

Because an "electric" car is still a fossil-fuel car, with the added expenses and inefficiencies and inconveniences of the power grid added in.

Did you know that GM is losing $49K on every Volt plug-in hybrid they sell for $39,999?

Too bad the Volt isn't an electric car, or did you neglect to notice the half-ton ICE engine in front? It's a Hybrid with a lower efficiency because it converts the horridly inefficient ICE to electric when it hits it's absolutely PATHETIC 40 mile range. It's a glorified golf cart with a Geo Metro's engine crammed in. Worst of both worlds.

And I find that highly amusing considering Tesla is selling the Model S (the four door sedan) for that price, and has already paid back their initial investment debt to the government. So I guess there was a lot of sticky hands in that cash flow, or they deliberately wasted money to 'prove' how inefficient electric is.

A reasonable electric car is viable. Tesla proved that. Detroit is going to kill themselves by failing to change with the times. They offer this sick joke they call an 'electric car' as a way of building a strawman argument that 'electric cars don't work'. Hell, they've got access to off-the-shelf components that can put together a better electric car than the Volt. They just won't, because they're so far in Big Oil's pockets (and THIS from a Texan) that they need to pipe in air.

Also, solar paneled carport. What fossil fuels? Maybe stick a wind turbine or three up top, depending on your location. Assuming your local grid isn't powered by Hydro (Hoover or Niagara) or Nuclear to obviate your argument in the first place.

No, Tesla proved no such thing.

Check the figures i quote above.

The Tesla battery (fully charged) holds about 60 KWH. The only place you're gonna get the kind of power it takes to charge that up reasonably quickly is off the grid.

Lessee, 220VAC power. Assuming 80% efficiency in conversion and delivery from source to car battery, that means you need 75KWH to charge the bettery. Assuming you pull 50 amps, that's 11 KWH/hour. Which means almost seven hours to fully charge that battery. (Even if we assume 100% efficiency - which ain't gonna happen - you're still looking at approaching six hours.)

And i find it very difficult to believe that "carport top solar" or an individual wind system will deliver that kind of juice.

So.

You can drive it three hundred miles on a charge (i think). That means that you'd better limit your trips to 150 miles.

A hybrid is a better solution than a full electric, because it's not range-limited. And a plug-in hybrid is better than a straight hybrid.

GM is losing that kind of money on the Volt because nobody wants one - they predicted sales of 40,000 for this year, and as of last month, had sold only 13,500 ... and that was with a month of trying to blow them out the doors with $199/month leases last month. And they've got $1.2 billion in development costs tied up in the thing.

Electric cars will be dependent on the grid for the foreseeable future ... and that means fossil fuels. (Much as i'd like to see a rational approach to nuclear, it ain't gonna happen fast enough to make any difference in this matter.)

And they'll only be good for 'round town or recreational (short range) driving, until someone figures out how to transfer 60 KWH in five minutes or less.

Without the batteries exploding.

===========================

And, speaking of "performance", you might want to consider that this year's LeMans winner, an Audi R18 E-Tron Quattro, was a hybrid.

Charon will be running s ski resort before an electric car even gets entered in LeMans.

Electric is a lovely idea. But it's not what's going to replace the gasoline engine.

shadowinthelight wrote:On the subject of electric cars, if anyone does not believe large commercial forces are deliberately sabotaging the transition to electric, you can start by watching Who Killed the Electric Car. What GM did to kill their own product, the EV1, was disgusting.

I remember the lengthy debate over that movie, and the general upshot among people who actually knew what they were talking about was that that "documentary" is about a accurate and unbiased as anything from Michael Moore.

It is, basically, another "200-MPG-carbrettor" or "pill-that-turns-water-into-gasoline" conspiracy theory.

Or "GM-and-Ford-Killed-Tucker-Because-The-Couldn't-Compete"*.

I hate to think how much GM was honestly losing on each those things.

(Note that i am far from a Republican or right-winger, and Moore's antics disgust me, if only because he manages to steal the limelight from rational people presenting reasoned arguments on the same side.)

======================

* Do you want to know what killed Tucker? What killed Tucker was that Preston Tucker was basically running a ponzi/pyramid scheme to finance start-up costs ... and he couldn't manage to actually deliver cars quickly enough to keep the marks happy.

Fairportfan wrote: No, Tesla proved no such thing.

Check the figures i quote above.

Umm... let's see. 400 mile range, no half-ton piece of steel to weight it down. High energy efficiency because you aren't trying to convert ICE into Electric in the first place... yea, those figures point to electric being hands-down better than hybrid.

The Tesla battery (fully charged) holds about 60 KWH. The only place you're gonna get the kind of power it takes to charge that up reasonably quickly is off the grid.

Wrong. First off, depending on the model and size, it can hold anywhere from 45 to 85 KwH Second, you are assuming several fallacies.

Lessee, 220VAC power. Assuming 80% efficiency in conversion and delivery from source to car battery, that means you need 75KWH to charge the bettery. Assuming you pull 50 amps, that's 11 KWH/hour. Which means almost seven hours to fully charge that battery. (Even if we assume 100% efficiency - which ain't gonna happen - you're still looking at approaching six hours.)

And i find it very difficult to believe that "carport top solar" or an individual wind system will deliver that kind of juice.

Really? Because I see it happening all the time with solar and wind powering individual homes. But you have several fallacies:

1) You assume I will be running it dry on a daily basis. Very few drivers put that much mileage on their non-commercial vehicles.

2) You assume you won't be storing energy during times when you are not charging your vehicle, which is utterly ridiculous whenever you talk about solar/wind power. One of the main drawbacks of such power supplies is that they are only available at certain times, so you generate constantly whenever it is available and store it. So yes, plenty enough to top off your vehicle on a daily basis.

So.

You can drive it three hundred miles on a charge (i think). That means that you'd better limit your trips to 150 miles.

Self fulfilling prophecy. "It can't work because it doesn't work and therefore it won't work". If the switch to energy was made, instead of gas stations, you'd have recharge stations dotted all over the place, due to demand for such. With such a long range for vehicles, and the ability to 'refuel' at home, the only people needing such stations would be those taking extended trips, or the forgetful. A much lower percentage of the actual driving community, but still enough to make it economically viable.

Currently, you can completely recharge the 85 KwH battery of a Tesla Model S in two hours. So you plug it in when you go shopping, and when you are done, you have at least enough juice to get back home. For trips, you recharge when you take breaks, like seeing the sights, taking a lunch break, and stretching out your legs. Heck, this could revitalize the hotel industry if they install plugs for vehicles and charge you for the electricity you use.

A hybrid is a better solution than a full electric, because it's not range-limited. And a plug-in hybrid is better than a straight hybrid.

See previous rebuttal. A fuel-burning vehicle is range-limited based on ability to refuel as well.

GM is losing that kind of money on the Volt because nobody wants one - they predicted sales of 40,000 for this year, and as of last month, had sold only 13,500 ... and that was with a month of trying to blow them out the doors with $199/month leases last month. And they've got $1.2 billion in development costs tied up in the thing.

Because it is a piece of crap and a joke. Heck, the Toyoda RAV1 is rolling out with MUCH better performance numbers and no engine. Their 'development' is also a joke. Purely throwing money away for the sake of throwing money away, considering LIon batteries are a fully mature and developed technology. You could buy a better one than is found in the Volt off the shelf. And the inefficiency of the ICE to electric conversion is another bad joke. As well as completely obsolete. Heck, removing the engine block and fuel tank will free up enough weight to at least triple the car's electric range.

Electric cars will be dependent on the grid for the foreseeable future ... and that means fossil fuels. (Much as i'd like to see a rational approach to nuclear, it ain't gonna happen fast enough to make any difference in this matter.)

And they'll only be good for 'round town or recreational (short range) driving, until someone figures out how to transfer 60 KWH in five minutes or less.

Without the batteries exploding.

vast majority of vehicle usage is 'round town'. That was the excuse for the Volt's pathetic range, wasn't it? The advantage of the Tesla vehicles' 300 mile range is that you have the option of taking longer trips on those occasions when it is warranted. I will agree that fossil fuel plants need to go the way of the dodo, but hey, that's politics and kickback systems for ya.

===========================

And, speaking of "performance", you might want to consider that this year's LeMans winner, an Audi R18 E-Tron Quattro, was a hybrid.

Charon will be running s ski resort before an electric car even gets entered in LeMans.

Electric is a lovely idea. But it's not what's going to replace the gasoline engine.

I will respectfully disagree with you, and leave it at that.

Personally, I'm of the opinion we could free our dependency on foreign oil in five years if only idiots will stop screwing around and use biodeisel made from purified waste grease from fast food joints. Much less expensive than trying to make dedicated crops for it, and solves another large problem we have. An average fast food joint produces about a barrel of waste grease per day. Multiply by number of fast food joints, and you have suddenly out-produced OPEC in fuel for your trucking and ground shipping industry. For pennies on the dollar compared to petroleum based fuel. Heck, disposal of waste grease is a significant expense for fast food joints, you'll actually be *PAID* by your own SUPPLIERS. You can't get a better bottom line than that.

It's not a total solution, of course, since it won't affect civilian consumption much (there's a few diesel engine trucks out there, a few vans, but they are the vast minority) but at least a significant portion of fuel consumption will have switched to something self-maintainable.

We're ranging a bit far afield from the OP here. May I suggest that the Gas/Electric debate be moved to its own thread?

On the original topic, from the great-grandson and grandson of car salesmen: Do your research, by which I mean CARFAX/other title search, operating cost and Blue Book value. Figure on paying 3-7% more than KBB, but come in and offer 7-10% under (haggling is a wonderful thing) and try to settle for KBB if you can. Make sure you can afford the car (both purchase and operating costs). Finally, be prepared to walk away. You don't owe the seller anything, no matter how long you talk to him.

Dave11 wrote:We're ranging a bit far afield from the OP here. May I suggest that the Gas/Electric debate be moved to its own thread?

I'm done. I've quoted actual numbers.

If I may point out - even though I have put some miles on my car because of where I live, in relation to where I used to live in this state, I still have not averaged more than 50 miles a day in the last three months of driving my current car (an old '03 Buick Century).

With the exception of a handful of times over the last, oh, 10 years or so, I don't think I've averaged more than 45 miles/day. Theoretically, an electric or plug-in hybrid would work for me - if it was allowed by my apartment complex for me to install a charging station in my garage.

I would be more than willing to take this to a separate thread (since I'm kinda the one who mentioned Tesla in the first place), but I don't know if the posts can be broken off into a separate thread by mods?

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:To be honest, I'm not a gear head. I never saw the point in a muscle car. "Sure, it'll go zero to sixty... in the time it takes to empty the gas tank".

Give me something practical, with high gas milage and low maintenance costs. You know, about the polar opposite of a muscle car. As long as it can do highway speeds, I'm fine.

Honestly, I was drooling over the Tesla Motors Model X. Full electric, NO ENGINE, 300 mile range on a full charge, 5 door sedan. Plus doors the likes of which haven't been seen since Back to the Future. These hybrids being touted as electric cars or glorified golf carts that Detroit have been trying to foist off on the public are a sick joke.

I understand your feelings (though I still drool over sports cars). I bought a 4-cylinder, standard transmission Mazda 3 because I wanted fuel economy that was still fun to drive (love my car BTW).

Regarding the Tesla cars...well I think it would be fun to drive an electric (though I'm afraid I wouldn't have many places to re-charge it here), but I'm more enamored with the Roadster. I've seen about four on the roads around where I live, and I nearly got in an accident each time due to either A) not watching the road because I was watching the Roadster, or B) trying to keep up with the Roadster as it sped through traffic.

Julie wrote:Regarding the Tesla cars...well I think it would be fun to drive an electric (though I'm afraid I wouldn't have many places to re-charge it here), but I'm more enamored with the Roadster. I've seen about four on the roads around where I live, and I nearly got in an accident each time due to either A) not watching the road because I was watching the Roadster, or B) trying to keep up with the Roadster as it sped through traffic.

The Roadster is no more. (Though they plan on going back to production on a rather different version):

The next generation is expected to be introduced in 2014 and will not be based on the Lotus gliders but instead on a shortened version of the architecture developed for the Tesla Model S. Featuring new options and enhanced components, the 2012 Tesla Roadster is being sold in limited numbers only in Europe, Asia and Australia. Tesla's U.S. exemption for not having special two-stage passenger airbags expired for cars made after the end of 2011 so the last Roadsters cannot be sold in the American market. Also a total of 15 Final Edition Roadsters were produced to close the manufacturing cycle of Tesla's first electric car. As of June 2012 the car is still on sale in Europe and Asia until inventories are depleted.

Hmmm. A shortened, convertible version of a coupe chassis.

Right - nothing could possibly be wrong with that...

Fairportfan wrote:The Roadster is no more. (Though they plan on going back to production on a rather different version):

The next generation is expected to be introduced in 2014 and will not be based on the Lotus gliders but instead on a shortened version of the architecture developed for the Tesla Model S. Featuring new options and enhanced components, the 2012 Tesla Roadster is being sold in limited numbers only in Europe, Asia and Australia. Tesla's U.S. exemption for not having special two-stage passenger airbags expired for cars made after the end of 2011 so the last Roadsters cannot be sold in the American market. Also a total of 15 Final Edition Roadsters were produced to close the manufacturing cycle of Tesla's first electric car. As of June 2012 the car is still on sale in Europe and Asia until inventories are depleted.

I haven't seen that on their site(for my limited driving as a single mom, I've been looking rather hard at these), or any site with articles on the Roadster. Can I have your article source please(as I said, I'm doing my homework on electric cars)? The Roadster is not as practical(see above single mom statement) for me, but it's still rather sharp. I still stand by my original statement to the OP's topic, so after I get the info, I'm staying out of it unless someone wants to open a new thread for electric vs other cars.

DinkyInky wrote:I haven't seen that on their site(for my limited driving as a single mom, I've been looking rather hard at these), or any site with articles on the Roadster. Can I have your article source please(as I said, I'm doing my homework on electric cars)? The Roadster is not as practical(see above single mom statement) for me, but it's still rather sharp. I still stand by my original statement to the OP's topic, so after I get the info, I'm staying out of it unless someone wants to open a new thread for electric vs other cars.

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

Referencing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/autom ... 1&emc=eta1
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011 ... two-months
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/tesla-roads ... -line.html
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArtic ... rs/259752/

Fairportfan wrote:

DinkyInky wrote:I haven't seen that on their site(for my limited driving as a single mom, I've been looking rather hard at these), or any site with articles on the Roadster. Can I have your article source please(as I said, I'm doing my homework on electric cars)? The Roadster is not as practical(see above single mom statement) for me, but it's still rather sharp. I still stand by my original statement to the OP's topic, so after I get the info, I'm staying out of it unless someone wants to open a new thread for electric vs other cars.

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

Referencing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/autom ... 1&emc=eta1
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011 ... two-months
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/tesla-roads ... -line.html
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArtic ... rs/259752/

Umm... yea. You just cited a user edited page (i.e. Wikipedia). Creditability = 0. Particularly when you can still order them on the Tesla website.

Anyways, as was previously said, we've derailed this thread long enough.

As I said before, I'm not interested in muscle cars. I have no use for a vehicle with fuel efficiency measured in 'gallons per mile', regardless of the performance. Since I won't be able to get any track time, top speeds in excess of highway speeds are simply there to provide more efficiency when going highway speeds, and even that has a limit. As long as you are running around 3krpm at highway speeds, everything else is just a temptation to get tickets.

The only use for an accel curve found in muscle cars is for avoiding a crash, which can also generally be done by breaking or dodging, assuming the driver actually knows how to perform said maneuvers and not simply panic and crash into everyone around them.

Considering the car's shell is pretty much drag-and-drop replaceable with any other car's shell with the same wheelbase, 'sleek looks' can be had on economy cars, but Detroit makes them look kludgey on purpose to encourage sales of muscle cars. It'll just require a bit of after-market work to make your econo car look like it's a ten second car. It'll require a *GREAT DEAL* more effort to actually MAKE it one, but see previous argument as to why I feel this isn't necessary.

With this in mind, I look for a vehicle which suits my needs. I'm looking for fuel economy, dependability, and affordability. Which is why I previously mentioned the Model Z, since it meets all three criteria. However, just looking at gas-burners, there's several options. Unfortunately, none of them are domestic.

Personally, I'd probably go with an Accord. I've heard there's going to be a plug-in hybrid version of the Accord in next year's model, with specs that blows the Volt out of the water, although that isn't particularly difficult to do. Maybe Prius V, if I need a station wagon.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Umm... yea. You just cited a user edited page (i.e. Wikipedia). Creditability = 0.

Which has been, in independent surveys, rated on a par with Brittanica for accuracy.

I also cited the references the Wikipedia article was drawing from.

If that's not enough ... Go Fish.

jwhouk wrote:Ahem.

Thank you jwhouk!

So...Corvette...Did you buy it waldosan?

Julie wrote:

jwhouk wrote:Ahem.

Thank you jwhouk!

So...Corvette...Did you buy it waldosan?

Yes!

Enquiring Minds Want To Know!