Wapsi Square Forum

Fairportfan wrote:

Bathorys Daughter wrote:OTOH, the lack of places to plug one in could be managed if the car had a small on-board, very quiet engine and generator. That way you could recharge it overnight no matter what. Probably something around 5 HP would do. I've seen articles on small 2-3 KW generators that are very quiet and quite portable. With a larger gas tank, one of those might even work out.

That sort of defeats the purpose of the electric car, since the engine driving the generator would consume fossil fuel and produce pollution locally, defeating the main perceived virtues of an electric car.

Of course, but until plug-in places become more ubiquitous it's a possible solution, preventing you from having to use two different kinds of cars. Also, since the generator runs at a certain speed pretty much all the time, it can be tuned to a perfection not possible with the engine in today's cars and their demand for pulling the car in all sorts of conditions. Thus the pollution will be less and fuel efficiency higher. Plus, you only need it when away from home, so it's a part time thing, unlike always running an ICE. Assuming, like most people, such trips are rare compared to day to day usage. I'm just suggesting it as a way to get more people into an electric car sooner. The generator I mentioned, can be easily removed when not needed so you're not carrying around the dead weight. A time of transition always requires compromise to make it happen at all. Unyielding adherence to the dogma of electric only will only delay things unnecessarily.

The obvious answer for a long-haul trip would be to go to campgrounds that have electric sites. KOA's around the country usually have Kamping Kabins that you can rent out by the night. The only problem, of course, is that you have to bring bedding with your clothes and toiletries. And, of course, KOA's aren't even spaced along the way.

Tesla has an option of a 110-volt charger for their batteries, but it obviously takes longer to charge than if you use a 220-volt laundry-room outlet. All you would (theoretically) need at your destination is a 110 outlet that is in the vicinity of the parking area. If I had a Leaf, I could probably drive down to my dad's in Racine after a full charge up here, then probably pull into his garage and plug it in there overnight.

Fairportfan wrote:

bmonk wrote:Hollywood hasn't yet heard about these safety measures. . . . WARNING: TV Tropes--Every Car Is a Pinto

In fact, Pintos did not explode

Audi 5000s did not uncontrollably accelerate.

. . .

to you and all the others who responded:

That was the point--Hollywood likes explosions, and has so many and such vivid images of explosions that many people think they are inevitable. Indeed, some shows show cars flying off cliffs and exploding in midair--without hitting anything larger than a mosquito!

I agree: Mythbusters and others have shown that the problem is not explosions, but usually fires caused by leaky gas tanks.

jwhouk wrote:The obvious answer for a long-haul trip would be to go to campgrounds that have electric sites. KOA's around the country usually have Kamping Kabins that you can rent out by the night. The only problem, of course, is that you have to bring bedding with your clothes and toiletries. And, of course, KOA's aren't even spaced along the way.

Tesla has an option of a 110-volt charger for their batteries, but it obviously takes longer to charge than if you use a 220-volt laundry-room outlet. All you would (theoretically) need at your destination is a 110 outlet that is in the vicinity of the parking area. If I had a Leaf, I could probably drive down to my dad's in Racine after a full charge up here, then probably pull into his garage and plug it in there overnight.

Some years ago, we had a visitor from California who thought that we were very environmentally friendly up here on the Northern plains. After all, all our cars were electric--they all had the recharge cords hanging from the radiators.

Boy was she surprised to hear about head bolt heaters, and the need for them.

That's about the only reason why people in Northern Wisconsin could use electric cars without issue - until, of course, it turned December.

Tesla promises free solar-powered travel with new ‘Supercharger’ tech

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/25/t ... rger-tech/

bmonk wrote:

Bathorys Daughter wrote:. . . It's like anything else, procedures will be put in place for safe operation. After all, even in a car today you are sitting on gallons of highly flammable and potentially explosive fuel. Over the years methods were developed to make the system reasonably safe. At least with air, you're not likely to burn to death should it blow. Heck, all sorts of bad things can happen with home use tanks of LP gas. There's a huge bomb waiting to go off, but they rarely do. Low pressure, yes, but very explosive fuel. At least the explosive-due-spark thingy isn't a real problem with compressed air.

Hollywood hasn't yet heard about these safety measures. . . . WARNING: TV Tropes--Every Car Is a Pinto

I would sit on an LP gas tank. They are mostly safe, for them to be dangerous they need to take fire first, and that gives you several mns before they explode. The problem with an high pressure air tank is that if damaged, they can explode immediately, and because detending the gas will lower temperature in the -150°C range, the tank will be brittle and shatter in thousands of deadly shrapnells.

I deal with compressed air in my work and it is truely an hasardeous substance at even medium pressure, much more than one can imagine.

Yamara wrote:Tesla promises free solar-powered travel with new ‘Supercharger’ tech

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/25/t ... rger-tech/

I am believing this when i am seeing it.

Heard about that on the radio, was looking for something good to link to. It sounds great in theory but it will only be successful if subsequent cars from the other manufacturers use compatible "Supercharger" systems so those cars can be charged money instead of being free and the network be commercially viable. Otherwise, the cost will probably be too high for Tesla to absorb and it will fail in a few years.

Fairportfan wrote:

Yamara wrote:Tesla promises free solar-powered travel with new ‘Supercharger’ tech

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/25/t ... rger-tech/

I am believing this when i am seeing it.

Oh, I entirely believe they are promising it!

Yamara wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:

Yamara wrote:Tesla promises free solar-powered travel with new ‘Supercharger’ tech

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/25/t ... rger-tech/

I am believing this when i am seeing it.

Oh, I entirely believe they are promising it!

Bleah.

I'll just throw this link here.

GM discounts Volt, showing that electric cars must be cheaper for people to buy them

jwhouk wrote:I'll just throw this link here.

GM discounts Volt, showing that electric cars must be cheaper for people to buy them

Interesting. It's nice to see that the people at GM are at least claiming that they feel that any losses they've had as a result of Volts not selling are neligible when compared to the technology they can build on with their other vehicles. That kind of broad, forward-thinking is much better than nay-saying and negativity.

Julie wrote:

jwhouk wrote:I'll just throw this link here.

GM discounts Volt, showing that electric cars must be cheaper for people to buy them

Interesting. It's nice to see that the people at GM are at least claiming that they feel that any losses they've had as a result of Volts not selling are neligible when compared to the technology they can build on with their other vehicles. That kind of broad, forward-thinking is much better than nay-saying and negativity.

Negligible?

Ummm ... they were losing in the vicinity of $50,000 on each one they sold at ~$40K. So they lost about $60K on each of the 2,800 they sold in August. (and a lot of those were actually super-cheap leases at $199/month, not actual sales), which comes to about $168,000,000...

Fairportfan wrote:

Julie wrote:Interesting. It's nice to see that the people at GM are at least claiming that they feel that any losses they've had as a result of Volts not selling are neligible when compared to the technology they can build on with their other vehicles. That kind of broad, forward-thinking is much better than nay-saying and negativity.

Negligible?

Ummm ... they were losing in the vicinity of $50,000 on each one they sold at ~$40K. So they lost about $60K on each of the 2,800 they sold in August. (and a lot of those were actually super-cheap leases at $199/month, not actual sales), which comes to about $168,000,000...

Well...negligible was more my choice of word. They are willing to accept those losses given the benefits they feel they received from working on the technology and the original intent of the vehicle.

I like "glass is half full" people as long as they don't ignore the negative but instead try to find the positive in unfortunate situations.

Julie wrote: Well...negligible was more my choice of word. They are willing to accept those losses given the benefits they feel they received from working on the technology and the original intent of the vehicle.

I like "glass is half full" people as long as they don't ignore the negative but instead try to find the positive in unfortunate situations.

My first wife's father used o say: "Optimists are never pleasantly surprised."

Also, i cheerfully admit that the loss-per-vehicle includes R&D costs (somewhere in the vicinity of $1.8 billion, i read).

If they can actually manage to sell enough units (the 2800 sold in August brought the total sales for the year up to about 13,500; they had planned/hoped to sell 40,000 this year), the price per unit of that R&D will come down, though i doubt they'll ever sell enough to break even, much less make a profit.

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

I had forgotten this - the super-cheap leases that pushed all those cars out in August? The people who got them are paying as little as $5,050 over the course of the four year lease...

Ouch.

Recently spotted this at Gizmag...

Jabberwonky wrote:Recently spotted this at Gizmag...

Oooo...preeeetty! I wonder how well it actually works in the real world.

Julie wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:Recently spotted this at Gizmag...

Oooo...preeeetty! I wonder how well it actually works in the real world.

Pretty well, assuming that you can find enough of that "carbon fiver" the article talks about. I understand that it comes high...

I'm not boron you, am I?

(deposits a drop-leaf Table of the Elements into the Pun Jar)

Dave wrote:

Julie wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:Recently spotted this at Gizmag...

Oooo...preeeetty! I wonder how well it actually works in the real world.

Pretty well, assuming that you can find enough of that "carbon fiver" the article talks about. I understand that it comes high...

I'm not boron you, am I?

(deposits a drop-leaf Table of the Elements into the Pun Jar)

One would have thought you learned your lesson when Fairport Fan stuffed you in the pun jar...

EDIT: PS - I think those 'carbon fiver's are only a sawbuck each...