"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Made by Lotus and will do low flying. A saloon available in around 18
months time. Well by, by, internal combustion engine.

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0...ory_page_prev2


Looks like it is abput 8 months away
Tesla Motors unveiled their uber-chic Roadster, a supercharged electric
vehicle that looks, feels and drives like many other high-end sports cars
Wednesday night. The main difference is the noise. Powered by a 3-phase,
4-pole AC induction motor, the Roadster can go 130 mph and does 0-60 in
about 4 seconds, all completely silent.


Tonight was the grand unveiling of the Roadster in a decorated airport
hanger in Santa Monica, CA. I don't ride in many sports cars, and I
certainly have never been in one that zips across an airport's tarmac
without so much as a whisper. But tonight I got a quick ride in the Roadster
and all I could hear from the passenger's seat (not even Gov.
Schwarzenegger, who flew in for a brief look at the car, was allowed to
drive it) was wind noise. And myself saying "Wow" under my breath.


The car is low to the ground, and smooth in all possible ways. But this
vehicle isn't just a sports car. It's also a green car. There are zero
tailpipe emissions. There isn't even a tailpipe. Tesla Motors is working to
provide purchasers with a photovoltaic panel that will turn the driving
experience into an actual net producer of energy, according to Tesla Motors
chairman Elon Musk. (cont'd after jump)


Check out the exclusive video of the unveiling that features interviews with
Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard and the company's chairman Elon Musk, as
well as footage of the car in motion from both inside and outside the
cockpit - after the jump!

Check out the rest of my report, a gallery of LIVE and OFFICIAL pics, and
Tesla's press release with full specs after the jump.


Tonight's unveiling was also an invitation to purchase the Roadster when it
is released in mid-2007 (for about $80,000-$120,000). The company is
offering the first 100 Tesla Roadsters as Signature models. Musk said that
the people who buy the Signature cars will not only be getting an incredible
sports car, but will be helping to pay the R&D costs for future Tesla Motor
vehicles. And that's what tonight was really about: the future. Gadget, an
L.A.-based mechanic who converts ICE cars to EV and was seen in the ovie
"Who Killed The Electric Car?", and that film's director Chris Paine, were
right behind me in line for the test ride. Paine filmed the promo video for
the Roadster that was projected onto the walls. Earlier in the evening,
Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard said that, "An electric sports car was the
way to fundamentally change the way we drive in the USA." Gadget and Paine
agreed - although Gadget is convinced his conversion process is going to be
more effective than $100,000 sports cars in getting EVs onto the streets -
and after seeing what is possible with an EV, I have to admit there is
pretty much endless possibility out there in electric motor land.


Lastly, there have been a lot of rumors floating around about the Roadster's
specs, and tonight Tesla Motors finally let us know exactly what the deal
is. Some of the rumors are true: the car can go 250 miles or so on a single
charge (thanks in part to regenerative breaking that charges the AC motor)
and will have all of the crash test ratings and safety features (airbags,
GPS) when it is released. You can read the entire spec sheet and press
release after the jump and at the Tesla Motor's website.

"Mike Dodd" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Mike Dodd" wrote in message
...


(assuming you meant "Bye Bye", as in the end of the IC...

Yep. I can't wait to see the back of them.






Please note that I'll welcome the day that electric replaced IC - but
that day isn't here yet, nor will it be in 18 months with the release of
the saloon. With the recharging limitations of this technology you need
to be looking at something like a three-fold range improvement before
you can start scrapping the IC.

You are a very negative person. Do you think the world is going to end
soon too?

Hmmm, you seem to have a rather bipolar view. Maybe you should rethink
where the lithium is best used.

Wow!

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Yes I suppose the electric car does it crapping elsewhere.. at the power
station?....

Indeed. There are some advantages to that, in that it is easier to treat
a lot of pollution in one place, than it is to treat small amounts of
pollution in lots of places.

Yep.

However, the inefficiencies in the systems mean that, a couple of years
ago, it was demonstrated that an electric car produced three times as
much pollution as a modern internal combustion engine powered car.

Nonsense. That was probably a worse case scenario.

It was based on an average IC saloon car compared to an average electric car
which, as electric cars were then squarely aimed at the small car market,
probably produced a bias in favour of the electric car.

Modern generating equipment, transmissions, localised power stations,
modern batteries in cars etc, proves that is total balls.

You appear to be talking about efficiency of energy conversion, which is not
the same as the type or amount of pollution produced in converting that
energy.

OTOH, car manufacturers are also continually improving their products

They are? That's new to me.

Perhaps you should read more.

so that driving a modern five litre vehicle I am producing far less
pollution than I was when driving around in my average saloon car in the
1960s.

It still wastes 75% of the energy in the tank. No change there.

Current petrol engine efficiency averages 32%, not the 25% you seem to
think. If compression ratios were raised to around 12:1, the efficiency
could exceed 50%. OTOH best power station efficiency today is about 60%,
although most generating plant in use is nearer 40% efficient. Transmission
losses in the UK average around 7.4% and the non-zero charge recharging
efficiency of traction batteries is around 80-85%, although that can drop
off dramatically as the charge level approaches 90%. Thus, assuming that
people do not fully charge their batteries, but only top up to around 90%
(i.e the best case), the energy efficiency of an electric vehicle is around
30% with current equipment, but could rise to 45% if all generating
equipment were brought up to the best standards.

Colin Bignell

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

The DNS server is actually in Fort
Knox,

shakes head in disbelief

You really don't have a clue, do you?

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

The DNS server is actually in Fort
Knox,

shakes head in disbelief

You really don't have a clue, do you?



Perhaps this is the answer to the RedBus HEX power issues.
We should have our servers co-located at the Fort Knox site.

Untill a small chap with a sharp-rimmed bowler hat comes along, I suppose.

I wonder what they charge for rackspace?

( Alongside 'the' ( singular ) internet DNS server... )

--
Ron

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

Modern generating equipment, transmissions, localised power stations,
modern batteries in cars etc, proves that is total balls.

You appear to be talking about efficiency of energy conversion, which is
not the same as the type or amount of pollution produced in converting
that energy.

Energy used to propel n amount of cars of same size x number of miles.
1. Using electric
2. Using petrol.

Also factor in the energy sued in the refining and distribution process for
car fuel too.

That is what it is about. EVs win. They also don't ruin millions of lungs
in towns and cities too.

OTOH, car manufacturers are also continually improving their products

They are? That's new to me.

Perhaps you should read more.

Your idea of improving cars is another sunroof.

so that driving a modern five litre vehicle I am producing far less
pollution than I was when driving around in my average saloon car in the
1960s.

It still wastes 75% of the energy in the tank. No change there.

Current petrol engine efficiency averages 32%,

Nope. 25% You are on about peak.

not the 25% you seem to think. If compression ratios were raised to around
12:1, the efficiency could exceed 50%.

In your dreams. External combustion Stirlings can only just reach 50%

OTOH best power station efficiency today is about 60%,

25% of a cars fuel tank vs. 60% is big leap. That 60% can be more if local
power stations are used using CHP.

although most generating plant in use is nearer 40% efficient.

The old stuff.

Transmission losses in the UK average around 7.4% and the non-zero charge
recharging efficiency of traction batteries is around 80-85%, although
that can drop off dramatically as the charge level approaches 90%.

Not with the Tesla. Read what they have done to make it viable and double
range.

snip out of date stuff about EV efficiencies

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

The DNS server is actually in Fort
Knox,

shakes head in disbelief

You really don't have a clue, do you?

How is that grotty town you live in?

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:06:36 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
He is confused you know - the weather and all that takes its toll on them.
Currently electric motors assist an IC engine in hybrids. In an EV, a
Stirling would only be charging and doing ancillary electrical work.

I've just come back from Denver. The main pedestrianised street has hybrid
buses with LPG engines running at a continuous speed charging batteries
which then drive electric motors. Very smooth and quiet, but, I suspect,
peculiarly suited to a low speed frequent stop-start application.

http://www.transteq.com/press_release.asp

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Tesla Motors unveiled their uber-chic Roadster, a supercharged electric
vehicle

Do you *ever* understand the technical terms you use? Perhaps you'd ask
your nurse to explain supercharged...

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
I've just come back from Denver. The main pedestrianised street has
hybrid buses with LPG engines running at a continuous speed charging
batteries which then drive electric motors. Very smooth and quiet, but,
I suspect, peculiarly suited to a low speed frequent stop-start
application.

They are indeed - which is where the Prius scores, stop and start town
driving. Unfortunately it has poor open road performance and economy which
isn't much use for a 20,000 quid car in the UK. Fine as a town car for US
film stars to try and prove they aren't just conspicuous consumers. ;-)

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:05:47 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Tonight was the grand unveiling of the Roadster in a decorated airport
hanger in Santa Monica, CA. I don't ride in many sports cars, and I
certainly have never been in one that zips across an airport's tarmac
without so much as a whisper. But tonight I got a quick ride in the
Roadster and all I could hear from the passenger's seat (not even Gov.
Schwarzenegger, who flew in for a brief look at the car, was allowed to
drive it) was wind noise. And myself saying "Wow" under my breath.
---8---

Well congratulations! Fancy our very own Dr D (I really think you should
go back to calling yourself International Man of Mystery after this) being
invited to ride in this wonderful new motor on this prestigius occasion.

And you selflessly put a copy of your write-up on
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/20/t...-santa-monica/
to share with others too!

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:05:47 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

completely silent.

Has anyone considered the effect of the silent road vehicle on the
accident rate for collisions with pedestrains, cyclists and horse
riders ?


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
I've just come back from Denver. The main pedestrianised street has
hybrid buses with LPG engines running at a continuous speed charging
batteries which then drive electric motors. Very smooth and quiet, but,
I suspect, peculiarly suited to a low speed frequent stop-start
application.

They are indeed - which is where
the Prius scores, stop and start town
driving. Unfortunately it has poor open
road performance and economy

Sad isn't it. I have a Prius the open road economy is very good. I wonder
if Richard's loafers are good economically.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Tesla Motors unveiled their uber-chic
Roadster, a supercharged electric
vehicle

Do you

snip senile babble

It is sad you know. The snipping has to be done.

"Paul Herber" wrote in message
ell.net...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:05:47 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

completely silent.

Has anyone considered the effect of the silent road vehicle on the
accident rate for collisions with pedestrains, cyclists and horse
riders ?

There has been a suggestion of a proximity buzzer.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Next he'll be claiming to have a 2ft long penis...

Clear for all to see poking out of his forehead...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I have a Prius
[snip lies]

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Slurp wrote:

Without picking through your figures, you probably are right. Max speed
is about power to drag. So going fast is very energy inefficient.

Picking through the specs, the vehicle weight is not quoted,and
acceleration is power to weight - so that'll be another battery-eater.

So that 250 mile range probably requires gentle acceleration and
moderate speed - but there are no concrete figures for the test
conditions - so we don't know.

On the plus side it quotes 1000lb for the battery pack weight, and it
sounds like it's using a single electric motor through a conventional
powertrain. Lotus make a light car - so maybe around a ton kerbweight?
And people from the electronics sector do know a few things about power
management - they're used to doing everything possible to get the most
out of a battery.

That many Li-ion cells must be a large proportion of the price - I
wonder if you get good quality or even hand-matched cells? And how long
before the battery pack has had enough and requires replacing?


A French electric car has the battery pack _on hire_ from the manufacturer.
You don't buy it. Is that the way to go here?

Sylvain.

In article ,
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
A French electric car has the battery pack _on hire_ from the
manufacturer. You don't buy it. Is that the way to go here?

Only if the manufacturer subsidises the cost. Hiring can never be cheaper
than buying, as an average, in the long term.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That many Li-ion cells must be a large proportion of the price - I
wonder if you get good quality or even hand-matched cells? And how long
before the battery pack has had enough and requires replacing?


A French electric car has the battery pack _on hire_ from the
manufacturer. You don't buy it. Is that the way to go here?

Sylvain.



The big problem with rechargeable cars is the length of time required to
give a full re-charge. You can fully re-fuel an IC vehicle in minutes. I
can see this being a bigger problem in the US, where people think nothing
about driving hundreds of miles in a day.[1] Re-fueling stops will not
neccesarily co-incide with convenient overnight stops!

I really can't imagine any battery charging process in the near future that
can transfer energy anything like as quickly as pumping hydrocarbon fuel.

The only realistic solution I can see is having standardised battery-packs
which can be swapped for fully-charged ones. But that's fraught with
problems. It makes it difficult for manufacturers to to introduce new
battery technologies, for example. Also, the size and weight make this a
non-trivial problem on the forecourt too. Somewhat akin to doing an
engine-swap every few hundred miles! Also, I imagine it will have consumer
resistance because people will want to own 'their' batteries, and not swap
them for ones of unknown history. Then there's the issue of who owns the
actual cells, and who takes the financial hit when a battery pack finally
gives up. The unfortunate person who happens to have the battery that day?
Perhaps the idea of the manufacturer owning the cells and hiring them will
address this problem.

Certainly an interesting idea.

[1] An American friend told me this a few months ago: What's a difference
between a Brit and an American? A Brit thinks 100 miles is a long way, an
American thinks 100 years is a long time.

--
Ron

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Other ways of getting the tax revenue - which believe me they can't afford
to lose. Road pricing is the obvious one and remove direct taxation on
petrol and diesel. At the moment there are so few electric cars it's just
good publicity for the government to allow them to be cheaper to run per
mile. But if they became popular - let alone the norm - things will soon
change.

The answer is to simply let fuel oil prices rise not only at the pump
but at the power stations too. Then what you get supplied to you can be
bought from cheap nuclear power stations or expensive coal burning ones,
as you wish,..;-)


I was wondering about the 70A charging mentioned earlier too. 63A would
be more convenient as there are plugs and sockets already available at
this rating. In theory the RECs should love this, if the car could be
charged on a timer overnight when other demands are low.

I doubt the existing grid structure could cope with charging every single
vehicle in the country overnight.


I did SOME calcs on this last time it came up.

I think the answer I got was 2-3 times boost for the whole
infrastructure for a completely electric transport system.

However the picture is complicated by several factors.

1/. It wouldn't be all electric - there would still be a lot of
biodiesel and alcohol fuels used for usage patterns that don't fit
'recharging'

2/. Th egrid is currently shaped for peak demand - which happens by
day..overnight charging of say 30% of the UK cars would probably hardly
do more than allow high efficiency power stations to run 24 hours
without having to be taken off line. Its actually a more efficient way
to do things.

My final conclusion - hastily done - was that the current grid would
simply absorb demand over the next few years if these cars became more
popular, and then undergo progressive expansion on a timely basis as
more cars came online.

Fortunately adding wires is not so hugely long timescale wise as adding
e.g. a nuclear power station. If the demand is there, the capital costs
can easily be met by debt financing. No need for government intervention
at all.


I've always suspected that an electric car could kick the nads off IC
engined types.

It depends entirely on how much power you give it - same as an IC engined
one. Or perhaps the land speed record for a wheel driven vehicle is
already held by an electric car? ;-)


I think not. But its actually pretty good..over 250mph IIRC.

Motor and control technology is already pretty polished - problem has
always been with storing enough electricity. Back in the 80's someone
developed a sodium battery that was supposed to be the answer. Then
there were batteries based on aluminium. This one does sound a bit more
hopeful as it is using mainstream technology - the residual problem 1
now being cost - but we've seen many cases where that's sorted itself
out (early mobile phones were not cheap for example).

It's as I said - there's always a new battery technology just round the
corner which will 'solve the problem'. But it ain't arrived yet for
general use. It will when you can store approx the same amount of energy
(adjusted for the higher efficiency of an electric motor) as the average
petrol tank in a reasonable volume, weight and cost.

You can, except the cost.

This technology is not around the corner.Its available NOW and has been
for the last few years..simply not in the larger sizes that cars
required, or in the low cost. Hence the Tesla has had to do what
previous lithium battery cars have done - assemble packs out of a lot of
'laptop' sized batteries.

This is acceptable I think at this stage of the game. Its really a proof
of concept and a rich mans toy at this point.

I said earlier this year that there were three points of entry that made
sense into this market

1/. Luxury specialist cars, where cost was not a factor and electric
gave superior NVH and general quality

2/. Mopeds scooters and small short range vehicles, where the cost would
not be great.

3/. High power expensive toys. like the Tesla. which rich men could buy
to make a fashion statement.

I would expect the entry into 'our' market to be via things like an
electric 'smart' car..

and possibly some urban busses.


The trouble is electric car makers and their advocates always quote the
best possible range and best possible performance without making it clear
the two can't happen at the same time. To fool the gullible like dribble,
who already thinks it's possible to exceed 100% efficiency. Now we all
know that driving an IC car hard results in heavier fuel consumption and
of course the same applies to an electric one.

But thats no different from any other car. My Jag I have just sold was
quoted as 0-60 in 5.2 secs and 22mpg.

It CERTAINLY would NOT do 22mpg at its rated top speed of 156mph.

Around London, it used to be about 12mpg. Over 70mph it dropped to
20mpg, and over 100mph it was around 17mpg.

I don't have figures for over 130mph ;-)




Problem 2 is infrastructure - for this to really take off, you need to
have top up points available, probably at roadside cafes or car parks.
Not insoluble.

If you had an electric vehicle with the same sort of range under real
world driving as an IC one, which can be charged at home, you'd probably
not need many 'filling stations'. They would have to charge for supplying
the facility, so would only be used on long journeys where they'd be
essential.


I see it somewhat differently

Look at car usage.

The average suburban estate dweller has a drive and a garage. No problem
there with equipping that with a charge point.

But the average town dweller in on street..here I suspect that he would
drive to work, or the shops, park the thing and charge it THERE. Those
would probably NOT be high capacity charge points..but they would need
to be supplied.

So most car parks would incorporate charging.

That takes care of all but the 'motorway' scenario where you might have
to stop for 40 minutes every 200 miles or so, and go for a rapid
charge..that WOULD need a substation of reasonable dimensions. However
its arguably no more expensive than a bloody great suite of tanks and
the like.

Cheers

Tim

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Stumbles wrote:
The trouble is electric car makers and their advocates always quote
the best possible range and best possible performance without making
it clear the two can't happen at the same time. To fool the gullible
like dribble, who already thinks it's possible to exceed 100%
efficiency. Now we all know that driving an IC car hard results in
heavier fuel consumption and of course the same applies to an electric
one.

Not to the same extent: by driving hard you mean a lot of accelerating
and braking, right? A well-designed electric car can recover a lot of
the kinetic energy put into accelerating through regenerative braking
which an IC cannot.

It would be perfectly possible to recover the kinetic energy lost in
braking with a conventional IC car - after all buses do it. It's a
question of economics. True it's probably cheaper in an electric car by
using the motors as generators, but they will still have conventional
brakes.

But only for the last few mph, or for emergency usage.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:13:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
But what did Detroit know about batteries? Eberhard had squeezed 20
hours of run time out of the little power pack on his eBook.
But what - and this is the important bit - does Eberhard (sounds like a
porn star) know about cars?

That's not the point: what's important is that it sounds as if he _knew_
that he knew nothing[1] about car design and handed that side of the job
over to people with the expertise, in this case Lotus.



Who are arguably, with Prodrive and Ricardo, one of the top 3
independednt automotive R & D companies in the world.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A car does 250 miles and he thinks it is not enough, maybe he wants to
go to Mars. Sad isn't it.

It is if you think Mars is just over 250 miles away. Which loonie website
have you been reading now?

Most people are happy driving about 500 miles in a day. Many modern cars
will do this on one tank - others can be refuelled in minutes. The ability
to re-charge electric cars in the same time is pie in the sky.


Not quite true.

It takes about 10 minutes to fill a car up and then potter around ..if
you think that yiu can do 500 miles with just a ten minute break, well
be my guest. I would normally break a 500 mile journey halfway for a
comfort break - pee, food, coffee etc. Thats maybe 45 minutes.

You can just about recharge a LIPO battery to about 80% capacity from
dead flat in 45 minutes.

The two longest stints I have ever done were Copenhagen to Cambridge,
non stop apart from a ferry crossing and a 45 minute nap at Aaachen at 2
a.m. 23 hours in total..and 900 miles from Tuscany to Cambridge in 16
hours dead, with two drivers and an hour break in the middle plus an
hour on the ferry, and three refuelling stops. I would not normally
exceed 200 miles in a stint in ANY car..and such journeys are pretty
rare. If for no other reason than its cheaper by air over 200 miles, and
quicker..I think the times when I would exceed 200 miles without at
least 40 minutes halt in the middle are rare to be almost nonexistent.
It might be instructive to look at the government regulations regarding
driving hours for HGV vehicles, and draw your own conclusions.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What would be the range of a Ferrari when it does 130mph continuously?
At 130mph it will be in single figures, so not long at all.

Another figure plucked from thin air. Since you're so good at quoting
other's figures please give a source for this one.


My jag did about 15mpg at 130mph, so about 280 miles range probably.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The trouble is electric car makers and their advocates always quote
the best possible range and best possible performance without making
it clear the two can't happen at the same time. To fool the gullible
like dribble, who already thinks it's possible to exceed 100%
efficiency. Now we all know that driving an IC car hard results in
heavier fuel consumption and of course the same applies to an electric
one.

But thats no different from any other car. My Jag I have just sold was
quoted as 0-60 in 5.2 secs and 22mpg.

There are official fuel consumption figures for any IC car which will give
some guidance between makes - but not for electric ones. And hybrids
distort the issue since the town figure is so much better, leading people
to think they are more economical for all use. Which leaves advertisers
open to claim what they want for electric vehicles

It CERTAINLY would NOT do 22mpg at its rated top speed of 156mph.

Around London, it used to be about 12mpg. Over 70mph it dropped to
20mpg, and over 100mph it was around 17mpg.

Those figures are very poor - but it is a design dating from the '60s and
far too heavy with poor CD so the only way to get decent performance was
with vastly powerful engines. Make an electric car weighing that amount
etc for a reasonable comparison. Because such things *always* cloud the
issue. Electric cars will be made with every weight saving and friction
reducing trick in the book. And then compared to the worst possible
conventional IC engined vehicle, when of course the comparison should be
with a similarly advanced construction one. It's called common goalposts.
;-)

I don't have figures for over 130mph ;-)

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What would be the range of a Ferrari when it does 130mph
continuously? At 130mph it will be in single figures, so not long at
all.

Another figure plucked from thin air. Since you're so good at quoting
other's figures please give a source for this one.


My jag did about 15mpg at 130mph, so about 280 miles range probably.

So not single figures from a heavy car with poor CD and a less than state
of the art engine?

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Maybe a nice toy for whacking around country lanes, and for the local
commute. Beyond that and it is simply not practicable.

Not today, no.

But consider...IF the cars were not sold, but leased, and the overall
operational cost and fuel cost was less than - say - a small commuter
car, and you need a second car to commute with..

But that's not what's on offer. It's a car to compete with the likes of
Porsche in both price and performance. As if...

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. We are offering X now at a high
price, but Y will be along shortly which will wipe out the lower priced
competition. Which suggests this tiny firm has a breakthrough the major
makers haven't found after spending billions on research.

Not at all. I think the answer is there in plain sight.

The tiny firm can afford to make a premium product that will appeal to a
tiny minority. And sell in tens or hundreds at best.

The big firms are NEVER first to market with ANYTHING. They wait until
the technology is mature, and then they production engineer it and churn
the kit out for pence.

Looks at te history ofg the personal computer.

- first you could buy an 8080 chip and a board, and program it yourself
in assembler or with switches.

- then you could buy a bloody expensive machine with disks and BASIC in ROM.

- Then you could buy a CP/M machine with disks, and quite a bit of
software like word processors and spreadsheets.

- THEN IBM decided to make one - still not mass market, but a BIGGER
specialised market.

- and so on.

Now we have windows and everyone has one.

What made all this possible?

A market need, and the microprocessor IC.

Not sure what an 8080 chop cost when it first came out..not cheap at
all. But now we have huge processing power and you can pick up an 8080
type chip for about $3. With what amounts to a 8251 PIO all in the pack.

IF a suitable 100-200KWh battery and associated
control/charge/protection electronics cost about £3000, it would be a
total no brainer. Sadly is more like £60k or more..at the moment..but it
doesn't need to be.

Raw lithium is about $89 a kilogram ..but expected to fall a fair amount..
(
http://doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.nsf/ProductLookupItemID/JOM-9805-24/$FILE/JOM-9805-24F.pdf?OpenElement
)
and its energy density is up to 0.72 Mj/kilo, so $123 per megajoule is
the raw material cost at PRESENT.

So a 50KWh battery - enough for a small car - represents 180MJ, or about
$22,500. At todays exchange rates that represents about £13,000//the
weight of lithium in it would be 250kg. I would expect 500kg for a
complete pack. Very comparable with - say - a 1 liter turbodiesel power
train.

Amortised over an expected 100,000 miles, that is 13p per mile.

So whilst it's close its not yet cost effective for a SMALL car. where
£13,000 will buy you the whole car (maybe tow really cheap ones) and it
is effectively worn out over 100,000 miles..

However..consider.

1/. Service costs. There is virtually nothing to wear out on an electric
car - brake pads/discs/tyres are it, really. No fuel/air/oil filters.
spark plugs or engine oil..almost no transmission..just 4 electric
motors in the hubs, and a huge battery, and a bloody great amount of
electronics.

2/. Fuel costs. Unless the government changes things tax wise, the fuel
costs would be something like 3-4p a mile. So overall costs with the
battery depreciation at 13p a mile comes up to say 17p a mile. Contrast
around 11p a mile for a 40mpg diesel RIGHT NOW...and ..

3/. ..The scrap value of the lithium in the battery would NOT be zero.

So my conclusions are that IF the battery manufacturers tooled up for
volume, AND the current tariff on road fuel versus electricity was not
changed, the whole shebang is economically viable.

It is likely that lithium prices will come down as demand increases..the
energy of extraction ultimately controls the price..

Of course none of this makes any sense if we are still relying on fossil
fuels for electricity generation..the overall efficiency of the whole
energy train from fuel to electricity to grid to charger to battery to
wheel - is no better. All that does is move the CO2 pollution up the
chain to the power station, where although its possible to extract it
and sequester it more easily, its not exactly a hugely better solution.

But if a program of renewable sources - and nuclear - power generation
is envisaged, with a heavy *carbon* tax, the balance shifts in favour
massively.


Note as an aside that hydrogen takes 50Kwh to produce just one kilogram
by electrolysis.

and that contains 33KWh ..a bloody awful 66% efficiency from electricity
to fuel..and with a fuel cell at 70%, you are down to 46%.

The a decent switching charger should be around 95%, the battery
conversion efficiency is around 90% or better..go figure where the
'hydrogen' economy is going..











Basically, the sort of BS we've all read before many many times.

Toyota are at the forefront of electric cars - albeit hybrid ones. My
money is on them producing the first all electric practical family car.
That they haven't yet means the technology isn't ready.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Ron Lowe wrote:
I really can't imagine any battery charging process in the near future
that can transfer energy anything like as quickly as pumping hydrocarbon
fuel.

So let's substantially reduce the requirement for battery power / extend
the range, by providing in-transit recharging.

We could have a scheme whereby on the major but low-speed routes in city
centres is provided a network of overhead wires carrying electricity. A
"collector" could be mounted on the roof of a vehicle to connect with
these overhead wires. Consumption could be metered, although nowadays it
would be trivial to have an onboard gizmo that would combine charging by
mile, Ah or kWh, time, duration, position etc with continuous wireless
transfer of data to the pricing administration.

It might not be feasible for all private vehicles to use this overhead
power network, but electric buses, taxis and delivery vans all offer the
opportunity for any specialised driver training required.

Owain


And for a return electrode, we could put the things on rails...

--
Ron

"Ron Lowe" wrote in message
...

The big problem with rechargeable cars is the length of time required to
give a full re-charge.

Toshiba have announced a battery that can take 80% of the charge in 3 mins,
full in 5. Tesla are looking to the new batteries that will emerge in nest
few years.

I can see this being a bigger problem in the US, where people think
nothing about driving hundreds of miles in a day.[1]

The avarage milage is approx the same as in the UK

[1] An American friend told me this a few months ago: What's a difference
between a Brit and an American? A Brit thinks 100 miles is a long way, an
American thinks 100 years is a long time.

The same here. 100 mile round commutes in the UK is quite common. People
packing the car and driving 250 miles to the Lakes is quite common too.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:20:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
This car is in the Porche category and outperforms it in every
way; it is the "same" price in the USA.

It's not on sale.

Correct

You're reading adverts again. One day you'll realise
they are often fantasy.

Realistically the funding already in place to get what is essentially
a powertrain implant into full production is way in excess of that
used to get the base vehicle, all its body variants, engine changes,
and all construction and use and federal compliance changes since 1996
- for instance the original Elise was designed, tooled and placed in
production for *under* £6 million. The £30+ million that Tesla have
might not sound a lot in global motoring terms but they have recruited
the right people, kept the company lean and will almost certainly
deliver what they claim.

The only thing that will stop this going on sale next year is one of
the following:

A drastic movement in the $/£ exchange rate
A global slump
WW3

--

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:14:25 +0100, Tim S wrote:

Problem 2 is infrastructure - for this to really take off, you need to have
top up points available, probably at roadside cafes or car parks. Not
insoluble.

Except this vehicle/powertrain/battery was designed specifically to
avoid the requirement for such infrastructure.


--

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:13:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
But what did Detroit know about batteries? Eberhard had squeezed 20
hours of run time out of the little power pack on his eBook.
But what - and this is the important bit - does Eberhard (sounds like a
porn star) know about cars?

That's not the point: what's important is that it sounds as if he _knew_
that he knew nothing[1] about car design and handed that side of the job
over to people with the expertise, in this case Lotus.

Who are arguably, with Prodrive and Ricardo, one of the top 3 independednt
automotive R & D companies in the world.

If you want to progress an industry get bright outsiders to do it.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:01:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The price has been set

Not an exact one, a target price / market segment mean they are aiming
at is public knowledge. It is by no means an absolute ceiling on what
they might charge. The base vehicle retails at circa USD43000 plus
taxes with an IC engine.

deposits are being taken

No they are not at the moment

and the first delivered
will be around September.

Yes it probably is September, you got the month right but not the
year. It's going to be available from around September 2007.

From the FAQ "Cars will be available for purchase in early 2007 with
an anticipated delivery date of fall 2007"


--

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:23:47 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Mike Dodd wrote:
$80,000 price?, say £55,000 on an optimistic $:£ technology ratio.

But it never happens. Every US car sold here costs about the same in gbp
numbers as dollars. Which is why they are so rare and poor value.

The car will be made in England.

But that is irrelevant as it won't be available here.

Again from the FAQ

"We will not sell a Tesla Roadster to anyone outside of the
continental US"

Now there is nothing stopping anyone privately importing one as it
could be licenced and used on the road after undergoing the
appropriate type testing i.e. single vehicle approval but the support
from Tesla would be non existent.


--

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:50:18 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Made by Lotus

As was the chassis (and it is rumoured quite a bit more) of the DeLorean,
another car that was going to change the face of motoring.

The basic concept used in the DeLorean bodyshell of metal over a
composite core has recently being resurrected by a major steel company
(Arcelor) It's being pushed as the "next big thing" in vehicle bodies.




--

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

However..consider.

1/. Service costs. There is virtually nothing to wear out on an electric
car - brake pads/discs/tyres are it, really.

No replacement disc pads have been sold for a Pirus yet, the brake regen
does it all.

No fuel/air/oil filters. spark plugs or engine oil..almost no
transmission..just 4 electric motors in the hubs, and a huge battery, and
a bloody great amount of electronics.

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Made by Lotus

Yes, must disappoint you it's not a tractor makers. All that **** you can
drive through.

snip kick****ter inane drivel

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...

This car is in the Porche category and outperforms it in every
way; it is the "same" price in the USA.

It's not on sale.

Correct

Lord Hall, but Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the launch on the 20th, and had
a go. If it's alright for Arnie then it's alright for me.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The trouble is electric car makers and their advocates always quote
the best possible range and best possible performance without making
it clear the two can't happen at the same time. To fool the gullible
like dribble, who already thinks it's possible to exceed 100%
efficiency. Now we all know that driving an IC car hard results in
heavier fuel consumption and of course the same applies to an electric
one.

But thats no different from any other car. My Jag I have just sold was
quoted as 0-60 in 5.2 secs and 22mpg.

There are official fuel consumption figures for any IC car which will give
some guidance between makes - but not for electric ones. And hybrids
distort the issue since the town figure is so much better, leading people
to think they are more economical for all use. Which leaves advertisers
open to claim what they want for electric vehicles

It CERTAINLY would NOT do 22mpg at its rated top speed of 156mph.

Around London, it used to be about 12mpg. Over 70mph it dropped to
20mpg, and over 100mph it was around 17mpg.

Those figures are very poor - but it is a design dating from the '60s and
far too heavy with poor CD so the only way to get decent performance was
with vastly powerful engines.

No, its just an utterly over engined car - 4 liter superharged with an
auto box.

Design from the 90's actually :-)

And built for luxury, not fuel consumption.


Make an electric car weighing that amount
etc for a reasonable comparison. Because such things *always* cloud the
issue. Electric cars will be made with every weight saving and friction
reducing trick in the book. And then compared to the worst possible
conventional IC engined vehicle, when of course the comparison should be
with a similarly advanced construction one. It's called common goalposts.
;-)


Typical figures suggest that a small equivalent 100bhp 5 door town car -
something like a Fiesta..is replicable with about 50Kwh for 200 miles range.

At 50mph average, an average drain of 12.5kw. About 16.7bhp.

If one thinks it might do 6 times that power to do 120mph continuously,
then its got 20 minutes 'in the tank' - or about 67 miles 'in the tank'
One third of the fuel consumption. I think that is probably about right.

I think that is very reasonable. Anyone who has actually really stirred
a car around knows that at the best, you can use full power about 70% of
the time, the rest is braking for the next corner..unless you have a car
geared to achieve max power at max speed and hit the autobahn..

One of the major reasons that diesels are so mpg efficient is that they
are most efficient at low throttle settings...petrol tends to be far
less so.