Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

145791033

Comments

  • michael2003michael2003 Member Posts: 144
    I'm also very hopeful that EEStor is not a hoax or misleading. If EEStor's claim's are realized and made available, then the main problem with having EV's (energy storage) will have been solved, and we will be able to concentrate on the other two less critical main problems (energy generation and transmission).
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Hey a statment like that is menat to garner and grab attention and it did grab my attention. ... but in the wrong way.
    Tyere isn o way is could be real OOTFLMAO :P

    Look at EESTOR:

    As of last year selling price would start at $3,200 and fall to $2,100 in high-volume production
    The product weighs 400 pounds and delivers 52 kilowatt-hours.
    The batteries fully charge in minutes as opposed to hours.

    Fact: It is a elctric storage device like a battery and it does have some good features: large capacity high recharge rate and it could drive a large electric motor. But calling it a four passneger Ferrari is a stratch beyond belief. it is liKe saying they are light years ahead.

    LOL

    MidCow
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas..."

    whoa

    What a coincidence; I work in Cedar Park (suburb of Austin) and live just outside of town. You ain't kidding about the 'stealth' part. I did a search for any articles in the local paper covering the Cedar Park area (the Hill Country News): zip mention over the last two years.

    I looked them up; their office is in a business park no more than a couple of miles away from my office. But there's no manufacturing going on (that I'm aware of) at that locale.

    BTW - more discussion of EEStor here:

    http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/eestor_ultracap.html
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    It's telling that they have made a deal with Feel Good Cars, a Canadian company - rather than working with an American car company. I can only assume that: either the American auto companies had zero interest in EVs, or that EESTOR was worried about the influence of big oil here in the US.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Okay : Feel Good Cars . The electric car Zenn, maximum speed 25 mph , maximum range 35 miles. Sounds like a 4-door Ferrari to me LOL, assuming I have a digitized version of a Ferrari's exhaust note playing on my IPOD.

    see their web site http://www.feelgoodcars.com

    Cheers,

    MidCow
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "...or that EESTOR was worried about the influence of big oil here in the US."

    Surpise - they have 'big oil' in Canada too.....
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    To be fair, they do claim it really isn't a battery, and technically they are 100% correct. Batteries to be just that, must include chemicals.....reactions, etc. ;)

    I certainly have my doubts, as all of their claims just seem too good to be true. And if they were really on to something, one would imagine there would be a public bidding war for the company.

    Time will tell....
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Yes, correct. Feel Good Cars makes NEV's. This doesn't preclude making regular EVs. Obviously an EESTOR powerpack would be a waste in an NEV.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    On the Tesla Motors blog there are a lot of posts regarding EEStor. These are EV enthusiasts that want to believe the claims but for the most part there is a great deal of skepticism. The speculation is that this company has accomplished something in a lab and projected these results on a working prototype. The popular speculation continues that this prototype has yet to be produced. We'll see shortly if they actually can deliver something to Feel Good Cars.
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    They have shown off prototypes already - of course, I have no idea what was really in those prototypes. Article here:

    http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/29/1849708.html

    You'll notice in this article they were promising a big announcement for May - which came and went by four months ago.

    Still holding my breath...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Let's say that EEStor does have some revolutionary technology. I'm curious about something. Is it legal for a corporation to buy the patents simply for the purpose of supressing development? I know that airlines used to get sued for predatory pricing when they would deliberately operate at a loss in a market just to drive a competitor out of business. This type of practice seems like it would fall under the same type of anti-trust legislation.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Yes, in our free republic, it is totally "fair" for the owner of any technology to do with it as they wish. This includes not using it.

    In the Free Market, price is the decider. If the "Oil Cartel" bought up those patents, there would be no incentive to sit on them unless the market was not there to make them as much money as they do from oil. When the scales tipped, they would be using the technology. Tipping the scales could be other things besides price. Government regulations mandating a greater MPG than could be economically attained, comes to mind. :)
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I'm just not sure if that is true. For instance I don't believe the FTC would allow cable companies to buy Dish and DirecTV simply for the purpose of turning them off. Buying a patent to eliminate competition doesn't seem much different than buying a company to do the same thing. And if it becomes an area where it clearly contradicts national interest then the powers of eminent domain can be asserted. That's assuming our government isn't completely beholding to the oil industry.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    Just remember that buying a patent is different than buying a company. Cable companies and satalite companies are in direct competition with each other. The buyer and the seller of a patent may or may not be in direct competition with each other and if they were the seller would still exist as a seperate entity.

    Plus there is the trouble of proving that the deliberate shelving of as of yet unproven technology has any negative effect on competition.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Just remember that buying a patent is different than buying a company

    I'm sure it is different but it shouldn't be. Buying a competing technology for the purpose of keeping it off the market should be an anti-trust violation. It may not be but that represents a loophole. Example, Company A cannot buy Company B because it would create a monopoly. So Company A instead purchases Company B's proprietary technology and forbids them from using it. Same result. In the case of an oil company buying technology that could revolutionize EVs I don't think there would be much doubt as to their motivation.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    I'm sure it is different but it shouldn't be.

    Its different because it is different. By buying a patent you are not eliminating any competition. The company you bought it from is still in existence. Its really no different that developing the technology and not releasing it.

    Company A instead purchases Company B's proprietary technology and forbids them from using it. Same result.

    No its not because company B is still in existence and can produce competing technology. Furthermore it is hard to even prove that anyone was harmed if the technology was unproven.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I don't know if any of you guys remember, but I actually WORK in Cedar Park, Texas.

    I looked up EEStor and went by their place a couple of days ago. It's a smallish lease space in a local business/industrial park (probably no more than 3000 sf). Somehow, when I looked at the place, I just didn't get the feeling that I was looking at the birthplace of an industry that would revolutionize the way we drive.

    Of course, I probably would have thought the same thing looking at Michael Dell's garage 25 years ago....

    Personally, I think they are still WAY early in the initial prototype stages and are releasing just enough info/enticements to shake loose more venture capital.

    In other words, be patient. I think it's way too early to start the conspiracy histeria that they've been 'taken over' by some Big Oil/Detroit consortium
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    In other words, be patient. I think it's way too early to start the conspiracy histeria that they've been 'taken over' by some Big Oil/Detroit consortium

    I agree but something similar happened before when Chevron bought control of NiMH battery patents. Suddenly Panasonic was no longer able to make replacement batteries for the RAV4 EV.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Talking about Altair Nanotechnologies, they just demonstrated an all electric SUV at the California ZEV symposium. Supposedly it went very well.

    http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/cnnmoney/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&- newsId=20060928005400&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1000618&vnsId=33
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well, guessing about possible anti-trust actions brought by the government, or possible rulings by the Court, is very much akin to reading tea leaves.

    I have never been very good at either, but I am rarely shocked by inaction or action, on the part of either. ;)
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    tpe,

    That's how MS, CA, and other Oligopolies have operate for years. It happens all the time and has happened before. Why do you think the main reason is we don't have perpetual motion? I am not trying to create friction. That way you remain an Oligopoly and have the effect of a Monopoly without being one. As far as an oil company buying, it would not be vertical integration nor horizontal diversification and would more than likely not provide a good ROI. if you are really interested in what and oil company really does and where they are going talk to an analyst in their R&D or look at their acquisition/divestiture portfolio. Motivation of all business's: increase bottom line.

    LOL,

    MidCow
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    A little more info on the vehicle:

    The demonstration electric SUV is an early model of the commercially available vehicle, targeted for volume delivery in Spring 2007. This vehicle is planned to be capable of road speeds up to 95 mph, a driving range that is configurable up to 200 miles, a battery recharge time potential of less than 10 minutes, and an acceleration of 0 to 60mph in less than 10 seconds. Another configuration of the vehicle as a Sports Utility Truck will also be on display at the Symposium.

    http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/09/21/1918751.htm

    Spring 2007? Nice! However, mention of price is discretely absent. ;)
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Motivation of all business's: increase bottom line.

    I understand that but there are rules to the game. MS is a good example. They've been fined for anti-trust violations and have had to change the way they bundle their OS. I'm sure corporations are constantly trying to push the envelope in terms of what they can get away with. Suposedly that's why we have watchdog agencies like the FTC to make sure that the game stays relatively fair. I have no problem with a corporation dominating the market by providing a better product/service at a better price. I do have a problem with them achieving this domination by using their resources to eliminate competition so that they no longer have to provide the best product, service or price.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    Why do you think the main reason is we don't have perpetual motion?

    Oh, oh, oh Mr. Kotter!!! Is it because it violates the laws of physics?

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    No because one of the oil companies bought all the "Anti-friction' patents and shelved them :P . Who obeys laws even physics and thermodynamics, unless Sarbanes-Oxley makes them?

    Cheers,

    MidCow
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I noticed also that they didn't give a price. I'm guessing at least $45k and probably closer to $55k. If that's the case then there won't be widespread appeal. Not a big deal since I doubt Phoenix Motorcars is capable of mass production. It will still serve the purpose of providing more positive PR for EVs.

    Mass production of this type of battery pack could probably push the price down $10k or more. While Altairnano seems to have a good product I seriously doubt they have this type of manufacturing capability. It would be great to see them enter into a business relationship with Panasonic or better yet some Chinese manufacturer.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    When did they buy these patents? The reason I ask is because patents only last for 15 years and I want to mark down on my calendar when we will see these perpetual motion machines on the market.
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    The Tesla battery system weighs 1000 pounds. Nowhere near the 10,000 that someone here suggested is needed.



    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/tesla_reveals_h.html
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    A 10,000 lb battery pack? Who posted that? The car only weighs about 3,000 lbs with the battery pack. That is a good example of how fast battery technology is improving. The EV1's battery pack weighed 1,100 lbs and had only 1/2 the range. This was just 5 years ago.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    The 10,000 lb figure came the curb weight for the prototype GM Sequel (hydrogen/fuel cell concept with a rather large battery pack).

    BTW - that 10,000 lb figure (curb weight for the GM Sequel) is wrong as well. The actual curb weight is 4,774 lbs.

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/01/more_details_on_1.html

    The only REAL 10,000 lb figure I can find is the PRESSURE at which the carbon-composite fuel tanks store the hydrogen (10,000 psi).

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/08/gm_announces_dr.html

    I hope that straightens a FEW things out.....
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    So that's what happened to the Invisible Stealth Technology for humans and tanks? :surprise:
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    So that's what happened to the Invisible Stealth Technology for humans and tanks?

    That was bought by the military and is being used right now. BTW turn around and say hello to Captain Johnson, you won't see him but he is there watching you.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    :P
  • michael2003michael2003 Member Posts: 144
    According to Phoenix Motorcars, their first focus will be to provide vehicles for the fleet market, and only after a successful foray there will they begin making their vehicles available to the public.

    I imagine that once they get closer to releasing to the public they will provide some information on where their vehicle can be purchased and taken to for maintenance (hopefully they won't have a 20k premium for transportation to their local facility).
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I posted that 10,000 lb weight for the GM Sequel. Actually I said that it weighed 4,700 kg, which is a little over 10,000 lbs. I based that on a story I read on cnet.com. I probably should have realized that weight didn't make sense.

    http://reviews.cnet.com/4326-10865_7-6546764-2.html?tag=ss_nxt
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Looks like a slight mixup somewhere between kg and lbs.

    Your CNET review stated 4774 kg. The other reviews/press releases I've seen say 4774 lbs.

    I hope those guys at CNET never try to land a probe on Mars.... :surprise:
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    tpe,

    I remember the Month and Day exactly: it was on the first day and it was the fourth month of the calendar year. I believe the year was in the early 2000s, but not completely sure of the year.

    A vacuum without sound and an engine without friction; except the tires and pavement! remember E=mc^2, W=V*I*(phase angle)

    MidCow
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Sounds like 10,500 pounds too me! Just think of a mass of Lithium Ion batteries that large, heating up and being recalled.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    an engine without friction

    No such animal in captivity.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Snakeweasel,

    Yes I know ... as well as there is no perpetual motion. So what is the ultimate goal... to reduce friction as much as possible: newer slicker synthetic oils, parts with tighter tolerances and machines surfaces of smoother and smoother material.

    Just as you can never reach infinity ...

    MidCow
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    "Just as you can never reach infinity ..."

    That's because of the government conspiracy! :P
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Sounds like 10,500 pounds too me! Just think of a mass of Lithium Ion batteries that large, heating up and being recalled."

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or what.... :confuse:
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    Is there something ineherent in EVs you don't like? Remind you of driving a vacuum cleaner?

    I've been to a presentation by Ballard Power. Trust me, they have a very agressive business plan, but there are a whole lot of high hurdles to trip over.

    OTOH, there is someone on the board who actually drives an EV. Which do you think has the better chance of mainstreaming over the next 5-7 years? Only other alternative I see that could make any impact would be diesel.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Reddroverr,

    Oh I love eletric motors. Eletric motors, erector sets, brainiacs, is what I wanted and played with as a kid. When other kids wanted to be fireman nad policemen I wanted to be an electrical engineer.

    Having said all that I am not sure the state of batteries or ultracapacitors and the transportation infrastucutre are far enough along or forward thinking enough to manage and support EVs as an repalcement offering fro ICEs. I thinkthe scope is more limited and will remain so for some time to more like the super golf-cart NEVs.

    MidCow

    and yes I did achieve my childhood goals EE,MBA
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    A lot of people consider hybrids to be a success despite the fact they account for less than 2% of vehicle sales. Even if the infrastructure for EVs did not advance one iota beyond home re-charging they could capture 2% of the market if priced comparable to hybrids. Its the price of batteries, not lack of infrastructure, that is holding EVs back. That price obstacle that needs to be overcome is probably around $20k to get a 250 mile range EV down to what a comparable hybrid costs. A fairly significant amount but far less than the $1 million cost of the current fuel cells.
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    An interesting idea for bringing down battery cost is discussed on this page:

    http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews2/mcoates1.html

    This article discusses a survey showing considerable untapped demand for an affordable EV, which is interesting in itself. But toward the bottom, a proposal is discussed about leasing the batteries instead of selling them with the car.

    If people paid for EV batteries by the mile, the way we do for gasoline, it might better fit expectations about costs.

    Example: my EV uses old-fashioned lead-acid batteries, which are good for about 20,000 - 30,000 miles. A replacement pack, after the trade-in value of the old batteries, is about $800. So if I were leasing thes batteries, I might be charged three cents per mile, or perhaps four, to cover overhead. Since electricity is only about a penny per mile, this is still bargain transportation; but now I don't have to shell out extra money for batteries up front.

    Li-Ion batteries cost considerably more. But they last for a lot more miles. This solution addresses shelf-life considerations that some Li-Ions have, too. If you are a light driver, who ordinarily might not get the maximum mileage out of your pack before it expired, your pack could be swapped out on a regular basis with drivers who would get those miles used up.

    Dealers should love 'battery rotation' because it gets them regular maintenance visits and helps lock in buyers to their dealerships.
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    I dunno, looks like another layer of bureaucracy and expense, but I suppose it might work for some.

    I like to pay up front and not worry about obligations, but that is just me. One of the things that appeals to me about EVs is less quality time at gas stations and garages.
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    While I agree that I would love to stay away from the dealerships, something like battery rotation is just the thing that could keep the dealerships happy despite losing all their other gas-related maintenance work.

    It also removes concerns about slowly failing batteries from the equation. Your batteries would always be peppy.

    Also, without this, there might be the tendency to unload your car for a new one just as your battery pack is failing. Battery leasing would keep trade-in values more stable.

    In fact, EVs should be darn cheap if sold without batteries. There's almost nothing inside an EV except batteries. These cars will be marketed like cellphones. Sign a five-year contract for our battery plan and get your car for free!
Sign In or Register to comment.