The Tesla Roadster - Electric Car

tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
The Tesla Roadster will be unveiled tomorrow. It is an all electric vehicle (EV) that can go 0-60 mph in 4 seconds. It has a range of 250 miles on a single charge and the electricity cost will be less than 2 cents per mile. Oh yeah, it will cost around $100k. The company, Tesla Motors, will start taking orders tomorrow and hopes to begin delivery by mid 2007.

IMO, this is a very significant vehicle, far more than the niche status its limited production will indicate. The manufacturer hopes to sell around 4,000 in the next few years. Not even a blip on the radar when it comes to total US car sales but that's not the point. It will be a high profile vehicle that will generate a lot of buzz. Primarily it will dispell the misconception of EVs being nothing but glorified golf carts. I think the other most notable feature about this car is its battery pack. Compared to GM's EV1 of 5 years ago the batteries weigh 20% less, have 3 times more energy storage and can re-charge in half the time. Pretty rapid advancement in a fairly short period. Why again are we wasting time with hydrogen fuel cells?

Take a look at the management and board of directors before you dismiss this endeavour as "pie in the sky" from a bunch of fringe whackos.


  • objectiveviewobjectiveview Member Posts: 72
    a glorified golf cart :P :D

    seriously though, batteries are not the solution. Its like running from a ghost (oil) and stumbling over the coffin (batteries).

    Use of batteries and pure electricity in automobiles brings its own very large set of problems, one of which would be the disposal of said batteries from x million of cars once they arent good anymore.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Nice find.

    It will be interesting to see if Tesla can repeatedly live up to the numbers listed (ie 250 miles per charge). Electric vehicles are a great idea if the power plants in a country are non-hydrocarbon based (ie hydroelectric, nuclear, wind). Otherwise, one is simply transferring pollution from one location to another (although even this may be beneficial in reducing smog).
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I understand the argument of transferring pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack as not being a solution.

    From the oil dependence perspective it is a solution, or partial solution. We have dirty domestic coal that can be used instead of dirty imported oil.

    From a forward looking perspective we (US) have the potential to produce abundant domestic, green, clean electricity. The average homeowner has far more solar energy hitting his property than he will ever need to use. Within 10 years many experts believe that electricity generated through photovoltaic cells will be cost competitive with grid electricity. At this point, for those that choose to take advantage, no more need for gas stations. This will be the mother of all disruptive technologies. I can't wait.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    The materials used to make modern batteries aren't toxic to the environment.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Within 10 years many experts believe that electricity generated through photovoltaic cells will be cost competitive with grid electricity."

    I seem to remember essentially that same statement in a Popular Science article circa 1978.....
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Part of the reason some have shunned electric cars (besides availability) is their looks and the performance. For sports car enthusiast who wants performance couldn't have it in an electric or even hybrid car - until today.

    Meet the Tesla Roadster.

    Here's how it works, performance numbers, and of course Tesla Roadster pictures

    They also do a nice job of spelling out environmental impacts, etc. in the more section of their web site.

    Let's not just talk about this car - let's celebrate it!
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    In 1978 the cost per watt of solar energy was $20. Today it is around $3. It would be lower except for the fact that there is a global silicon shortage due primarily to the rapidly growing demand for photovoltaic cells. During this same period the maximum attained efficiency of a PV cell has doubled from 15% to 30%.

    Maybe I am misinterpretting your post but it sounds like you believe the promise of solar energy will always be something in the future. While the PS prediction of 1978 didn't come to fruition the fact is we have come a long way since then. Advancements are currently happening at a rapid pace fueled largely by nanotechnology breakthroughs and thin film manufacturing processes. My estimate of 10 years for cost competitiveness is probably conservative. More like 5 years.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Will Edmunds be getting one of these cars to test?

    I'm curious about how fun a sports car can be with an automatic transmission. Based upon the comments, a clutch appears to be unnecessary due to the immediate torque output. What about the sound? Will it be a high whiny sound like a Honda CBR motorcycle, no sound, tire roll sound? Will there be an ozone smell at hard launches from arcing of the electric motor?
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    From the people who've been lucky enough to drive in this vehicle the report is that it is very silent. The founder of the company made a comment that if this is a problem for some then they can figure out a way to blast ICE noises through the sound system.

    As fast as this car is reported to be I hope the company spends some of its efforts trying to make it faster. The electric motor has performance capabilities that an ICE will never be able to touch. I don't think that is even debatable. I would like to see The Tesla Roadster be the ultimate performance machine, hands down. People currently driving Ferraris and Lamborghinis are making the statement that they are rich and they can afford to spend extravagantly for top performance. The statement they will now be making is that they couldn't get a Tesla.

    Unfortunately I can't quite afford the Tesla Roadster but nonetheless I don't think that I've ever been this enthused about a vehicle. I wish it wasn't almost a year off before actual owners take delivery.

    There's one other thing that I wish. I wish I could invest in this company. Unfortunately they state on their website that they aren't interested in investors. That's got to tell you something.
  • crimsonacrimsona Member Posts: 153
    It's a good thing to target the sport market rather than the mainstream. Instead of building a $80,000 EV and needing to sell it at 30k to mass consumers, build a 90k EV and sell it to enthusiasts for 120k.

    Looking like an Elise doesn't hurt either
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    You're absolutely right.

    Tesla Motor's website has a blog going on and the number of people providing input is impressive. I'd say that 95% of the respondents are totally onboard with what this company is doing. There's a small group that makes comments like, "it needs to be a four door for people with kids", "it needs to be in the $25k price range", etc.. Are people really that stupid? Maybe this is the group that GM and Ford has been listening to.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    I think those comments are reasonable from a long-range program perspective. Hopefully, Tesla will make enough profit off of their initial vehicles to fuel the development of more practical and cheaper vehicles. There was a little blurb about Tesla Motors at the end of the movie "Who Killed the Electric Vehicle?" The movie detailed the scrapping of the GM EV-1 program. There was some irritating twitty marketing lady that was layed off from GM that kept referring to the cars as if they were her kids. However, other than that, it was a pretty good documentary and indicted all of the guilty parties as opposed to condemning guilt to one entity as most simpletons do. One lesson that Tesla will have to learn is to get a very powerful ally in their corner. Their biggest enemy will likely be some paid off politician who will enact some law restricting electric vehicle sales.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Some links showing an electric car spanking a Ferrari and a Porsche. Evidently, the Aerial Atom builder was an early employee of Tesla.
  • prm1prm1 Member Posts: 4
    To be fair, the sales rep referred to the cars as her kids because the process to get one was as hard (and as much paperwork!) as an adoption, GM provided so few cars for lease that the sales reps developed a personal relationship with all of their customers, and both she and her customers loved the car. I know because my parents got an EV-1 from the woman in the film, and thought she was wonderful to deal with. They were very unhappy they couldn't extend their lease and they were one of the parties that wrote a check to GM to buy the last EV1s along with absolving GM of all responsibility for future support. They were hopeful because Ford sold some of their EV Rangers off lease to avoid the publicity that GM got. GM didn't care and spent the money to crush them rather than take two million for them.

    BTW, Tesla was somewhat of a stealth program and caught people off guard. They aren't the only ones. There will be more. Mitsubishi has some interesting cars in the works, and has moved up their timetable form 2010 to 2008. Search on Mitsubishi MIEV, it's pretty cool. Altair Nanotechnologies has made some very intriguing claims with their Li-ion batteries, and has signed an agreement to provide batteries for a fleet pickup truck being developed by Phoenix Motorcars. Wrightspeed. Tzero. The EV is gaining momentum, and Detroit is insignificant.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    The EV is gaining momentum, and Detroit is insignificant

    I agree. I just hope that gas prices remain high so that this momentum keeps building.

    I also agree that Detroit is insignificant and getting more so every year. I believe that Tesla Motors will make money for its investors. The fact that a few entrepreneurs with zero experience in auto manufacturing can do something that the major manufacturers couldn't speaks volumes. Or maybe they could have but deliberately chose not to.

    I was on another thread expressing my opinion that EVs are the future. A common response was that the executives at Toyota and Honda have clearly demonstrated themselves to possess a savvy business sense. If there was money to be made manufacturing and selling EVs these people would be the first to realize it. We'll see. Like you said, Detroit is insignificant and the fact that they aren't pursuing EVs kind of validates the idea in a backhand way.
  • shalwechatshalwechat Member Posts: 25
    The batteries can be legally disposed of in a landfill. The responsible Tesla ower would have em recycled. A significant %age of the battery can be recycled. There are many hybrids out there with over 200,000 miles using an older technology batteries. I believe the batteries on the Tesla Roadster batteries will last at lest 250,000 miles.
  • prm1prm1 Member Posts: 4
    I'm also amused at the push for hydrogen. The fact that GM is taking out full page ads showing some future hydrogen car next to a Shell hydrogen pump is a pretty clear sign it is a sham. They are both scrambling to maintain the status quo. Shell would desperately love for you to still have to go to them for fuel, and would hate anything you can plugin at home. GM can keep selling ICE that runs with hydrogen, and not change too much. They both know that hydrogen is 10-15 years off (and billions of dollars for infrastructure), and the advancements in batteries and nano-capacitors over that time will make hydrogen a dead issue.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Hydrogen is a sham. It basically adds a layer of inefficiency (i.e. the fuel cell and the mess related to hydrogen) to the vehicle, relative to the electric vehicle. However, a large amount of energy infrastructure must be created from non-hydrocarbon based fuels to make electric vehicles beneficial from a greenhouse gas perspective. Electric vehicles and hybrids are the most promising technologies. In fact, used responsibly, gasoline is a reasonably viable technology (ie small diesels and gas powered engines can get > 50 mpg if the vehicle weight is kept < 1500 lbs).

    Although not directly stated, I inferred from the movie that specific members from the state level of government were the primary contributors to burying the EV1. Clearly, "big oil" is not completely innocent, however, their role seemed to be reasonably minor compared to the egos at GM and state and federal politics. Presumably, the loss of gasoline taxation revenue was the motivating factor. I assume this tax money is already spent up to 2050.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Honda has leased a few hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (Civics) so that they can obtain real world test data and feedback. These cars cost something like 1 million dollars each. Tesla has plans to introduce a more mainstream EV in the next 2 years. It will 4 door sedan. I've heard it will be in the $50k price range.

    Clearly neither of these cars will have mass appeal at the present time given their price tag. The rational is that with advancements in technology and economies of scale the prices will come down. Let's say the price needs to be around $25k in order for either of these cars to be mainstream vehicles. So the fuel cell vehicle needs to go from $1,000,000 to $25,000 and the EV needs to get from $50,000 to $25,000. And this doesn't take into account the massive infrastructure that will need to be built to support fuel cell vehicles.

    It really seems like a no-brainer when it comes to which path should be taken. Its like having to go from California to Arizona and wondering whether you should head east or west. Both directions will eventually get you there but one is considerably shorter.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    While some people will look at the Tesla Roadster's $80k price tag and conclude it's not a relevant vehicle I totally disagree. The fact is that it is currently very expensive to incorporate this technology into a vehicle so you have to go after the high-end market. It would be financially impossible to make a $16k Toyota Corolla EV. I think the next step will be the upscale SUV market. Vehicles like the Lincoln Navigator, Cadillac Escalade, Lexus LS470, etc.. You're now talking about a market willing to pay $60k for a vehicle. That opens up a lot of possibilities for the manufacturer. EVs are a technology that will eventually trickle down to the mainstream but need to start with the affluent.
  • prm2000prm2000 Member Posts: 17
    I think it depends on who is doing the manufacturing. For an upstart like Tesla, I think starting at the high end and working through high end SUVs and sedans makes sense. If one of the established automakers decides to take the leap, then they can shoot for a much lower priced market, because they will have manufacturing efficiencies in their favor.

    Currently I am most intrigued with Mitsubishi. They are ideal in some ways, because they are a major auto manufacturer, but have had some image problems and have lost market share. They are in need of an image boost and they need to take chances, but they still have the manufacturing capability of a large automaker.

    They originally were to come out with all electric cars in 2010, but supposedly have moved it up to 2008. They are doing what you suggest (an electric motor for each wheel) and they are doing the hybrid the right way (gas generator and an all electric drive unit) I will be interested in when they come out and what the price point will be.

    One criticism I have heard (which was in theory against the MIEV, not actually haven driven one) is that putting a motor on each wheel adds to much unsprung weight and will kill the handling characteristics. - _coverage/mitsubishi_ct_miev_concept.html
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I think you're right about Mitsubishi potentially seizing a golden opportunity.

    When I first heard about the Tesla I speculated that it must have 4 motors. They had published the total hp (248) so I was curious what four 62 hp electric motors would weigh. In reality the rear motors would probably be more powerful then the front. There is a company, UQM Technologies, that makes electric motors for vehicles. Their 100 hp motor weights 89 pounds. So to use 4 of these would be quite a bit of weight but can you imagine a 400 hp AWD vehicle that probably had 800 ft-lbs of torque!!
  • prm2000prm2000 Member Posts: 17
    "There is a company, UQM Technologies..."

    There is a company in Ojai, Phoenix Motorcars, that is quietly putting together a fleet pickup truck using a UQM propulsion system and Altair Nanotechnolgies new Li-Ion battery. I will be curious to see what they come out with (and when).
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Topic is about the Tesla Roadster - thanks!
  • 37453745 Member Posts: 152
    We are after all talking about the batteries that power the Tesla and how they will be charged and the implications thereof. Why is this not relevant? Never mind, I'll just go away.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    It's very relevant, which is why Tesla Motors mentions it on their website and many of their press releases. A discussion involving the pros and cons of EVs or a particular EV has to involve where this electricity comes from. Just like discussing the pros and cons of SUVs will always involve their lack of fuel efficiency.

    The founder of Tesla Motors is a self proclaimed car guy that wanted a performance vehicle that he didn't need to feel guilty about driving. The philosophy behind this car has as much to do with its environmental impact as it does its performance. When discussing the Tesla Roadster the two are inseparable. Now if we want to create a more specific thread that precludes discussing this vehicles environmental impact the question would be, why?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I think that what Sylvia is saying is that this topic should be more specific to the TESLA ROADSTER, and not just about EV issues in general.

    She isn't talking about a more specific thread to NOT talk about the environmental aspects of EV's; that thread already exists (THIS ONE). Perhaps what she means is a MORE GENERAL thead about all aspects of EV's (including all the side track issues I brought up regarding the cleanliness of the electic power generation).

    The problem is, I'm not aware of any particular GENERAL topic regarding EVs. Is there one?

    "Just like discussing the pros and cons of SUVs will always involve their lack of fuel efficiency."

    Yes. Which is why there are GENERAL topics involving the pros and cons of SUVs. And the topic involving the Chevy Tahoe IN PARTICULAR would not be the place to start harping about the lack of fuel efficiency of SUVs in general.

    She's right. Discussing the general topic of electric production is NOT relevant to a topic specific to the Tesla.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    The most significant aspect of the Tesla Roadster is that it is an EV. There are other vehicles out there that can do 0-60 in four seconds so what makes the Tesla so unique? Maybe because it is electric. Its primary importance is that it will be a high profile showcase for what EVs are capable of; it will never be mainstream. To not discuss it in these broader terms is somewhat missing the whole point.

    Maybe there does need to be a separate thread for EVs in general. I guess that was my fault since I started this thread and didn't make it clear why I considered this vehicle so worth discussing.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,403
    Yep, let's start up a new discussion on EV's in general and see how things progress so we can keep this one focused on the Tesla.

    To begin with, I'll move some of the more general EV posts to the new Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons discussion. Then we'll see how things develop. If we need to come up with more discussions for specific EV issues, we can do that! ;)
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Tesla Motors just announced that they have sold out their signature series of Tesla Roadsters. This series represents the first 100 cars manufactured. The buyers paid $100k for this exclusivity and the car won't be delivered until the middle of next year. I think this says a lot about the enthusiasm surrounding this vehicle.
  • michael2003michael2003 Member Posts: 144
    Now if we can get Tesla to utilize the latest battery technology from China, perhaps the price of the Roadster can actually be affordable for many more of us. I've read that the price is ~ 1/10th of the batteries currently being used and seems to have twice the power density & recharge cycles(see:
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I think the engineers at Tesla are pretty bright and are probably keeping up on all the emerging technologies. They have stated on their website that they fully expect battery capability to improve substantially over the coming years.

    From what I've read the problem with the everspring product is its relatively slow discharge rate. While that is fine for your typical vehicle it might not work so well for a high performance car like the Tesla Roadster.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204 - 55_1.aspx

    Tesla Sells Out its All-Electric Roadsters
    REVIEW DATE: 16-AUG-2006
    By Errol Pierre-Louis
    It seems the Tesla Roadster's hefty price tag hasn't scared away buyers. Less than a month after unveiling its new all-electric sports car, Tesla Motors' CEO Martin Eberhard announced that the company has already sold all 100 of its limited-edition Roadsters.

    Tesla Motors introduced the world to the Roadster at its "Signature Hundred Event" on July 19th. The Tesla Roadster reaches top speeds of 130 mph with a 0-to-60 time of about 4 seconds. It travels 250 miles on a single charge of its whisper-quiet electric motor.

    Among early buyers were Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and eBay co-founder Jeff Skoll, all of whom are investors in Tesla Motors. While Tesla has received one-hundred $100,000 deposits, each of which guarantees a Tesla Roadster for the depositor, only a few of these vehicles have been completed.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    "While Tesla has received one-hundred $100,000 deposits, each of which guarantees a Tesla Roadster for the depositor, only a few of these vehicles have been completed".

    Someone has lots of cash deposits, now only if they could build them, and get them to perform the same, or better, than the prototypes. :P
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Interesting article on the Tesla electric sports car:,,1855609,00.html

    The article reveals that Tesla could be sold, for the right offer:

    "We have the big guys sniffing around, talking about buying technology, even hinting about buying the whole company," says Harrigan.

    Ford, Chrysler and Nissan have all made the visit to Tesla's base in California and expressed an interest in the company.

    And the scary quote is here:

    "If the cheque was big enough and meant a real commitment from them to build the company then I think that's a good thing," he says.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Goodness! Nothing scary there!

    Automobile manufacturers are in business to make money! If they have the technology, and know there is a real, sustainable market, they will move heaven and earth to sell them!

    Hooray for Tesla, I say! Work them against one another, take your huge check and be proud! :)
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Well it may or may not be scary.

    The fear is that a big company might simply want to bury the technology - example, Texaco buying the NIMH battery patents, then making the batteries very hard to get, or GM buying up sctreetcar companies to kill them (see: )

    In the present environment, I would be less paranoid about this. But you never know for sure what might happen.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247

    Using Wiki for any information is dodgey at best!

    You need to know nothing more than in a Free Enterprise system, if there is money to be made, whatever "it" is will be available. ;)
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Using Wiki for any information is dodgey at best!

    Well, for controversial topics, sure. But I wasn't aware the 1940s GM streetcar fiasco was controversial. What do you find dubious about the story? They were found guilty in court, after all. Here's another account at

    You need to know nothing more than in a Free Enterprise system, if there is money to be made, whatever "it" is will be available.

    In an ideal capitalist state, sure. Reality is not that simple. Disruptive technology creates a disincentive to innovate. Large companies can tie up patents or litigate to stifle innovation. Example:

    Why is it that EV hobbyists such as myself cannot buy the NIMH batteries that Texaco holds the patent for? They have the batteries. We have the money. There is clearly 'money to be made', as you put it. It may be small change to them, but so what? Why isn't "it" available? Other battery manufacturers are eager to sell to EV hobbyists - often at discounts, because we are a vocal group who promote their products, and many of us are engineers who find other uses for them in our work.

    It's not just hobbyists, either. Look at the EV products for sale, like the ZAP, or the Myers NMG vehicles. No NIMH batteries for them either. Give me a plausable reason.

    The success of EVs would hurt Texaco. If you ran Texaco, wouldn't you be thinking about this?
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Perhaps because the cost of manufacturing, distribution and all exceeds the rather small demand at present :confuse:

    Companies should not be expected, and raked over the coals for not providing you or anyone with "niche" materials. It always is nicer to have villains, and bogey-men to explain away these things, I understand. But all experience has shown that money trumps everything. As I said, if there were enough demand, and money to be made, we would have no problem finding the technology.

    Texaco, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, are all highly diversified companies, and obviously better versed than most in the finite resources of the planet. Of course they will warehouse technology until it will be most profitable for them. The alternative would have been for others to buy the patents. Oh, no money to do so? Well they had the money, and did. The anger is just sour grapes that those with the resources will not bend to a rather small groups will and provide what you want, when you want it, even if they lose money doing so. Hardly fair, or practical, is it?

    I rather think the success Toyota is having with their Hybrid's is speeding up the alternative fuel process, rather than slowing it down. Like most things, it will never be fast enough for the "true believers" or early-adapters.....
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Perhaps because the cost of manufacturing, distribution and all exceeds the rather small demand at present...

    Dude, they already MAKE the batteries. NIMHs are used for all sorts of applications. Some hybrids use them. I just want to BUY some of them... you know... here's some MONEY... I want to buy your batteries... anybody there?

    Other battery manufacturers DO sell batteries to whoever wants them. After all, this is the way to make the most money, isn't it? Again the central question here is:

    Why won't they sell me their product? Why can't EV makers buy them? I can find hybrids with NIMHs, but no EVs. Can you think of a reason?

    Here we go with the 'true believer' stuff again... hallelujah!! I see the light! I am recharged by the big battery in the sky! ;)
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well, if Texaco is making them, there is a distributor, right? And they refuse to sell them to individuals :confuse:

    Lots of products are sold only to licensed electricians, plumbers, etc. Is this the case here? If they are making them, where are they going? Into storage? The Government? :shades:
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    NIMH batteries are used in notebook computers, cellphones, etc. though they are fast being supplanted by Li-Ion batteries now. A determined individual could connect together many small cells to make an EV-sized battery, or try to get some hideously overpriced hybrid replacement batteries through a car dealership. None of these are viable from an economic standpoint. When I replace my EV batteries (lead-acid), I get volume pricing from dealers who want to sell me lots of batteries. This is what doesn't happen with NIMHs, because they don't want those sales. As far as larger EV builders, I believe distributors have actual contract language prohibiting them from making those sales.

    NIMHs were in GM's EV1, performed well, and were cost-effective. GM sold their share of the patent to Chevron/Texaco after that, and the batteries were never made available (no sales channel, no volume pricing) to EV builders again. I know you're not a Wikipedia fan, but the clearest explanation of this is on their page:

    Here's a quote: "In order to use NiMH batteries without violating Chevron's patents, hybrid automobile manufacturers are required to design vehicles which are at least 50% powered by gasoline; otherwise, they are limited to the use of "D" cell-sized NiMH ("small format") batteries."

    The issue is fast becoming moot since newer Li-Ion batteries are superior. Ironically, this hands a big chunk of US EV and hybrid business to the Chinese, who make most of the Li-Ions. A shame, since NIMHs are an American invention.

    Rather, I intended this as an example, like the GM/streetcar antitrust case from the forties, of market inefficiencies that can work against the desires and interests of the public, even when there is money to be made.

    This story may explain why the EEstor ultracapacitors, another American battery advancement, will be appearing in Canadian cars, not American ones.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    hybrid automobile manufacturers are required to design vehicles which are at least 50% powered by gasoline; otherwise, they are limited to the use of "D" cell-sized NiMH ("small format") batteries."

    Very interesting posts. I do know that Toyota paid a $30 million settlement for NiMH battery infringement lawsuit. It is hard to figure why they will not sell to EV hobbyists. Maybe buy up battery packs from wrecked Prius.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    I think continuing this wouldn't be of interest to most forum users, so you can certainly email me here at, since I cannot get your profile to display and I would love to continue this discussion.... :)

    I think however, you made my point. One type of battery is superior to another, and those will become the standard. The patents on those made in China batteries are held by whom? The Chinese? :P Of course not!

    And what Canadian automobile manufacturer will be making those advanced battery cars?
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    "The patents on those made in China batteries are held by whom? The Chinese? Of course not! "

    Why not?

    There are lots of patents held by many countries, including China, for different versions of the batteries. US research played a part, but the first patents were granted to Sony, and nearly all the Li-Ion research and manufacturing - and relevant patents - are Asian (which helps protect this technology from tinkering with by the oil interests.) History of li-ion batteries at this link:

    Basically, the US had the chance to develop these batteries, but didn't.

    The most advanced Li-Ion battery for electric vehicles is here:

    Look at the chart on that page, and how the battery compares with its competition, on both performance and price.

    If you click on the "US Patent" link, you will see the inventors are Chinese. (Foreign inventors need US patents to protect their inventions here.)

    The Canadian auto company is EV maker 'Feel Good Cars.' Here's a press release from earlier this year:

    My apologies about my profile here. I hadn't filled it in yet. I just did so. But from what I see, this thread is very interesting to the readers here.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I understand that Electro Energy Inc. is about to start manufacturing large format NiMH batteries based on their bipolar design. Do you think that they will be sued by Cobasys (Texaco) like Panasonic was? I think that it is pretty clear Cobasys is using its extensive NiMH patent portfolio to hinder EV development. I've always thought that this represented an anti-trust violation.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I'm concerned that EVs using Li-ion batteries are going to have a difficult time getting certified by federal agencies. Every battery is different and a small percentage of defective ones will significantly drive up the cost due to litigation fears. Altair Nanotechnologies claims to have a fundamentally different chemistry that it uses for its Li-ion batteries. They state this makes them inherently safe and incapable of thermal runaway. I hope this is true. 17&Category=856
  • apeweekapeweek Member Posts: 133
    Interesting link, thank you. I hope there's some truth to these claims. Safer Li-Ion batteries makes charging easier and more fault-tolerant, which is one of the barriers to EV hobbyists who often have to design their own charging systems.

    Simpler chargers are also cheaper to make and smaller to carry around, improving the accessibility of vehicles based on these batteries.

    I've been following these issues for a while, and it seems that there are lots more 'new tech battery' stories out there now than I've seen before. That's good news.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Nice dodge, however China does not have the patents, and Sony is not a Chinese company, but Japanese....

    I would think the recall of millions of lap top batteries this past month, by Sony and Dell, would give some of you pause about batteries, and their general safety, or lack thereof.....
Sign In or Register to comment.