By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I read somewhere that the battery analogy to Moore's law is a doubling cycle of 36 months. A lot of stuff going on out there. For me the 200+ mile range threshold is somehow magic. I guess because of my personal driving patterns. But, we are getting close to turning me into an early adopter. the same source (sorry i didn't keep it) is looking for a topping out at the 1600 mile range. Who could argue with that?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/altairnano_and_.html
Hope that helps!
Robert
I think I would be very happy with a vehicle that could get 75 miles out of its batteries before requiring the ice motor to kick in.
I agree. The Toyota RAV4 EV was capable of getting around 4 miles per kWh at highway speeds. So if it was travelling 55 mph it would use ~14 kWh of energy per hour. The fact that the Hummer's 70 kW generator couldn't keep the batteries charged is a little puzzling. I realize the Hummer is a big vehicle but it shouldn't require 5 times as much energy as the RAV4 EV.
I'd guess the average motorist in this country would cut his fuel consumption by close to 90% if they had a vehicle that could operate on battery power for the first 75 miles.
They are quiet. That is good right? Mostly, but pedestrians might be more inclined to step out in front of a car they don't hear coming.
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art9.html
Still, my biggest fear of failure is a possible EMF health thing.
I know that the cost of batteries is a major stumbling block in realizing a cost efficient EV, so why go the EV route immediately and produce a tepid vehicle when a hybrid would serve the near term until battery cost gets down to where a good (and affordable) EV could be produced.
If practicle-make all E vehicles practicle-as you could store several fresh charged batteries in garage or wherever-and solarcharge batteries in the summer em mass for winter. the goal/ bye bye OPEC!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070107/bs_nm/autoshow_volt_dc">
Seems like there is somewhat a mix in the works. The majors will pobably lean towards lower end performance. Makes sense to me. The greenies are ok with a car that gets from A-B reasonably. I do agree that they need to be similar to the lower performers among ICEs
While it is still just a concept this car will be propelled 100% by the electric motors. The small ICE will be used simply as a generator to charge the batteries when they get below a certain level. My understanding is that this little ICE can generate 53 kW of electricity. For a car of this size even when climbing a hill at highway speeds you probably aren't using even 25 kW of electricity so this engine will be more than adequate for re-charging purposes. Also, the estimates I've seen for performance are 8 second 0-60 times. So it won't be an underperformer when compared to the typical vehicle on the road today.
The batteries already exist to build this car in a prototype form. The problem is that they are currently expensive and not capable of the 4,000 charge cycle that would be needed over the vehicle's lifetime. So what? The auto manufacturers are pursuing fuel cell vehicles that are much more expensive and the fuel cell only lasts around 50k miles. The battery may be the last piece of the puzzle in order for this type of vehicle to be viable in the marketplace but that's no reason everything else shouldn't be ready to go.
That would be about the same for me and I don't think our vehicle use is that atypical when compared to most Americans.
Hopefully GM's announcement is sincere and not just an attempt at some positive PR. IMO, this is the type of innovative direction the automakers need to go in if they are to survive.
Probably, but I don't think it would be practical. Battery packs are quite heavy at the moment so it would take specialized machinery to physically make the switch. Plus you have to consider the expense of buying or leasing multple packs..which would be quite high at the moment.
Solar charged-or charged with an at home fuel cell generator-such an all electric vehicle would vastly cut emmissions-
A solar charger is feasable and in fact I believe Tesla is planning on or is offering one.
It may also come to pass that nano solar technology allows the cars to charge themselves to a degree by having collectors embedded in the body.
and you could just go to a "gas station' and switch battery packs-to a fresh charged one as quick as gassing up.
If you can get 100+ miles out of your battery, the amount of infrastructure build would seem to be more than the practical demand might support. Most folks would simply charge overnight at home. You would also have to think about standardization of product to allow for this service over a variety of car manufacturers. Good chance the whole system would be obsoleted before it gets going if battery technology allows for faster charging batteries. Altairnano batteries already charge quite fast with the right facilities.
Good thoughts though. I had the same sort of idea when I thought about removable natural gas tanks to run cars back when.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-07-volt_x.htm
ZAP is moving forward with an aggressive programme to stay at the forefront of advanced transportation with new technologies and products. ZAP selected Lotus Engineering, one of the world's leading automotive design consultancies, to undertake engineering concept studies for a number of electric vehicles.
The feasibility study is a comprehensive research project into the creation of a new generation of ultra-efficient electric automobiles from concept to production. Of particular interest in the project is the challenge of advancing the electric car market by incorporating new technologies which will maximize the consumer appeal."
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/01/16/034081.html
Commerce recruiters in both North Carolina and Arizona have told officials with Tesla Motors Inc. that the company could be eligible for $15 million in economic incentives to help pay for the plant's construction in their respective states.
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2007/01/15/story1.html?from_rss=1
What's interesting about this press release is that it appears to come from EEstor. In the past they have been fairly silent about their product's development. If they can actually deliver a product in 2007 that will be amazing. Well maybe not for the companies that are currently working on advanced Li-ion technologies. If you believe the claims this technology would allow Tesla's 900 lb battery pack to be replaced by a device that weighed only 300 lbs. In addition it should cost around 1/10th as much. I remain very skeptical but am keeping my fingers crossed that this might actually pan out. It really does seem almost too good to be true.
Looks like in the next few years we are looking at power storage that is good, very good, or fantastic...depending on how much of what is in development at various places pans out.
This thread is a ghost town. I guess everyone is out driving their SUVs now that gas prices are down a little.
I agree. There definitely is a strong corellation between the price of gas and level of interest in EVs. That's one of the reasons I'm such a strong proponent of higher fuel taxes. Granted, as an EV advocate, that's a somewhat self serving point of view.
"today that a feasibility study is being carried out in its joint development of new electric car designs with Lotus Engineering."
Didn't Lotus have something to do with the 'C5', Clive Sinclair's revolution in personal transportation.
They say that nothing could have made that turkey look like a dove, I hope their design for ZAP fares better.
"ZAP is moving forward (with) particular interest in the project for the challenge of advancing the electric car market by incorporating new technologies which will maximize the consumer appeal."
I certainly hope so because both Sir Clive and later Dean Kamen with his Segway found to their dismay that you won't sell many, however well intentioned, if your design makes the driver look like a dork.
T2
But ya, eventually, EVs have to be real cars and practical.
Sure, I might look like a dork, but I'm saving on pollution and on gasoline and on dollars by not driving my car every day.
Segways are not great sellers only because of the PRICE, not because of the technology or the concept. Both the technology and the concept are great, but the Segs are too expensive (even for me) and that has held down sales. The recall was a non-issue because in hundreds of thousands of miles on the Segway, the recall software problem had occurred about 5 times.
The same fate will curse any electric car that is targeted to the mass commuter/consumer: If the price is too high, the technology and the concept will not matter.
Unlike a Segway, I actually could drag some rocks and hay bales around my pasture with the ATV.
I am glad it works for you, but it is not something most people find desirable.
The thing is that it is not a car. What do they go...17mph? On a crowded sidewalk you can't go faster than walking traffic. It's competitors would seem to be the electric and manual bicycle, mopeds, skateboards, etc. It is for people who are in a metro or other environment that is practical for it, people willing to take some risk being exposed in traffic, people willing to brave the elements, people who are willing to accept a slower speed, single rider, low cargo capacity. That seems to mean the odd commuter, and industrial user...cops at Venice beach, mall security guards, people in larger industrial complexes, etc.
And I WISH the Segway would go 17 MPH!! It only goes max of 12.5 MPH, and of course that's only in open stretches.
They work fine in heavy pedestrian traffic - they were designed to do JUST THAT - mingle with the pedestrian traffic. Most states allow them on the sidewalks.
Anyone who lives less than 5 miles from their work and has sidewalk most or all of the way and who is a solo commuter, the electric-driven Segway is perfect for you - go buy one today !! :shades:
Ok, no one has an electric scooter or ATV eh?
I would consider one under $1000. Any chance of that? As for changing peoples distance from work? Work on that would you?
They work fine in heavy pedestrian traffic - they were designed to do JUST THAT - mingle with the pedestrian traffic. Most states allow them on the sidewalks.
You have seen the streets of new york. If any number of segways were there, it would be a disaster. They can't side step. They can't squeeze though in a soft way like walkers. They are ok in small numbers in less crowded places.
Anyone who lives less than 5 miles from their work and has sidewalk most or all of the way and who is a solo commuter, the electric-driven Segway is perfect for you - go buy one today
No.
Too cold, wet, and rainy up here in Portland. Bike is fine for me when I have the notion. I would walk a lot if my commute were 1.5 miles or less. When I go downtown, I often take the bus or light rail.
I think this topic will be red hot in a few years. :shades:
Rocky
First time I rode my Segway for more than 7 miles was in the rain. Pouring Rain. Segways run fine in rain. They run fine anywhere the tires can get traction. Ice or serious mud becomes a problem, however. Rain, though, is not a problem.
Dean Kamen has already done all the testing of Segways in heavy pedestrian traffic areas. Look up a couple of studies on Segway use in urban areas done by the German and Canadian governments. Their testing also supports that Segways are not a problem in heavy pedestrian traffic in urban areas. There just needs to be ENOUGH of them to make a difference !!
I just hit 1490 total miles of Segway commuting this morning.
Enjoy riding your Segway.
And I do enjoy my Segway and I wish more people would buy them...
While Segway sales might be slow bicycle sales are increasing. If I'm someone that could make use of a Segway in all likelihood I could easily get by with a bicycle and also get a little exercise. I can't help but see Segways as a symbol of our society. I'm waiting to see people use them to play basketball or tennis. Maybe they already are.
Anyway, can they climb stairs? If so, how efficiently? I've read different things.
Here's your definitive answer:
A Segway cannot climb stairs with a rider on it.
Segways have a mode called "assist mode" which uses the motors to assist the owner in pulling the Segway up stairs behind them. It works fine and does not take a ton of effort to pull them up stairs with the 2-hp motors assisting you.
Honestly though, in 1500 miles of use I have never had need to go up any stairs. A curb or two yes, but never stairs. I have tested the assist mode on a little 4-step stair at a city park, but I have never really NEEDED to pull it up any stairs.
http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles/2007/02/18/the_car_20/
Tom Hanks get first E-Box electric Scion
AC Propulsion has delivered the first eBox customer car to Tom Hanks. The actor and producer, a veteran EV driver, ordered his eBox after driving the first prototype last July. "I still have a Toyota RAV4 EV and never spent a penny on gasoline for it", said Hanks, "What AC Propulsion is doing is fantastic. I drove their tzero electric sports car a few years ago, so when they put the same technology in a four-door I wanted one for myself. It has double the range, goes fast, uses Li Ion batteries, and is incredibly roomy and comfortable. Oh, and I will also never have to put any gasoline into it!"
I tested an electric car with a theoretical range of 65 miles for almost a week (a REAL car, professionally built by a company, not a golf cart thingie) and while it was great fun the range was simply too little for practical use in California as one's "only" car. Basically it turned out to be a $30,000 shopping cart. Problem was that freeway speeds, hills, etc., severely limited the range.
But if the eBox got say 60 miles per day under the worst conditions, that's pretty good as long as you aren't using the car for work like I do. I could never make it home most days.
I betcha Tom also owns a fleet of gas cars.
The piston didn't beat the electric motor. Gasoline beat batteries. That's the main drawback EVs have always had. That probably won't change but the difference between the two will shrink to the point where it is no longer a showstopper. In 1997 it took a thousand lbs of lead acid batteries to go 60 miles. In 2002 a thousand lbs of NiMH batteries would get you 120 miles. In 2007 a thousand pound Li-ion battery pack takes you 240 miles. From what I've read the material and chemical engineers believe that they can eventually double the energy density of today's Li-ion batteries before they've reached the limits of that particular chemistry. Then there's promising work being done on ultra-capacitors which could take electrical energy storage to the next level. So, as I said before, things are changing rapidly.
Where EVs have an advantage and always will is in performance, efficiency and energy diversity. The Tesla's motor weighs less than 80 lbs and produces 248 hp. Maximum torque is available at 0 rpm and is maintained at that level through 7,000 rpms before dropping off. The motor operates at 90% efficiency compared to 30% for an ICE. Electricity can be produced by a variety of domestic sources. EVs can take advantage of regenerative technologies to further extend their range. You need a hybrid to do that with an ICE and still its the electric component of this vehicle that allows for this.
The only way that EVs aren't the future is if some, yet to be discovered, technology pops up. My prediction is that within 5 years EVs will be selling at a rate comparable to what hybrids are selling at now. Within 20 years you won't be able to buy a new ICE powered passenger vehicle.
So, to summarize:
1. long range just like a gas car
2. competitive price to a gas car
3. Performance numbers that don't cherry-pick ideal conditions only.
It seems decades away, just like always....
The EV's problems are myriad: the cost (the Tesla's price is ridiculous, and they are still probably going to lose money on it) and also that as battery technology moves forward, fossil fuel technology does as well.
What saved the gas engine is the same thing working for the battery----computer controls.
Would you buy a computer than ran on household trash if it was slower than your present one, cost more, and had to be booted up after 3 hours?
Of course not.
I'm not saying EVs won't get there, I'm just saying I dont' seem them as particularly close yet.
Of course, if gas jumped to $6 a gallon, that changes some of the equations for sure.
While the ICE benefitted by computer controls that is not as applicable to EV superiority. A gallon of gasoline has 36 kWh of chemical energy. A ICE powered vehicle with decent performance won't go even 30 miles on that gallon. An EV like the Tesla will go 150 miles on 36 kWh. The reason being is that an ICE is inherently inefficient. Its whole operation is based on heating something up and then dispensing with it. Over 70% of the energy extracted from this gallon of gasoline is thrown away as heat. Diesels are a little better but not much. Its just a basic, physical limitation that cannot be overcome.
I do agree that the timeline for EV adoption will be affected by the price of gas.
To me the Tesla is an EV put out by Sharper Image.
I understand why they made this decision....high profile, etc. But the platform is going to have to change.
It's an extraordinary piece of engineering, don't get me wrong, but really, it is a ridiculous price because after 200 miles I'm going to have to wait 3.5 hours before I can drive my $100,000++ sports car anywhere again. Are the rich and famous known for patience? Ummm......
it costs too much, doesn't go far enough, and takes too long to recharge, compared to a "regular" exotic car.
A Corvette will go as fast, go twice as far on a tank of gas, and cost half the price....and your Chevrolet dealer around the corner can fix it.
if this Tesla were a 4-door car, the size of a BMW 3 series, with exactly the same specs as it has now, but sold for $40,000...then EVs are in the sweet spot.
This is why Prius sold so well...it duplicated the performance and price of equivalent gas cars.
So until then, it's just a dream IMO...
I mean, give ME $40 million of Tesla's money and I'll build you a fabulous electric car (hiring the help of course).
But could I sell it at a profit? Hmmm.........
You bring up a good example by mentioning a Corvette. Why would anyone buy a Ferrari when you can get comparable performance for a fraction of the cost. And in terms of finding someone to fix it that will also involve a fraction of the cost. So it doesn't make much sense to buy a Ferrari yet I suspect Ferrari will continue to find buyers. The fact is that the decision to purchase a car is not 100% rational. If your goal is to only sell a few thousand units then common sense doesn't even have to figure into the equation. You sell value to the masses, you sell intangibles to the elite. The Tesla was never proclaimed to be a car for the masses. Given that they haven't delivered a single vehicle I suspect they are satisfied with their sales volume.
There are no perfect analogies for Tesla, but this is not too far afield. Tesla was big news when it broke. But basically they are taking 1000s of computer batteries and buying a Lotus frame, doing their thing and voila! Certainly not the stuff that is going to compete with the mass producers. The costs to produce in that mode have to be staggering. I can't think of too many businesses that would be harder to do a startup in than the car business. I think they know this and are moving along anyway. Maybe they can carve out their little niche or get swallowed by a bigger fish. My guess is that you will see Leo Dicaprio show up to an event in one of these, instead of his Prius, pretty soon. Tesla is planning a sedan, but the price is still aimed at the high end.
But Tesla does not equal the EV in total...in fact much of what they are doing seems rather passe in terms of technology.
Check this out and see if it comes closer to what might work for you.
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/faq/index.html
The price I saw bandied about it $45k. Now that is still high, but please consider. There are some advantages to the EV.
Pennies on the the dollar for fuel compared to gasoline power.
The Altair batteries are said to have a very long life.
I know you like to shift, right? I don't know about this one, but EVs have little use for a standard tranny. Ever had to replace a transmission? I have. EVs don't need starters, alternators etc.
Greatly reduced mainanence. Like about 0. Brakes and the odd thing. No more oil changes!
So that 45k looks a bit better. Now what could a major do in a few years if the stars lined (better cheaper power storage) up in favor of EVs.
We all have our little list of what we want in a car and what we will not accept. One person here just wants a small low speed runabout. I want a real car. A couple hundred mile range works fine for me. I'll just hang onto my current vehicle for the odd trip. And it truly would be the odd trip. 200 would get me to seattle from portland, and that except for one real long trip to socal, that is as far as I've needed in the last few years. In fact even the Volt's reported meager 40 electric mode miles would solve over 90% of my driving needs I think. If 150 miles a day is what you are logging, you are certainly and exception. But, everyone will accept what they will in a car. I would rather deal with that limitation and plug in at night, as opposed to visiting gas stations.
We could get into the real cost of oil...trade deficit, pollution, empowering unfriendly nations, but who can really quantify that?