PeaceBrother
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Please keep in mind that the EV1's ten years old. Imagine how much the technology could have progressed if we had just stuck with it.
:lol: Dude, have you seen a Viper?! That thing looks more like a big red Nike than a little Viper!PeaceBrother said:Plus I might add the EV1 looks pretty hot. its like a little dodge viper. I wish I could buy one.
JamesRichards said::lol: Dude, have you seen a Viper?! That thing looks more like a big red Nike than a little Viper!
http://www.rapidcars.com/srt10coupe.php
PeaceBrother said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
Thats where its at. All the Info on the EV1 thus proving the electric cars worth.
Then as for the "Where will the electricity come from?" question. Where do you think all the oil and gas comes from? Either way we have almost endless supplies of coal here in the USA and we can easily use that to make the electricity. Plus there is always wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, and any other alternative electricity resource.
Everything is in place, we just need the EV1 back. Its cheap and it would break our addiction to oil. Then we'd be addicted to coal, and sun, and wind, and I can live with that.
oldreliable67 said:This part I definitely do not remember. Can you point me to some confirmation of this?
It's nice, but as with all roadsters, it's impractical for the family. The Bachelor sure.RightatNYU said:People who are claiming that electric cars will never work are sadly mistaken.
I give you....The Tesla Roadster
Brand new car out from Tesla Motors completely destroys all previous conceptions and limitations of electric cars.
Biggest problems with previous electric cars:
They're ugly - Not this one, with the body designed by Lotus
They're slow - 0-60 in under 4 seconds, top speed of 130mph
They don't travel that far - Previous electric cars had a range of about 120 mph. This has a range of 250 mph.
They're impossible to charge - Able to charge anywhere, comes with adaptor built in.
They take forever to charge - Charges in 3.5 hours
They are more expensive than comparable cars - At $100,000, considering the quality of this car, it is right in the range with the luxury cars it's comparable to.
The electricity is expensive - Assuming that an average car gets 20 miles to the gallon and gas costs $3.00 per gallon, the cost to drive a regular car is 15 cents per mile. The cost to drive the Tesla Roadster is 1 cent per mile.
Basically, this car is absolutely incredible. I'm not at a point in my life where I can buy this quality of a car yet, but I can assure you that when I am, I will get one of these or a similar brand over traditional cars anyday. So awesome.
jfuh said:It's nice, but as with all roadsters, it's impractical for the family. The Bachelor sure.
Also the 250miles/charge though impressive is still ways off from the 300m/fillup of normal gasoline engines.
Finally, where do you get the electricity?
Also the $100,000 car is not exactly in the range of the Average buyer, thus it's still too expensive.
clone said:imagine having to wait at a gas station 3.5 hours before you can drive again...
RightatNYU said:It's not meant for road trips. It's designed for a certain type of person, the kind of guy who would take it out to drive it to work and around his town on the weekend. When you compare it to porches in a similar range, it's really not a bad deal.
At the price I could be using dilithium crystals.RightatNYU said:Oh yea, its not designed for a family, it's definitely a lifestyle car. And the 300-250 difference is a LOT better than the 300-120 used to be, and they're constantly coming up with more efficient batteries.
The wall does not provide electricity. It's the power plant that does. Most likely the power plant itself would still be a fossil fuel burning gargantuine. So instead of gas being more expensive you've now shifted to electricity to become more expensive with increased demand. Still doesn't solve the overall problem at all.RightatNYU said:And you get the electricity the same way you get all electricity. The wall. This isn't proposed as a solution to all our energy needs, but rather as a way to help people save money on gas and drive more efficiently.
What's it's efficiency co-efficient on a cloudy day? It will still require an alternative energy source being that of the power plants.RightatNYU said:As a side note, for a few thousand extra you can purchase a solar kit that comes with the car and can be installed on your home that will provide enough power so that the car has zero net energy cost.
RightatNYU said:As a side note, for a few thousand extra you can purchase a solar kit that comes with the car and can be installed on your home that will provide enough power so that the car has zero net energy cost.
Stinger said:Did you read the rebuttle opinion in USA Today yesterday. It was from an engineer who has worked on several EV projects including the on that is the subject of this thread. Bottom line his rebuttle was "I'll believe it when I see it".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-07-oppose_x.htm
"Every time I hear of a promising new electric vehicle (EV) or a "breakthrough" battery, my eyes roll back in my head. The cars are either hugely expensive or tiny, slow and impractical. Their claimed ranges are either double-digit small at neighborhood speeds or ridiculously optimistic at highway speeds. The batteries are typically single-cell wonders in a lab, many years and dollars away from vehicle size. Their eager but inexperienced makers are always searching for funding to see their dreams through."
Not on a Lotus that does 0-60 in under 4 seconds.jfuh said:At the price I could be using dilithium crystals.
The wall does not provide electricity. It's the power plant that does. Most likely the power plant itself would still be a fossil fuel burning gargantuine. So instead of gas being more expensive you've now shifted to electricity to become more expensive with increased demand. Still doesn't solve the overall problem at all.
For someone that could afford to buy such a roadster in the first place doesn't seem that even at $4/gal of gasoline would be expensive for them.
What's it's efficiency co-efficient on a cloudy day? It will still require an alternative energy source being that of the power plants.
When was Electricity ever cool?RightatNYU said:Not on a Lotus that does 0-60 in under 4 seconds.
Repeat: The point of this car is not to replace a family car. It's to appeal to people who were about to drop $100,000 on a porsche, and to make electric cool again.
1/15th? With respects to what? Perhaps you can provide some values to back up that 1/15th cost? Additionally, how is it different then from GM's EV1 asside from being in production.RightatNYU said:It currently operates at 1/15th the cost. Yes, I understand that still requires energy, but its significantly more efficient. That's the point.
With respect to the thread title, yes it does seem the point. Not to mention with respect to practicallity, want to get a sports car, get a sports car. The "Teslar" still is not up to par with other sports cars and seems far overkill.RightatNYU said:Not the point.
Still not going to resolve our ff dependence though. So just another impractical concept car.RightatNYU said:Uh, yea. Electricity. At 1/15th the cost and with significantly increased efficiency.
jfuh said:When was Electricity ever cool?
1/15th? With respects to what? Perhaps you can provide some values to back up that 1/15th cost? Additionally, how is it different then from GM's EV1 asside from being in production.
With respect to the thread title, yes it does seem the point. Not to mention with respect to practicallity, want to get a sports car, get a sports car. The "Teslar" still is not up to par with other sports cars and seems far overkill.
Was not the point of this title as well as from the OP something that would allow us to replace our FF dependence? I don't see how this does so.
Still not going to resolve our ff dependence though. So just another impractical concept car.
RightatNYU said:I hadn't read that, but I don't know that it applies to the car I brought up. The designers of the Tesla were not car designers from Detriot, but rather Silicon Valley Techheads who had an idea and developed it. They claim some amazing things, and if it works as they say it does, it will be very very impressive.
Stinger said:He worked specifically on the one you brought up.
Auto writer Gary Witzenburg is a former automotive engineer who worked on the EV1.