Electric cars head toward another dead end

Status
Not open for further replies.

jon_banquer

Usenet Archive
Joined
Dec 16, 2001
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-idUSBRE91304Z20130204

"Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

"Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."
 
On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-...

"Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

"Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."

Nothing like stating the blindingly obvious and then representing it as if it's some sort of revelation.

Tom
 
"brewertr" wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-...

"Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

"Because of its shortcomings driving range, cost and recharging time the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."

Nothing like stating the blindingly obvious and then representing it as if it's some sort of revelation.

The Q is: are fuel cells a (develop-able) answer? Dunno.

Keep in mind, the new Prius "c" (sposedly for "city") gets 68 mpg (according to lightfooted drivers). Which means Moi would proly get 80 mpg.... helium-foot. lol The "c" is the smallest in the prius line.

That's VERY significant, for high-mileage drivers. Low price, as well -- $18K, for the base, not that much more various trim levels. Don't know how battery cost/lifetime factors in, tho.

Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges, using lead-acid banks. Part of the "failure", I think, is the refusal to limit hp, and the incomprehensible *weight* to these effing cars. Whazzup wit dat? . VW beetles did fine with between 36 and 54 hp, under 2,000 lbs -- 54 being the hot-rod bug -- in 1974!!! Also their minivan/bus.

Also, part of the "failure" is of our own making, ie urban sprawl, where commutes are 30-100 miles, one way. The Leaf, et al, could reliably handle 50 mile commutes (one way), but you'd need charging stations at the yob.

The Tesla, tho, seems to have surmounted much of these limitations -- if it's not all hype. And then, who can afford them?

Urban planners, in general, condemn urban sprawl. PBS had an inneresting documentary on this, focusing on PA, and featuring Bri'ish "solutions to space". Manhattan, and the 5 boroughs, has a large-scale solution ito public trans, but now you gotta be a multi-millionaire to partake -- unless, of course, you are a drug dealer, living with his mom on Sectoin 8.. No good (city planning) deed goes unpunished, eh?

As an inneresting tangent to this, energy-wise, altho subways have "regenerative brakes", that regenerated electricity is NOT fet back to the grid, but goes up the proverbial chimbley, through resistor banks. If that energy was grid-bound, the NYC subways could power a city of approx 200,000 homes, as the energy from a braking train is fairly incredible.
 
On Feb 6, 10:11 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"brewertr" wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, jon_banquer wrote:

>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-...

> "Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who
> helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles
> hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

> "Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time ...

I think there is frustration on many levels. The "father of the Prius", who is very well regarded in the automotive industry, is being honest in a very refreshing way.

It should also be obvious by now that the Chevy Volt is a fucking scam and was used by GM to screw over US taxpayers.
 
"jon_banquer" wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:11 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"brewertr" wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, jon_banquer wrote:

>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-...

> "Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who
> helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles
> hold far more promise than battery electric cars.

> "Because of its shortcomings driving range, cost and recharging time ...

I think there is frustration on many levels. The "father of the Prius", who is very well regarded in the automotive industry, is being honest in a very refreshing way.

Let's hope he's right, about a successful fuel cell. His opinion certainly has cred.

It should also be obvious by now that the Chevy Volt is a fucking scam and was used by GM to screw over US taxpayers.

It f'sure is obscenely overpriced -- gas would have to go to $20/gal for that thing to break even.

BUT -- it appears to be well-designed, patterned after Diesel Electric locomotives, except the Volt has the additoinal option of batteries-only.

Imo, if you are going to burn gas, using the gas to power a generator and only a generator, with electric traction motors, is proly the way to do it -- as the Volt does. Offers a lot of versatility, simplicity. But not at $45,000, when you can buy a fuel efficient Honder Fit for close to $15K, or a 68 mpg Prius c for $18K. The Leaf is not much of a better bargain, with more limitations.

I just don't understand how something so simple -- a fukn battery and an electric motor that a 5 year old could put together (in model form) -- can be made so expensive.

The difference in machining/mfr'g cost of an IC engine compared to an electric motor is proly a ratio of 100 to 1. Or more. And then, no transmission in an electric, for an infinity-to-1 ratio of cost. Yet that shit Leaf is almost $35,000.
 
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges, using lead-acid banks.

My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to about 60mpg. When my driving habits settle down it should be more like 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other owners though.

Part of the "failure", I think, is the refusal to limit hp,

Take a Volt for a spin. It's no racecar but I love that silent electric torque launch and it still surprises me sometimes when passing at highway speeds. My last car was a V6 Camry which did have about 100 more hp which I thought I'd miss. But I don't because the smooth torquey nature of electric drive makes up for it. I've surprised a few asswipes at stop lights which pisses off my wife. My excuse is oh sorry I didn't mean to take off quite so fast, it's a sensitive pedal. That story is still working although I may be chalking up a higher number of eye rolls from her than usual.

and the
incomprehensible *weight* to these effing cars. Whazzup wit dat?

The Volt is about 3500. About 400 of that is the battery. It's a nice car to drive and the weight is part of what prevents it feeling cheap. I love the electric smoothness and the low CG and flat cornering.

. VW beetles did fine with between 36 and 54 hp, under 2,000 lbs -- 54 being the hot-rod bug -- in 1974!!! Also their minivan/bus.

Apples and oranges. Bugs are absolute POS compared to a Volt or even a Prius. But if you want small and can do without features then take that bug logic all the way to its natural conclusion. http://gizmodo.com/5982007/the-smallest-car-in-the-world-is-painfully-tiny

Also, part of the "failure" is of our own making, ie urban sprawl, where commutes are 30-100 miles, one way.

So what? When the Volt runs out of battery you just keep going and usually don't notice the changeover to ICE.

The Leaf, et al, could reliably handle 50 mile commutes (one way), but you'd need charging stations at the yob.

Pure electrics should be great for many as commuter vehicles or second vehicles.

The Tesla, tho, seems to have surmounted much of these limitations -- if it's not all hype. And then, who can afford them?

The Volt will be a long payoff for me. But at least it has a payoff, unlike a boat or a quad or a million other things. Besides I already have lots of toys and I'm enjoying that for a change I did something about fuel costs other than whining. My next project is making my home (including the car) net-zero. Many of my friends could afford to do similar but the simple fact is that to a man they'd rather spend their money on truly useless crap. I don't eat out much but recently we had dinner with some friends who do. About $75 per couple which isn't hard to do these days. During dinner my friend says he can't justify buying LED light bulbs. Yeah a $20 entree makes perfect sense to him but a $20 lightbulb, forget it. Let's face it, the tech and the cost of electrics can already fill the bill for many people like me and most of my middle class friends. The real problem is that most of us prefer to use our disposable income on baubles while putting the cost of doing anything about the environment onto future generations. That's never going to change and tech can't fix it.

And then, who can afford them?

Well, definitely not the chair bound, that's for sure. Add electric cars to the endless list of things that the pimpletons, gunners, bonkers, etc will never be able to afford. But my qawd they will never run out of hours to bless the world with their tunnel vision about every stupid fucking notion that comes into their heads. Maybe they're practising for the day when they'll get paid for every post. Which will be the day AFTER the great cull I guess.
 
On Feb 7, 8:44 am, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"

wrote:
>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges, using
>lead-acid banks.

My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to about 60mpg. When my driving habits settle down it should be more like 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other owners though.
...

Reality:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/workers-chevy-volt-battery-plant-built-federal-money-182043143.html
 
On 2/7/2013 12:03 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:44 am, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>
> wrote:
>> Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>> Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges, using
>> lead-acid banks.
>
> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
> drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
> about 60mpg. When my driving habits settle down it should be more like ...

At roughly $325,000.00 all-in cost per copy on those magic ObamaCars. So far.
 
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>using
>lead-acid banks.

My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to about 60mpg.

60 mpg is not shabby.

When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other owners though.

On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think your mpg's would be?

>Part of the "failure", I think, is the refusal to limit hp,

Take a Volt for a spin. It's no racecar but I love that silent electric torque launch and it still surprises me sometimes when passing at highway speeds. My last car was a V6 Camry which did have about 100 more hp which I thought I'd miss. But I don't because the smooth torquey nature of electric drive makes up for it. I've surprised a few asswipes at stop lights which pisses off my wife. My excuse is oh sorry I didn't mean to take off quite so fast, it's a sensitive pedal. That story is still working although I may be chalking up a higher number of eye rolls from her than usual.

...

The point was, the insistence on triple-digit hp is not doing the "energy cause" any favors. Nor is the bloated poundage of vehicles.

>Also, part of the "failure" is of our own making, ie urban sprawl, where
>commutes are 30-100 miles, one way.

So what? When the Volt runs out of battery you just keep going and usually don't notice the changeover to ICE.

>The Leaf, et al, could reliably handle 50 mile commutes (one way), but
>you'd
>need charging stations at the yob.

Pure electrics should be great for many as commuter vehicles or second vehicles.
...

Bleeve me, ahm not argering in favor of our species.
I do wonder about the Tesla tho. That car seems to have broken thru some mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from reality.
 
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

Bleeve me, ahm not argering in favor of our species.
I do wonder about the Tesla tho. That car seems to have broken thru some mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from reality.

All-electrics can't get much market share until there's a battery swap infrastructure. Lots of hurdles there. So that market is limited to second-car short commuters. I don't think the Leaf or Tesla will do well. Main reason is something I think they call "range fear." Probably similar to a caver who has "lantern fear." Which is, "If these batteries die, I'm fucked." The Volt is a real elegant solution. Most of those who knock it don't know much about its practical or technical aspects. It's quite an American achievement. They just don't like GM, Obama. unions, government "handouts," etc. **** them. Nobody's forcing them to buy it, and for all the rest they can go vote to change the government, or put on their skirts and go protest like the Code Pinkers. Big problem is unsubsidized price. But with the gov rebate they only run about $32.5. Still too rich for me. But you can get a lot less new car for more money. Leasing isn't a bad way to put your toe in the water with the Volt, and GM is pushing that. From what I've seen from reading the Volt forum, buyers are what I'll just call yuppies. They have money and like technology. Throw in whatever percentage of them that don't like gasoline purveyors. http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/03/autos/chevrolet-volt-sales/index.html
 
On Feb 8, 3:34 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"

wrote:

>Bleeve me, ahm not argering in favor of our species.
>I do wonder about the Tesla tho.  That car seems to have broken thru some
>mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from reality.

All-electrics can't get much market share until there's a battery swap infrastructure.  Lots of hurdles there. So that market is limited to second-car short commuters. I don't think the Leaf or Tesla will do well.
...

I own a GM truck and I don't have a problem with unions. I like GM products, especially their engines and transmissions.

What I have a problem with is taxpayers getting the shaft on saving GM's ass as well as being forced to fund an overpriced Volt that not enough people will ever want. The Volt is a fucking joke at US taxpayers expense.
 
On 2013-02-07, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
to use our disposable income on baubles while putting the cost of doing anything about the environment onto future generations. That's never going to change and tech can't fix it.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about "the environment." I still use incandescent light bulbs and drive a vehicle that gets about 14 mpg on a good day. And loving it.
 
On Feb 8, 8:45 pm, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2013-02-07, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:

> to use our disposable income on baubles while putting the cost of
> doing anything about the environment onto future generations. That's
> never going to change and tech can't fix it.

I for one don't give a rat's ass about "the environment." I still use incandescent light bulbs and drive a vehicle that gets about 14 mpg on a good day. And loving it.

"I for one don't give a rat's ass about "the environment." "

The world is filled with assholes. You're one of them.
 
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>
>
>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>using
>>lead-acid banks.
>
> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer ...

Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox. It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or better.

It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up and support the tech.

When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
> 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
> owners though.

On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think your mpg's would be?

It's about 40. Unless it's in "mountain mode", where it can be increasing battery state of charge while driving on ICE power. That's inefficient but I've used it a couple times on extended trips to ensure that the battery is sufficiently charged at the destination to allow friends to drive the car on battery alone.

http://www.voltstats.net/ At that website you can view mileage stats from hundreds of Volt owners. Click on the top of the columns to resort by category. A Volt shopper can estimate his projected EV percentage, sort by percentage, and then see the stats of current owners with a similar EV percentage.
 
I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries instead of fuel cells. As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident. The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries though I don't know if it would last as long. What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only consider batteries?
R. Wink

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:06:01 -0800, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>>using
...
 
whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox. It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or better.

Try the BMW Active E. I got to drive one briefly a while ago and it was a very, very fun car by any standard.

Range is too limited for folks out here in the sticks, and charging is still a problem, but that's what you get with a new technology competing with one that already has an extensive and active infrastructure.

It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up and support the tech.

I agree, but then I'm still driving a carbureted car to work every day, because it still keeps running fine and remains fun to drive. That's a little part of the adoption problem right there: people don't replace their cars as often as they used to.
--scott
 
rwwink wrote:
I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries instead of fuel cells.

Because nobody has a fuel cell that will work on road gasoline yet without being poisoned.

As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.

No, the fuel cell requires a flammable fuel. It oxidizes the fuel using oxygen from air, and develops current directly from that oxidation.

The fuel cell can be designed to work on a variety of fuels. If you want to create water as your only byproduct, you have to use hydrogen which is a flammable gas (and a pain to work with even by flammable gas standards).

You can build a fuel cell that will run off methanol or ethanol, or off of propane. Since these fuels have carbon in them, your exhaust is now full of carbon compounds (hopefully carbon dioxide if you did it right). In general these designs also have a limited lifespan because they become clogged up with combustion by-products.

The holy grail right now is to build a fuel cell that can operate off of gasoline without becoming hopelessly clogged up after a short running time. The fuel cell gives you more efficient use of the fuel than an internal combustion engine, especially when you are not requiring peak output.

You can't run a fuel cell on nitrogen.... nitrogen combines with itself and it doesn't like to let go or combine with other things. If you ever see a compound that contains nitrogen, like nitromethane or nitrocellulose or trinotrotoluene, it's a compound that took a lot of energy to make and is apt to want to release that energy fast.

The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries though I don't know if it would last as long.

This is true, and it would seem that retrofitting a commercial fuel cell into a current hybrid vehicle would not be a huge job. The hard part would mostly be software.

What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only consider batteries?

In spite of the fact that fuel cells have been with us since NASA developed them for the Gemini program, we still don't have any that will run off a convenient fuel that we can already distribute.
--scott
 
Two things about your comments:
1) I get the impression that ethanol could/can be used as a fuel. It attracts water and requires a non-rusting tank to hold it but there are metals that can be used without a great deal of additional cost. We're doing it now for the E85 fuel.
2) Ethanol can/is being distrubed now though combined with gasoline. A different pecentage mixture, say 50/50 or something else, could be transported and distributed very much like diesel fuel...separate tank and pump. The existing tanks and trucks could be coated with a plastic material to prevent rusting. It could allow use of the same infrastructure. Again, what am I missing?
R. Wink

On 9 Feb 2013 11:46:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

rwwink wrote:
>I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries
>instead of fuel cells.

Because nobody has a fuel cell that will work on road gasoline yet without being poisoned.

>As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as
>fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building
>a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car
>body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.

...
 
On Feb 8, 2:18 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:

>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>using
>>lead-acid banks.

...

"I do wonder about the Tesla tho. That car seems to have broken thru some mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from reality. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?_r=0

"But as I discovered on a recent test drive of the company’s high- performance Model S sedan, theory can be trumped by reality, especially when Northeast temperatures plunge."

"At the Washington Auto Show last month, Dr. Chu, who has since announced his plan to leave office in the next few weeks, discussed the Energy Department’s goal of making electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids as cheap and convenient as comparable gasoline-powered cars.

He continued: “We can’t say this everywhere in America yet, but driving by a gasoline station and smiling is something everyone should experience.”

I drove a state-of-the-art electric vehicle past a lot of gas stations. I wasn’t smiling.

Instead, I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post. When I continued my drive, the display read 185 miles, well beyond the distance I intended to cover before returning to the station the next morning for a recharge and returning to Manhattan.

I drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles. When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.

I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy. That meant sitting in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting. (There is now a mobile application for warming the battery remotely; it was not available at the time of my test drive.)

After completing the battery conditioning process, the estimated range reading was 19 miles; no way would I make it back to Milford.

The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public Utilities had recently installed. Norwich, an old mill town on the Thames River, was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction from Milford.

After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford.

Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.

But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.

Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was toasty.

At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour. Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on the ground. A Model S owner who had taken delivery the previous day watched with interest."
 
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than
>>>the
>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges, ...

Mebbe over-tech?? $45K for a battery and a motor?? :)

But I already "defended" the Volt in this thread, above, noting its similarity to how virtually all Diesel Locomotives work -- an ICE generator + traction motors. So the Volt peeple didn't invent or discover anything -- they just had the presence of mind to recognize, in all the permutations of electrics, the right way to do it. And the diesel locomotive model was it.

Imo, ALL "all electrics" should have a standby generator, even a shitty li'l Quiet Honda Inverter, tucked away, that could be manually hooked up, on the cheap, if stranded. A shitty 10,000 W generator is good for almost 15 hp, which is proly more than enough to propel an aerodynamic shape to about 60 mph on level surface. My 15,000 W generator weighs about 230 lb, and sips less than 1.5 gal/hr, at full load. Five gal of gas would be good for.... click click.... about 200 mi!!!!!

Assuming the car were then designed to "extract" that 15 hp at the right point on the torque curve, rpm, etc.

I was actually thinking of doing that in pure EV, as an anti-strand range extender.... but certain practicalities prevail, such as noise, CO, other diy non-ergnomics. And a torque curve over which I can't really control, so if things were not "matched up" properly, proly would be another diy dead-end.

But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done. But jb is also correck, imo -- an assfucking to the consumer, nevertheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

Back
Top