what is up with companies wasting all this $$ building electric cars ? if i can afford a 50k tesla i'm probably not too worried about 1.99/gall. why would anyone ever spend 12k on a puma? i know companies build impractical stuff to show off their technology but these cars are for sale and i don't see these companies don't any consulting or licensing of their technologies. the ... wtf is the point?

4/13/2009 4:06:32 AM

That's how new technology comes into the public domain.

You know... like when the first iPod came out it was $500 for 4 GB? Now you can get 160 GB for $400 in a package that's half the volume, and several times the functionality.

If Tesla and Fisker didn't make all-electric cars, then mainstream car companies wouldn't bother and won't be forced to start making something as well in the near future. Obviously, the Tesla and Fisker are not for everyone, but in 10 years, when electric cars cost 30K, then perhaps 10% or more of the cars on the road would be all-electric, and another 10 years down the road, as much as 25% or more, and maybe upto 50% would be either hybrid or all-electric.

4/13/2009 4:44:41 AM

lol

4/13/2009 9:09:34 AM

electric cars still use electricity which is generated by burning coal in most cases. i wish they would spend more money in r&d for other fuel cells or something instead of electric vehicles...not that i really know how much is spent on either, it just seems that way.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 9:25:57 AM

Quote :

"electric cars still use electricity which is generated by burning coal in most cases."

Yeah I know, but it still doesn't stop people from buying hybrids if they really want to buy them or have a belief that they are helping the environment by getting a hybrid/electric car.

And one day, of course, a a lot less electricity will be generated from oil and coal, and a lot more from renewable sources. That's when owning a hybrid/electric car would actually mean helping the environment. And by then prices for such cars would have come down as well.

4/13/2009 10:18:42 AM

Quote :

"electric cars still use electricity which is generated by burning coal in most cases."

yes, but energy produced by burning coal at a power plant (and realize that there are many other methods of producing electricity in use) is more efficient and produces less pollution per unit than does the collective whole of combustion engines on the road (also take into account the energy required to produce gasoline)

Quote :

"i wish they would spend more money in r&d for other fuel cells or something instead of electric vehicles"

while i agree somewhat, realize that miniaturized power plants (as you would find in a car) require a lot more development and materials (per unit produced) than does doing it on a large scale...in a lot of cases, the use of a centralized power system that provides energy to the cars makes more sense, economically, than does ensuring that each one can operate independently

i realize it's not that simple and that an electric vehicle is not feasible in all situations, but my point is that i think we're making a shift in mindset in addition to technology (or, we should be)

4/13/2009 10:22:22 AM

i understand that's the goal . i guess i just feel like what's the point if your not making$$ . combined with the recession these companies probably won't make it until their products become affordable. it's like they're trying to innovate which is never cheap but they are doing it on a scale that could destroy their future. hasn't gm spent more on the volt than any other vehicle? has segway reported a profit yet? didn't teslas ceo have to take $ outta his own pocket to keep the company going even after begging for $$ from ge?? see what i'm sayin here

4/13/2009 7:57:25 PM

^to repeat OEPII1's analogy, where do you think Apple was financially and what prospects for the future did they have before the iPod came out?

sometimes you don't have to be the first to the market, but you have to be the one to the market with an awesome product that is actually available to masses (and that actually works lol) in order to win. Anyone still owns a Creative or Sony MP3 player?

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM. Reason : i think i still own both they are junk haha]

4/13/2009 8:06:52 PM

^uh, you guys realize that it took 4 versions and almost 7 years for the iPod to gain market acceptance right?

It wasn't the first MP3 player, and it took them 5 years to get to the version that had any mass public appeal.

In car terms, Tesla and Fisker are like Creative and Sony. Apple would be the Mazda in this story analogy.

4/13/2009 10:34:37 PM

^ Agreed.

However, my other main point with the iPod analogy was the massive drop in prices of novel technology over just a few years.

4/14/2009 5:42:36 AM

Quote :

"you guys realize that it took 4 versions and almost 7 years for the iPod to gain market acceptance right"

i'll be damned...didnt know the ipod came out in 1997(almost 1998)

4/14/2009 5:47:17 AM

^^ Again, it wasn't just a few years. It took mp3 players the better part of decade to see any major price reduction.

And even today, you don't really see them CHEAPER, you just see them with MORE capability. There's a big difference.

4/14/2009 6:19:06 AM

^you're paying less for more. How is this not cheaper?

4/14/2009 8:41:08 AM

Yeah, I don't get it. And if you want to talk in absolute terms, well, these days you can get a 4 GB mp3 player for < $150. There were no $150 mp3 players 10 years ago, with any capacity. In fact, there was nothing < $400.

4/14/2009 9:54:20 AM

Quote :

"^uh, you guys realize that it took 4 versions and almost 7 years for the iPod to gain market acceptance right? It wasn't the first MP3 player, and it took them 5 years to get to the version that had any mass public appeal. In car terms, Tesla and Fisker are like Creative and Sony. Apple would be the Mazda in this story analogy."

that's what i was trying to bring across. Apple was not going anywhere fast (just like the large US automakers now), they bet big on a product that was already available (which electric cars are at this point) and made it better and/or cheaper at a significant initial cost to the company (GM?), but now that it is gone to masses they are reaping the benefits.

4/14/2009 11:35:03 AM

but the other part that makes the apple analogy not work is the fossil fuel infrastructure. apple was able to vertically integrate using itunes supplying their ipods with "fuel" and there really were no competitors around. so not only would these companies have to make the product cheap and at least as good as their gasoline cars but they'd also have to create an entire new network of electric fueling stations competing with the already established fossil fuels .

4/14/2009 6:16:00 PM

Quote :

"^you're paying less for more. How is this not cheaper?"

Dear lord you guys are idiots.

It doesn't matter how much functionality or features you pack in a car. If it costs $80,000 dollars, it's not going to sell to the masses.

PRICEPOINT is independent of FEATURES.

The problem with electric vehicles is the minimum cost for manufacturing. Getting a car with huge range, quick recharge and all the gadgets is something that will be iterated over time (like the iPod example) without major price change.

But getting the price to a point where it becomes accessible in the first place is the difficult part.

Look at gaming consoles. Historically (including the current gen), a game console does not begin selling in mass quantity until it drops below the $200 mark. It doesn't matter how much shit you pack in it, 200 dollars is what the average consumer will spend.

4/14/2009 6:48:27 PM

there were plenty of illegal alternatives

4/14/2009 6:49:01 PM

more nuclear power plants is the answer. there are zero emissions.

4/14/2009 10:27:34 PM

^^^I was referring to you saying the iPod and mp3 players aren't cheaper. So if anyone is an idiot its most definitely you.

4/15/2009 12:04:05 AM

Quote :

"yes, but energy produced by burning coal at a power plant (and realize that there are many other methods of producing electricity in use) is more efficient and produces less pollution per unit than does the collective whole of combustion engines on the road (also take into account the energy required to produce gasoline) "

it may be more efficient at the plant, but by the time it's gotten to your service at the house it's not. there's also no way you could claim the pollution byproducts of burning coal are less than those of gas and diesel. There's more to pollution at a coal plant than the emissions coming out the smoke stacks. Take one look at a fly ash pit and see if you don't change your tune.

4/15/2009 8:47:45 AM

Quote :

"they'd also have to create an entire new network of electric fueling stations competing with the already established fossil fuels ."

to be fair, the same speed bump would exist for any type of fuel we want to switch to and this is already a known hurdle and has been since the beginning of talks about switching our nation to something other than gasoline.

Quote :

"Take one look at a fly ash pit and see if you don't change your tune."

Last I knew, we were recycling ~50% of it for use in cement but I know its still a problem.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2009 9:06:27 AM

Quote :

"it may be more efficient at the plant, but by the time it's gotten to your service at the house it's not."

compared to what?

Quote :

"there's also no way you could claim the pollution byproducts of burning coal are less than those of gas and diesel. There's more to pollution at a coal plant than the emissions coming out the smoke stacks. Take one look at a fly ash pit and see if you don't change your tune."

either you don't know what you're talking about (though i'm pretty sure you do), or we're talking about different things

when i refer to the pollution generated burning diesel and gasoline, i'm ALSO referring to additional pollution associated with the refining of crude into a viable product...i think that needs to be taken into account because, if we're going to compare the use of rechargeable electric vehicles to internal combustion engine ones, we need to look at the entire production line

what i'm saying is that, taking into consideration the energy expenditure and pollution generation of creating a viable product (coal or refined crude into diesel/gasoline), the burning of coal, with the current scrubbing methods in place (i'm not talking about futuristic "clean" coal technologies, either) is more efficient and generates less pollution per unit (w/kw/mw/whatever) than the WHOLE of average vehicle pollution today, right now

i did not mean to imply that coal is "better" than diesel/gasoline, or that electric cars will save the planet...if you really want to get down to it, there are an almost endless number of factors to consider (efficiency and pollution generation of the average NEW car versus the efficiency and pollution generation of the average NEW coal-burning power plant, the advantages of future coal scrubbing technologies that should be implemented by ~2025 versus the effect of cars produced today, etc.)

i only meant to say that in the VAST majority of situations, central mass production of a product (be it an object or something like energy) is more efficient per unit produced than multiple units producing the same product...i'm not saying you're wrong because i seriously doubt there are any evidential studies out there that have covered the many factors that would go into such calculations, but i suspect that the odds that burning fossil fuel in large quantities for use as electricity is more efficient and less polluting than burning more-refined fossil fuels in small quantities for the same result (taking into consideration the cost of producing said refined fuels)

4/15/2009 12:07:48 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, the same speed bump would exist for any type of fuel we want to switch to and this is already a known hurdle and has been since the beginning of talks about switching our nation to something other than gasoline"

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi
interesting read on the subject of infrastructire

4/15/2009 12:18:12 PM

i'm not sure some of you realize just how low tailpipe emissions are on new vehicles. it's going to be a looong time or take some huge leap/breakthrough in technology before ev's have an overall footprint less than a comparable gas/diesel vehicle. the propaganda out there is ridiculous. if the general public is going to get on board, they need to quit it with the dreams and rainbows bullshit.

it's my fear that the general public is going to come to realize the truth before ev's are able to clean up their act. for example, the prius has already taken a lot of heat in the past couple of years. then, they'll be demonized in the same way suv's/trucks have been. except it won't be the hippies and tree huggers, it's going to be other larger parts of society along with the media. all ultimately supported and back doored by BIG OIL.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 2:05:50 PM

Quote :

"Last I knew, we were recycling ~50% of it for use in cement but I know its still a problem. "

that's all fine and dandy until the economy shits the bed and we stop having the huge demand for cement and drywall. Then the ponds fill up and bust out the dams, like we've witnessed this winter.

Quote :

"Quote : "it may be more efficient at the plant, but by the time it's gotten to your service at the house it's not." compared to what?"

the upward limit of efficiency on a subcritical coal plant is 40%, with most plants in the US operating below that by several percentage points. The US has a very effective transmission system, yet our system losses are still around of 7.2% across the nation and probably closer to 10% when you factor out the more efficient commercial and industrial sectors and look at the residential connections where your plug-in car will be juicing up. Add in another 2-3% loss for the inefficiency of the battery station and batteries and you've now turned your 36% efficient coal plant into a 31.5% efficient power source. They're getting an average efficiency around that number out of internal combustion engines nowadays.

If someone would perfect a constant speed transmission system that allowed an engine to run at it's optimum efficiency speed and coupled that with a hybrid system to use the motor only when it's needed, you could probably get the efficiency of the vehicle upwards of 40%. Unfortunately, I don't think the manufacturing capabilities for that type of transmission are here just yet.

Quote :

"when i refer to the pollution generated burning diesel and gasoline, i'm ALSO referring to additional pollution associated with the refining of crude into a viable product...i think that needs to be taken into account because, if we're going to compare the use of rechargeable electric vehicles to internal combustion engine ones, we need to look at the entire production line"

I don't see how petroleum production is more dangerous than coal mining for people or the environment. Even if it did, eliminating vehicles won't eliminate the need for petroleum, as we make all sorts of plastics and polymers from petroleum. If we stopped using it as a fuel, we'd lower the cost of oil and start using it even more for manufacturing other materials. However, our use of coal is fairly limited to burning it at coal plants and steel production.

4/15/2009 4:27:43 PM

Quote :

"If someone would perfect a constant speed transmission system that allowed an engine to run at it's optimum efficiency speed and coupled that with a hybrid system to use the motor only when it's needed, you could probably get the efficiency of the vehicle upwards of 40%. Unfortunately, I don't think the manufacturing capabilities for that type of transmission are here just yet."

as in something better than a dsg or what? the 2010 mazda 3 hybrid is getting dsg along with stop/start (think golf cart). not sure what the latest word is on it coming here, but europe and japan are getting it.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 4:57:51 PM

^sounds like he is talking about CVT

Quote :

"when i refer to the pollution generated burning diesel and gasoline, i'm ALSO referring to additional pollution associated with the refining of crude into a viable product..."

don't forget to include the pollution from distribution of the petroleum fuels. its gotta get from where it is drilled to your tank somehow.

4/15/2009 5:15:43 PM

agreed. in some ways, the same goes for mining, distribution, and disposal of materials associated with batteries in electric cars.

4/15/2009 5:44:21 PM

^^you're right, I was thinking of a CVT transmission. I couldn't remember the acronym.

4/15/2009 6:36:17 PM

it's fuckin stupid, gas will last forever, they are wating their time

4/16/2009 10:31:04 PM

^if we find out that oil is abiotic in nature, then it will last forever. however, that's a topic for another thread.

4/16/2009 11:11:45 PM

deez nutz are for another thread

4/17/2009 2:48:24 PM

Quote :

"Even if it did, eliminating vehicles won't eliminate the need for petroleum, as we make all sorts of plastics and polymers from petroleum. "

Glad someone brought this up. The reason we need to stop using petroleum as a fuel is not so much for saving the environment, but for saving our own civilization. If oil ever becomes a truly scarce material, we are fucked back to the middle ages.

Every single piece of alternative energy technology absolutely requires petroleum in at least one form (lubrication, parts, electronics). Machines don't move without oil, regardless of their power source. This is pretty much the reason why I support moving away from fossil fuels as an energy source, because it's a hell of a lot easier to change fuel sources (of which we have abundant alternatives - nuclear being the easy one) than it is for us to move our world away from plastics and petroleum lubricants.

4/17/2009 5:10:40 PM

Quote :

"i wish they would spend more money in r&d for other fuel cells "

look retard, fuel cells use hydrogen, which is primarily produced from fossil fuels, it just creates all the CO2 at the refinery and not at your tailpipe

4/17/2009 5:15:34 PM

http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1050863_electric-car-drives-375-miles-at-55-mph-recharges-in-6-minu

Quote :

"We all know that battery packs are the weakest link in electric vehicles. Not only are they heavy and expensive, but they take a long time to recharge and on average can only provide around 100 miles per charge. A German-based company has changed all that with a new vehicle capable of driving up to 375 miles at moderate highway speeds. That’s roughly the equivalent of driving from Santa Barbara, CA to the Hoover Dam, without a recharge. It doesn’t end there. The company responsible for the battery pack, DBM Energy, claims a battery pack efficiency of 97 percent and a recharge time of around 6 minutes when charged from a direct current source. Unlike the small Daihatsu which was heavily modified by a team in Japan earlier this year that achieved a massive 623 miles on a charge at around 27 mph, the Audi A2 modified by DBM Energy was able to achieve its 375 miles range at an average speed of 55 mph. In contrast to the Japanese Daihatsu which had just one seat to enable more batteries to be squeezed into its diminutive frame, the DBM A2 retained its four original seats. At the end of the historic drive, DBM’s Mirko Hannemann, who has been driving the car for around seven hours between the German cities of Munich and Berlin even offered to charge up the cellphones of the waiting journalists with the remaining power left in the car. Funded as part of a joint venture between German utility company Lekker Energie and the German Economy Ministry, the prototype battery offers a glimpse into the future of the electric car. Don’t think for a second that this is a one-off battery pack. DBM’s battery technology, called KOLIBRI AlphaPolymer, is already in use in the unglamorous role of warehouses, where forklift trucks running on the same battery pack are capable of 28 hours of continuous operation before recharging is required. We’re always a little cautious of battery technologies offering ultra-fast recharge and a magnitude of range improvement on other battery chemistry types, but everything we’ve seen and heard from DBM Energy thus far points to a battery technology we’re all keen to watch. Could this be the future of electric vehicles? Is it ready? If the battery technology is truly as revolutionary as this impressive journey hints and the battery packs from DBM are ready for the arduous duties of daily abuse at the hands of electric car drivers worldwide it is conceivable that this could be the answer to range anxiety. Even more, dare we suggest it, the conventional combustion engined car may have met its match. Only time will tell. "

10/26/2010 8:27:03 PM

so many answers to this problem of energy generation. right out in the open.
nuclear power plants
solar/wind power
electric cars
bicycles
walking
list goes on and on

no one needs a 3000lb vehicle to go to the gocery store. and nothings going to change until it gets bad, and then it may be too late. this happens quite a bit. and this coming from a person that would have 30 cars if i could afford it.

10/27/2010 6:22:19 PM

^^That's pretty awesome

10/27/2010 9:34:22 PM

give me a scooter that gets 30-40 miles to a charge, goes 60mph, and can carry two people and i'd use my car even less than i do now

10/28/2010 7:53:59 AM

^make mine with an 80 mile range and an 80 mph speed.

10/28/2010 9:03:20 AM

BMW will mass produce a high-powered plug-in hybrid sports car, the German auto maker announced Friday

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/05/autos/bmw_sport_hybrid/?npt=NP1

11/6/2010 10:52:47 AM

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE AFRAID OF NOW!

11/6/2010 1:12:34 PM

WEST VIRGINIANS CONTROL THE US COAL SUPPLY!!! ATTACK!!!

11/6/2010 5:02:07 PM

it won't look like that

11/6/2010 5:57:41 PM

it should

11/6/2010 8:19:07 PM

be that as it may, it won't

11/6/2010 8:47:34 PM

they are going after extended-range setup with a diesel generator.. Will this be the Volt that never been? I am sure the rules and regulations will dumb the looks down somewhat, but there has never been anything from BMW that looked like a Prius, so maybe this one will come with some sex appeal as standard equipment.


[Edited on November 7, 2010 at 3:56 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2010 3:54:59 AM

Quote :

"BMW will mass produce a high-powered plug-in hybrid sports car, the German auto maker announced Friday"

LOL, mass produced my ass. That car is gonna cost $150-200k. I'm sure they'll be on every street corner in no time...

11/7/2010 11:03:24 AM

^in that case I hope at least it will look something like the original “BMW Vision EfficientDynamics” concept, and not the BMW bodykitted Prius pictured above

11/7/2010 9:28:34 PM

I think they're both ugly

11/7/2010 10:38:07 PM