Tesla Roadster

You are comparing two different types of motors so your calculations are invalid.

Electric motors produce the greatest amount of power at the lowest RPM.



IC engines produce the greatest amount of power at higher RPM, then drop off after the peak.



Depending on the gearing, an electric motor would be nowhere near its maximum output at "highway speeds". Nor does an IC engine often go into the power band of max output. A 4cyl engine for example is usually upshifted at or below 3000rpm. Its peak power, the point where it would actually be generating 130HP, is usually between 5-6000rpm.

So, not only is that 130HP rarely generated in an IC engine, the only time an equivalent output is needed in an electric motor is when coming off a standstill.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by apc]

You are comparing torque to horsepower so your conclusions are invalid.

I know all that. All I am saying is that you cannot sustain highway speeds on a one-ton vehicle with 13 HP. That whole article is bull# because they don't qualify the conditions under which the miraculous numbers they provide are valid. Until someone can show me an electric car being cheaper than IC car for typical everyday use, I am not going to believe a marketing blurb from corporations primarily interested in promoting their R&D investments.

Jon

[edit on 7.26.2006 by Voxel]

Torque and horsepower are two ways to describe the same thing... much like a particle and a wave are two ways to describe light.

And 13HP could easily be sufficient to provide cruising power to a vehicle with superb aerodynamic and wheel power efficient qualities.

Again depending on gearing, most 4cyl engine in 5th gear will be around 22-2500RPM at 70MPH. On an engine in a normal car that produces around 130HP at peak power (lets say 5500RPM), the engine would be putting out around 35HP. At 55MPH, you can imagine the power output would be lower.

Maintaining speed requires very little power. Acceleration is where power is needed. In the original article they state the sedan under development would not have the high performance aerodynamic properties of the Roadster, and would therefore have inferior range. By this we can infer that the performance of the Roadster is directly a result of optimal aerodynamics... something most cars on the road today do not posess.

I consider batteries to be more of a "status-quo" development since they do nothing to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, have been around forever, and are far too expensive for the consumer.

Incorrect. It's all in how you use them, recharge them, and deal with them after they become "flat."

My problem with "battery-power" is that like "hydrogen-fuel" it is only a way of hiding the vilified hydrocarbons from the gullible masses. Where does the electricity for creating the hydrogen or charging the batteries come from?

For me personally, I plan on putting up solar panels on the roofs. For everyone else, it's off the grid.

A large percentage of the world's countries produce electricity by buring coal or natural gas. There are only a few countries with nearly a complete reliance on either nuclear, geothermal, or hydroelectric power production. In those places batteries may make environmental or economic sense but batteries are not a panacea in many countries like the US.

So? You have to think Economies of Scale. It's Economics 101. If you get you energy from a large generator source versus a small inefficient gasoline engine, you WILL be outputting less toxins into the environment per mile. This is a hard mathematical FACT.

What do you think would be cheaper? Mandating that ALL cars have heavy and expensive pollution controls(lowering efficiency through added weight and added cost), or mandating that all Gas/Oil/Coal plants have pollution controls on them? Ask any enginner or engineering student(like me) and they will say the latter is cheaper(for the Tax Payers), more efficient(for everybody) and much cleaner.

Also, there is no such thing as a panacea in the Transportation and Energy game. We are gonna have to cobble together a post-oil economy that relies on many types fuel sources, modes of transport, power plants, added in with new methods of energy trasportation(google up Superconducting Nanowires, it could make the efficiency of the whole system improve by an order of magnitude), it won't be pretty, or perfect, but it'll just work(Millenium Falcon Principal)

[edit on 26-7-2006 by sardion2000]

Has anyone checked under the hood yet to see if the battery pack is interchangeable by the owner? All in a few minutes time?

I like the no tailpipe/muffler (to knock off in a ditch) and no oil pan (to bust in my alley) features the best.

08/10/06 - 0 to 60 in 4 seconds
We tend to associate sports cars with finely tuned, sexy exhaust-noise gasoline engines. The Tesla is nothing like that. It is quiet and quick. The Tesla people say it will do zero to 60 mph in four seconds and will top out at 130 mph. And if its creators have their way, it will be a permanent niche in the eclectic and rarely successful field of electric-powered cars. A handful of firms is out there, trying to build cars for this new, expensive niche. So far, it appears that Tesla is the closest to actually getting some cars on the road -- the Silicon Valley firm says 40 well-heeled customers have paid $100,000 each for a car, even though they won't get their new toys for at least a year. The buyers appear to be captivated by the fact that these electrics are completely different from relatively stodgy electric vehicles of the past. Down the road, Tesla plans a four-door electric-powered sedan that would sell for somewhere between $50,000 and $65,000. But Tesla isn't the only one out there pushing these costly electrics. "It's the new high-power electronics that is making this possible," Woodbury said of the immense power he and other manufacturers are seeing in modern electric vehicle machinery. "Now you have electric cars blowing away Dodge Vipers on the drag strip. Electric cars are expensive and fast, because of better motor controllers and better batteries. People just aren't interested in slow cars." Just remember to plug it in after that ride.
see www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/08/09/MNGSSKDMBT1.DTL

Originally posted by sardion2000
Check this baby out. 0-60 in 3 seconds, sexy as hell, completely emission-less, and still gets a range of over 200 miles!

www.wired.com...

"You see any cops?" Eberhard asks, shooting me a mischievous look. The car is vibrating, ready to launch. I'm the first journalist to get a ride.

He releases the brake and my head snaps back. One-one-thousand: I get a floating feeling, like going over the falls in a roller coaster. Two-one-thousand: The world tunnels, the trees blur. Three-one-thousand: We hit 60 miles per hour. Eberhard brakes. We're at a standstill again -- elapsed time, nine seconds. When potential buyers get a look at the vehicle this summer, it will be among the quickest production cars in the world. And, compared to other supercars like the Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo, and Lamborghini Diablo, it's a bargain. More intriguing: It has no combustion engine.

The trick? The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries -- the same cells that run a laptop computer. Range: 250 miles. Fuel efficiency: 1 to 2 cents per mile. Top speed: more than 130 mph. The first cars will be built at a factory in England and are slated to hit the market next summer. And Tesla Motors, Eberhard's company, is already gearing up for a four-door battery-powered sedan.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by sardion2000]

One thing that should be pointed out... the Roadster has two forward gears.

Two.

Add another, and beef up the tranny to handle the wheel load (if it can't already), and it could easily see another 50mph added to its top speed. Wheel power is all about the gearing.

This has probably been considered by the designers, and for some reason dismissed. I'd guess because there's not many places a street car can legally go that fast, let alone 130mph.

No doubt you are way ahead, but there is a list of Tesla patents at:
www.keelynet.com...
Since the details are online, you probably have a greater knowledge of them than I. What is cool is that there are still people that are willing to go out and brave the theoretical jungle. The power of the human mind is restricted only by the resources at it's command. Flash_dancer

Originally posted by obsidian468

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I, too, also like the name; hopefully, it will bring awareness of Tesla more into the mainstream, as right now only science buffs really know who he was, and he is critically important to history and our technological society today.

Not to derail the thread, but you don't even know the can of worms you've opened by saying this. Tesla's advanced research (the stuff he patented with certain critical parts missing) was years ahead of even current technology. Even the Tesla Coil is still of high importantance to todays society. As yet, it's the only high voltage transformer ever created that has the potential (proven in many cases with some of the larger ones) to output a higher voltage and amperage than was needed to power it, thus breaking the Law of Conservation.

Please, nobody respond to this, as I don't want to derail this thread. If you feel the need to respond to this specific reply, please respond on my other thread about Tesla's power research here: Unbreakable Laws of Physics?

[edit on 7/20/2006 by obsidian468]

Originally posted by apc
A good indicator will be what route Germany takes. Chrysler and Benz have started holding hands. Ford has started working with BMW. That leaves GM and... Audi?

Actually, GM has been working with Lotus for years. The Pontiac Fiero had Lotus-Designed suspension, and the new Ecotec is a Lotus designed engine. My guess is that GM would get first picks on the car. It seems that whenever GM needs performance parts that aren't based on their classic platforms, they turn to Lotus. Since Lotus plays a significant part in this car... well, the lineage is fairly obvious. If I remember right, GM was trying to work with Toyota not too long ago regarding hybrid cars because of GM's big flop, but haven't heard anything recently about it.

Originally posted by Voxel
I don't know of any li-ion cars that are street legal today. Most electric cars are lead-acid batteries (much safer) and the newest are using nickel metal hydride batteries which is little more than a toxic waste dump in your back-seat - yay!

Electric cars sound great on the surface but do nothing to help the environment. In fact, I find it hard to understand how putting hundreds of pounds of toxic materials in a car will help anyone - well unless you happen to own a lithium mine.

Jon

(ephasis added by Earthscum)

Um... 1 gal. of gasoline weighs about 6 lbs. (depending on teperature). I have about 100 lbs. of toxic materials sitting about 3 feet behind me... and sadly, the less 'toxic materials' in the tank, the more prone to exploding they are by something as simple as a static spark! I also have about 10 lbs of toxic material sitting in the bottom of the engine in my car. Hmm... I'm riding around with ALOT of flammable material, that is (IMHO) every bit as toxic as Li-Io. At least I don't have to crack open the batteries to recharge them... but I DO have to crack open my gas tank every time I fill up, exposing myself to those chemicals. I have to add oil to my car, exposing myself to those chemicals as well. Also, transmissions and differentials generally use petroleum based products... as well as braking hydraulic systems, and power steering hydraulic systems, which can also easily be replaced by electric components.

In your estimations, you forget about routine maitenance... fluid changes, oil disposal costs, and what about the enviromental costs of oil dripped on the ground? I've seen back yards that can't even grow weeds because someone decided that was a decent place to dump their used oil way back when.

I believe we have come far enough with Li-Io technology to safely use it in transportation methods... consider how many people died by BURNING TO DEATH because of poorly placed or mounted gas tanks... I seriously doubt we will see ANY kind of number close to that concerning Li-Io batteries.

On that same note, think about how many people have been injured recharging lead-acid batteries... during charge and discharge, lead-acid batteries release hydrogen gas, and are prone to exploding. Basically the argument that Li-Io batteries pose any more of a health or safety threat than traditional batteries, or even vehicles running gasoline powered engines, is just rediculous IMHO.


As far as recharging the batteries, one method I saw proposed in the early stages of electric cars was a static strap. It was proposed (I doubt taken seriously, though... haven't heard anything about it since...) as a method of increasing travel distance by supplying a small enough electrical charge to replace some of the drain. The method made sense to me.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Earthscum]

As far as recharging the batteries, one method I saw proposed in the early stages of electric cars was a static strap.

Isn't this how regenerative braking works? Where does the strap go in the designs you read about?

Hate to burst anyones bubbles, but has anyone tried to work out the cost of replacing the batteries about every three or four years of normal use into the fuel economy? It would certainly bring those figures back a bit.

Also what happens when the charge runs down and you are around town in a hurry? Go somewhere and wait for a few hours for it to charge up?

The real answer is a 100% Bio-Ethanol powered car - a renewable fuel made from sugarcane and other crops.

Originally posted by apc
these cars could easily become completely recyclable, eliminating the need to replace the batteries when they eventually fail.

Ethanol is a political out that will not be economical anytime soon, if ever. The only way ethanol is a practical fuel is if you live in the middle of a corn field with a distillery in your basement. Otherwise, it is a net loss.

Hate to burst anyones bubbles, but has anyone tried to work out the cost of replacing the batteries about every three or four years of normal use into the fuel economy?

Hate to burst your bubble, but this has been gone over in this thread if you actually bothered to read it all, you'd have known this.

I guess that means the answer to your question is yes, we have worked it out at current day prices.

I'm stil trying to find out the manufacturing costs of LiIon batteries because I believe that Lotus will have a return program for the batteries and they will probably replace them for slightly above cost minus the returned deposit for the exchange of the flat batteries for fresh batteries(because they'll be making their cash on Leases and they want to keep their customers and not piss them off, they won't be making the same mistake as Cell Phone companies(but they can afford too, car companies cannot in this cutthroat market)).

Oh, one other thing. People change their cars on average once every 5 years anyway. If a battery is developed that stays long lasting after regular use for that long, then your point is moot. Who knows, the turnover ratio could turn out to be higher in Electric cars then in Gasoline cars and people will just exchange their cars in when the batteries go flat. :shrug: Lotus will then in turn refurbish and recondition the car and replace the batteries and either sell it used or re-lease it for a lower price.

1. Build Car

2. Promote Car

3. Mass Produce Car and Sell Car

4. Profit!

5. Receive returns and recondition

6. Sell or Lease Reconditioned Vehicles

7. More Profit!!

Rince and repeat.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

LOL

3.5 Collect Underwear.

Interesting... I was unaware Lotus had agreed to production of the Roadster.

They now state a 250mile range. Maybe that's when not exercising the 0-60 time too often.

Originally posted by apc
LOL

3.5 Collect Underwear.

When all else fails, rely on the Underpants Gnomes analogy.

Thank you Matt and Trey. :bow:

Interesting... I was unaware Lotus had agreed to production of the Roadster.

They now state a 250mile range. Maybe that's when not exercising the 0-60 time too often.

Nice. They probably were having too much fun impressing the Car Mag guys and the Chicks to get to any real work done. I'm sure they put in so much work already that they probably deserved it.

Originally posted by apc

these cars could easily become completely recyclable, eliminating the need to replace the batteries when they eventually fail.

Ethanol is a political out that will not be economical anytime soon, if ever. The only way ethanol is a practical fuel is if you live in the middle of a corn field with a distillery in your basement. Otherwise, it is a net loss.

I disagree about the Ethonol part. In certain parts it can help stabalize petrol prices as well as reduce emissions. I'm not of the school of thought that thinks that there will be "one car to dominate them all." We're gonna see a mixture depending on the regional realities.

Tesla hopes to sell up to 1,000 roadsters a year.

That has to be a record if/when they achieve that. Just imagine, in the early 90s, SUVs were selling similiar numbers, then the dot-com boom came and up went the sales of SUVs. Same thing can happen to Electric next decade, especially if Oil keeps going up.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

Ah well yes I do occasionally suffer from a bit of short sightedness when it comes to matters such as these. In the continential US, ethanol is nothing more than a political gambit. In other parts of the world, it can be economical, although I am not studied on those specific details. I tend to only study what concerns me, and the rest of the worlds' fuel problems don't concern me. However, in the US, mandating ethanol mixtures only hurts our fuel economy. I have done my own experiments with E85 and the resulting costs were greater than petrol due to availability. If every station started carrying E85 it would be economical for me personally. However the transportation costs would go up, increasing the end market costs, again pushing it into a loss. Brazil, sure. US... nope.

Maybe not the entire US, but the Southwest is a perfect fit for a long term ethanol program. Lots of deserts in the Southwest going to waste, build greenhouses! Perhaps even utilize Australian Solar Tower Technology as that creates a greenhouse of vast proportions. Another prospect for solar powered fuel generation is this Hydroponic Skyscraper Technology. A combination of both could be a great boon to the US Southwest and other arid regions.

One other note, by Regional, I mean the major Megalopolis's. Forget their names but each has it's distinct advantages, disadvantages and challenges to struggle and mull over. An engineers wet dream is what that is.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

Interesting idea. How does it create a vast greenhouse? Wouldn't water still have to be pumped in? Especially in a desert region? If it were purely to use convection to generate power, I would imagine it would close to zero out keeping up the greenhouse. So then you're still left with the traditional costs of production and distribution.

I dont know about ethanol, but it certainly would prove a good solution for supporting an EV boom in the area.

And I think one of the things that holds back widescale ethanol use is again availability. If demand is localized, then so must be the vehicles. People want cars they can take anywhere. If their fuel is unavailable in other regions... We need a universal solution. If we're lucky you're right, and the following years will see the Tesla and her decendants take a firm grip on acceptance.

>
btw, a catcher...

If the cost of energy comes down enough to make artificial lighting and heating affordable for agriculture, Hessel's vision of automated skyscraper farms could one day be a reality, too.

So the system currently would run at a loss during the winter months. And I don't see the cost of energy coming down anytime soon.

Plus, they dont say what kind of lighting they use, but it's most likely high pressure sodium or metal halide... both of which require quite a bit of power to give decent penetration. The concept itself seems to point out that auxillary lighting would be needed year round... each level shading the one below at some point during the day.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by apc]

Originally posted by apc
Interesting idea. How does it create a vast greenhouse?

The vast circular sheet at the base of the tower is designed to superheat the air at a certain region before it hits the wind turbines. Aero-thermal power has a nice ring to it doesn't it? I wonder if anyone has thought that up yet... heh... (offtopic: ever wondered if you ever coined a phrase? I wonder how you would find out, I'm sure I've coined at least one or two heh)

Wouldn't water still have to be pumped in? Especially in a desert region?

To a certain extent yes, the cooling and heating of the greenhouse producing a considerable amount of consendation, enough so that in tests in some dry parts of Spain, they found that where there had been sparse growth, the plants there thrived with the increase condensation and the decreased in lost moisture due to evaporation(the greenhouse also traps in a goodly amount of water vapor at night). If a version were created that minimized the amount of moisture loss, you could get a great system of clean power and crops for food and fuel.

This is all speculative though, remember that.

If it were purely to use convection to generate power, I would imagine it would close to zero out keeping up the greenhouse. So then you're still left with the traditional costs of production and distribution.

Another side bonus is the superheating that occurs(and surprisingly enough the plants thrived there as well(70+ centigrade)) is that a lot of it gets stored in the ground during the day and it keeps on going at night time(and the convection keeps on going, allthough at a slightly slower rate), its a very stable and reliable power source, barring extreme caldera explosion or meteor impact that is.

I dont know about ethanol, but it certainly would prove a good solution for supporting an EV boom in the area.

I too believe that EVs are the future, it's the interim where I believe where the mixing and matching will occur, until it dawns on everyone that all of a sudden, electric vehicles are here to stay(this is when they've also hopefully got it to the points of getting an 80% charge in a few minutes ).

And I think one of the things that holds back widescale ethanol use is again availability.

I guess you don't know that Biodiesel Production Tripled in 2005 in the US then. If it keeps along this exponential path, it will become a major player in the decades to come.

If demand is localized, then so must be the vehicles. People want cars they can take anywhere.

This is where Flexi-fuel vehicles come into play. People are gonna have to become flexible in the coming decades. Gas will still be used for decades to come, hopefully the combined efforts of many individuals and companies will relegate it too niche status eventually.

So the system currently would run at a loss during the winter months. And I don't see the cost of energy coming down anytime soon.

Well depending on where it's located you're either right or wrong. I wouldn't advocate a solar powered one in my neck of the woods, but in Navada or New Mexico? Different story. In my area, I'd want a Skyscraper hydroponics near a fast moving river, maybe close to Niagra falls heh.

Plus, they dont say what kind of lighting they use, but it's most likely high pressure sodium or metal halide...

Yes, this is a major sticking point for me as well. I've been reading on the promise of OLEDs as near replicants of the sun in Hydroponics. It was supposed to be an ISS experiment because they are always conciousnious of power and LEDS don't need very much thats for sure but I have not heard much of it since I read that news release on thier homepage(you might be able to still find it).

I do admit, it is speculative, but it may work in some area's.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by sardion2000]

Ah but FFVs are essentially just made to handle the corrosive properties of alcohol. It eats anything aluminum in the fuel system, so the tanks are stainless steel... fuel pumps, rails, etc. Economy still goes in the tank [not literally RDR^2] . My truck for example gets on avg 16mpg on petrol... 10-12 on E85. Even the 5-10% requirements are hurting mileage.

I would be curious to know what the ambient heat tolerances are of ethanol producing crops. Ive seen far too many plants cook and get the green baked right out of them at high temperatures.


[edit on 13-8-2006 by apc]