The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 30 Jul 2007 23:26 On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:02:28 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry >> >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >> >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" >> >> >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are >> >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term >> >> >solution on this overpopulated planet >> >> >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some >> >> kind of idiot. >> >> >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally >> >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's >> >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. >> >> I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist >> weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) >> >> And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT >> my children and grandchildren ;-) > >OOHH!. Think of the children... > >You sound like a leftist weenie. > >Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. > If your time is worth a few hundred bucks an hour, it's inefficient to drive slow. John
From: MooseFET on 30 Jul 2007 23:28 On Jul 30, 8:02 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > > > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry > > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > > >Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" > > > >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are > > >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term > > >> >solution on this overpopulated planet > > > >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some > > >> kind of idiot. > > > >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally > > >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's > > >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. > > > I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist > > weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) > > > And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT > > my children and grandchildren ;-) > > OOHH!. Think of the children... > > You sound like a leftist weenie. > > Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. His fuel line leaks badly. Every minute the engine is on, it looses a gallon,
From: David L. Jones on 30 Jul 2007 23:37 On Jul 29, 10:34 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > "default" > > >>Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our > >>roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on > >>acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in > >>say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to > >>be used for short distances from home. > > > Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours. > > That is more than ample for most commutes. > > ** The Roadster has a recharge time ( from dead flat ) of 3.5 hours - > according to the makers. > > Only thing is, owners need to have a dedicated, 3 phase power outlet > available at home with a capacity of 15 kW - then it will costs about > $10 or so in electricity for a full recharge. > > However .............. > > - just load the boot (ie trunk in the USA) with a bunch of these babies > and get it done in only 1 minute !!!!! > > http://www.dcviews.com/press/Toshiba-One-minute.htm "A prototype of new battery (a laminated lithium ion battery with 600mAh capacity) was discharged and fully recharged 1,000 times at a temperature of 25 degrees centigrade and lost only 1% of capacity during the test." Damn, that's good. I wonder how many cycles they actually get before it starts to lose some real capacity? Dave.
From: Richard Henry on 31 Jul 2007 02:31 On Jul 30, 8:25 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <1185850948.051175.139...(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > pomer...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry > > > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > > > >Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" > > > > >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are > > > >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term > > > >> >solution on this overpopulated planet > > > > >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some > > > >> kind of idiot. > > > > >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally > > > >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's > > > >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. > > > > I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist > > > weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) > > > > And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT > > > my children and grandchildren ;-) > > > OOHH!. Think of the children... > > > You sound like a leftist weenie. > > Not at all. Not "the" children. *HIS* children. There is a > difference. > > > Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. > > It's entirely possible as was explained at the time. > It was bs then and it's bs now. All fancy gearing and ignition tricks will be overcome by the inevitability of the non-linearity of increase of air resistance with speed.
From: Glenn Gundlach on 31 Jul 2007 03:39
On Jul 28, 7:51 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:48:49 +0200, Martin Griffith wrote: > > That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1 > > ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights, > > and going around bends in the road. > > Much of the energy required for acceleration is recoverable upon > deceleration via regenerative braking. It's just a question of efficiency. The amount of kinetic energy is related to the speed, not the acceleration. If you accelerate more rapidly, that extra energy is not recoverable. Modest acceleration is less wasteful. > > The inevitable losses are friction and air resistance, primarily the > latter, especially at high speeds. For stop-start urban driving, failure > to recover kinetic energy upon deceleration (i.e. lack of regenerative > braking) is a significant efficiency loss. > > Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming > widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology > improves. > > Taxis and buses are a different matter. For heavy use in an urban > environment, the efficiency gain from regenerative braking could make it > worthwhile developing the necessary infrastructure (i.e. places where you > can swap flat batteries for fully charged ones every couple of hours). Got a Prius last year. So far 52+ mpg for 15000 miles. It's the best I can do. GG |