# The Tesla Roadsterâa hotshot sports car that runs on batteries



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

http://www.slate.com/id/2154425
--------------------------------------------------
Knock yourselves out naysayers.....For the Rest of you,what can be done with electrics,and how they put internal combustion cars to shame.
Nice to see some modern ideas on the 100 year old car technology.
-----------------------------------------------
The Tesla Roadster won't hit the streets until next year. If you see one on the street, then, you should ask for a ride. Even from the passenger seat, the car feels impossibly stronger, faster, and safer than it should be. The trick is Tesla's torque curveâthe arc of the motor's strength as it revs from a standstill to top speed. Compared to gasoline-engined cars, the Roadster's torque curve feelsâand isâimpossible. That's because the Tesla's motor is electric.

I've always marveled at how long the antique internal-combustion engine has survived. By 2006 standards, my car's power plant is a noisy, heat-blasting, poison-spewing monster with way too many moving parts. One spin in a Tesla made me realize that the gas engine might finally be on its last legsâand not because electric cars will help wean us from Saudi oil and save us from global warming. Rather, the Tesla Roadster is a rolling demo that proves electric cars now outperform their gas-guzzling counterparts in comfort, convenience, and, best of all, speed.

Eberhard says traditional carmakers have failed with electrics for two reasons. First, they market them as "penalty boxes" for environmental do-gooders and gas-mileage-obsessed penny-pinchers. Second, they just don't understand batteries. The Tesla's giant lithium-ion battery pack gives it the power to hit 60 in four seconds, to run 250 miles without a recharge, and to charge rapidly at its home charging base (a one-hour charge will take you 80 miles; it takes a 3.5-hour charge to go 250 miles). You can even plug into a wall socket at a roadside stop in a pinch. That makes the Roadster a viable commuter car and weekend day-tripper. The company claims energy costs as low as a penny per mile.
-------------------------------------------------
And remember,Detroit cant build one,and no-one would buy one.Especially in a hybrid form with onboard recharging,no-one would want that.Thats why the waiting lines for the Prius,which is nowhere near the car (but keeps the Oil companies placated,and the Automakers happy with expensive,difficult to maintain cars with short lifespans.)

Hope I live to see the day when we can recharge cars,instead of importing oil,and do so with clean power sources.All that we have to do is slay the OIL King,unfortunately we have OIL soaked politicians who have OIL's priorities rated far more than yours or the Countries TRUE Security,energy self sufficiency.

BUT REMEMBER,DONT BELIEVE YOUR OWN LYING EYES,SPOUT SOUND BYTES WHY IT JUST CANT BE DONE .While we send probes out of our solar system and run solar cars on Mars.....It cant be done on our own PLANET,Its other wordly only,LOL.

BooBoo


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

sweet!


----------



## bill not in oh (Jul 27, 2004)

MELOC said:


> sweet!


I'll second that...


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

May I third that . .?



The following is a proven list of why it can't be done.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
8.
9.

Now do you believe me . . . . ..


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I BELIEVE, :bow: LOL

I just love that stuff,250 miles per charge,maybe 10 times a year do I drive further than that.

Bet that meets the needs of the vast majority of car usage.
Add on board charging,just has it all.

As Smirnoff says "What a Country!",BooBoo says "What a Concept!"

BooBoo


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Good thing it's so affordable... Only 100K.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Anything Tesla is neat...

Now I'll have to go googling this... 

Angie


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Read the article, and was looking at the order the next one.... but the 92,000 base price sorta stopped me... I'm only good to 90,000  

Angie


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yeah,hand built sports cars tend to be expensive.

But as the Rav electric,Ford Ranger electric,and the GM EV-1 (the best electric yet for the masses) have shown, they dont have to cost much more (if at all any more,then a conventional car with economy of scale).

Price is not going to be the deal breaker if they are ever mass produced.

BooBoo


----------



## Bloodwolf (Mar 20, 2006)

edison usedta enter electric cars in the grand ol long distance car races of the early 1900's. from 1899ish to 1910 most inner city trafic was going to electric , people were sick of horse---- in the street and couldn't see any reason to have a buncha noisy polluting infernal congestion machines. all these were battery powered of course.. tesla however was not a big fan of the battery/dc and I can't beleive they gonna put his name on a car that isn't wirelessly powered.. seems a travesty ... insult really

google edison electric car that sorta thing .. you should find a pic of a model t converter to battery by edison.. ford and edison were buddies, go figure!


----------



## Guy_Incognito (Jul 4, 2006)

"The Tesla's giant lithium-ion battery pack gives it the power to hit 60 in four seconds, to run 250 miles without a recharge, and to charge rapidly at its home charging base (a one-hour charge will take you 80 miles; it takes a 3.5-hour charge to go 250 miles)."

It also conveniently gives you a giant, expensive, reactive battery pack which may or may not explode violently if mistreated. Read up on the dell laptop battery fires and extend that out to a few thousand cells.

That pack will also be of a pretty reduced capacity after 500 full cycles - 4 years of daily driving. The battery pack is the most expensive component of the vehicle. Economies of scale don't really apply - they're already getting a pretty big discount with the quantities for just one car, and there's a finite limit based on the price of materials and chemicals involved.

So yes, nice enough car, but it's still an exotic vehicle and not a cheap daily commuter and in their particular configuration I don't think it ever will be.


----------



## naturewoman (Nov 12, 2002)

Woohoo. I'll wait till the generic version comes out...maybe Wal-Mart will offer it for $4. 

Oh that is such good news. Thanks BooBoo


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

ZealYouthGuy said:


> Good thing it's so affordable... Only 100K.


Bob, I bet you couldn't afford the first PC when it came out either.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Bob, I bet you couldn't afford the first PC when it came out either.


Don't get me wrong, I am for a good electric vehicle... but this isn't the "First" electric car. I just wonder how much of that range you lose when you drop in a family of four and don't have the same quality of battery due to cost. For a family of 6 like mine... we would probably get 20 or 30 miles...


----------



## dcross (Aug 12, 2005)

<<we would probably get 20 or 30 miles...>>

And in January in WI?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Bob, I bet you couldn't afford the first PC when it came out either.



Yea but there was about 40+ years between the first computer and the first affordable home model, and the Commadore from the late 70's/early 80's till now is another 20 years....

Although I applaud the effort I justs hope I'm still alive in 60 or so years to be able to afford one..... It will always be a niche market just like solar and other alternative energies are until the costs come down and it becomes affordable to the average home owner...Just my humble opinion, and who knows I may be wrong this time.....lol


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

about the danger...what could be worse than riding around on top of 15-20 gallons of gasoline??? ask the folks who had their chevy trucks blow in half from a side collision...if they are still alive.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Go to google,type in EV-1.

Then spend a day reading about a real world car that owners(Leasee's actually)
LOVED.

Nothing exotic about em,just todays tech applied to todays world.

All I can say,you dont know the EV-1 story,you are uninformed about electric cars.IF you are truly interested,educate yourselves,EV-1 is the education for whats what in todays world.It WAS HERE,and IT WORKED.FACT.

Dont google it though,an EDUCATION might follow that will challenge your biases and preconceived prejudices.

As the builder says,'they just dont understand batteries'

Get educated.

OR.....

Enjoy your polluted air while being raped for every cent possible,its what you want.My guess,because you are comfortable with that.Fully propagandized and indoctrinated.

All we need is a head in the sand smiley.And continue to say it cant be done,when its BEEN done already.
But we can send a probe out of the solar system,we can run solar buggies on MARS but it wont work in Wisconsin????
Whatever.

I gotta say it,the oil and auto companies rely on sheeple to continue their activities unchecked at the sheeples expense.Cant educate a sheep for the most part. 

BooBoo


----------



## TeachMe (Sep 28, 2006)

I've never been one to get too worked up about electric cars. They are rather novel, and a good technology to pursue, but as of now the electricity to charge them comes largely from fossil fueled power plants. Is burning coal to produce electricity any better than burning gasoline in the car?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

MELOC said:


> about the danger...what could be worse than riding around on top of 15-20 gallons of gasoline??? ask the folks who had their chevy trucks blow in half from a side collision...if they are still alive.


Mel,we need a sheep smiley.Like Jim-Mi pointed out,windmills are regarded as ugly,but power poles every 200 feet arent?

Some folks dont deserve a better world,because when it comes to change,vision,tech or anything else that isnt in their limited comfort zone,they cant deal with it.

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

TeachMe said:


> I've never been one to get too worked up about electric cars. They are rather novel, and a good technology to pursue, but as of now the electricity to charge them comes largely from fossil fueled power plants. Is burning coal to produce electricity any better than burning gasoline in the car?


No,that isnt better,we need the whole program.Need to START somewhere.
Most folks wont start,they want it EASY without any effort,and certainly without change.

Change is fear apparently.

IT CANT BE DONE,RUN,HIDE.

As for me,put out an EV-1,I will buy it,AND produce the power for it myself,because I know it CAN be done.

BooBoo<---Knows what an EV-1 was,and did,and how it scared the heck (cant say 'H E double hockey sticks' at HT) out of Big Oil and Big Auto. Tech didnt kill the EV-1,big money and their politicians did.


----------



## bill not in oh (Jul 27, 2004)

Maybe this will be the solution to the battery issues... or maybe not...

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=&article_id=218392803


Interesting stuff, though


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

bill in oh said:


> Maybe this will be the solution to the battery issues... or maybe not...
> 
> http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=&article_id=218392803
> 
> ...


Cool article Bill.
You are right on the money Bill,there is tech,and new tech,and future tech that is changing the world,it only needs to be applied.

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Battery tech---
The first safe lithium ion battery didnt even reach market until 1991.While an old theory,it is just recently been made to work.They are now working on lithium polymer cells that have come on since 1996.They are even safer batteries than the 1991 tech.

Battery tech is making huge strides.The Lithium Ion is the newest commercial tech.NiMh put nicads to shame,as nicads did to alkalines,as did alkalines changing the world in their time.The wet cell battery,what most people think of as an electric car battery,is in fact 100 year old dinosaur tech.

Basing an electric car,coming from a wet cell mindset,is pure hogwash,yet where most folks come from in this situation.(Heavy,wont work in cold,low lifespan,etc.)

Education is King. :gossip: 

BooBoo :sing: <---Singing to the choir that 'gets it'


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

TeachMe said:


> I've never been one to get too worked up about electric cars. They are rather novel, and a good technology to pursue, but as of now the electricity to charge them comes largely from fossil fueled power plants. Is burning coal to produce electricity any better than burning gasoline in the car?


Depends upon if you are interested in keeping your money at home. US coal reserves are estimated at 300 years worth. We import a great share of our oil.


----------



## naturewoman (Nov 12, 2002)

There is an unlimited source of solar, wind and hydro power...lets start using it to charge those batteries.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MELOC said:


> about the danger...what could be worse than riding around on top of 15-20 gallons of gasoline??? ask the folks who had their Chevy trucks blow in half from a side collision...if they are still alive.


 That was a set up in the way they drove into the side of the truck. gesh........ And has been proved although Chevy did put the tank on the inside of the frame after the bad publicity, still it was a set up. Just like that no good Ralph Nader, got the Corvair from the streets. All were sets up and not actual test data from true accidents.. Anything can happen at a time of an accident.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Go to google,type in EV-1.
> 
> Then spend a day reading about a real world car that owners(Leasee's actually)
> LOVED.
> ...


Oh sheesh MBB, do we really need to start slinging phrases like "head in the sand" "Sheeple" and "Indoctrinated".

Hey, it may work great in SoCal, but let me ask, where is the heat and blower motor fan going to come from to defrost my windows at 10 below while hauling around 1000 lbs of people? 

I know ALL about the EV-1, watched the film "Who killed the electric car." Read the mother earth articles about it. It's just not practical for us. If I drove everywhere in 50 degrees or above and by myself, it might be a different story.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Zyg,do more research on the EV-1 and its capabilities.Im not aware they cease to function below 50 degrees,nor that NiMh batteries have that problem,as they are to be stored in freezers.Where do you get an electric car cant function in cold? What battery tech are you referring to? Where is Lithium Ion tech headed? To Mars for one,thats a pretty extreme enviornment,they function there.

As far as that goes,Im also not aware you cant haul families in electric vehicles,nor that adding a families wt. makes them implausible.

Blower fans??? EV1's had A/C that would freeze you out of the vehicle,and the batteries produce heat as well.The NiMh produced quite a bit of heat actually.

If you get the time,and it will take hours (Ive spent many DAYS,and I mean full days researching them),visit google and EV-1 and see it was much more than even a generation 1 car,there was also gen 2.

Read actual users reports and tests.AND read the technology of that car,it was truly space age in concept and function,still has the lowest coefficient of drag of any car ever produced. 

I stand by the contention that without an in depth education on the subject,and just conjecture regarding battery function and load capabilites doesnt make electrics unfeasible.

Show me where battery composition and wt. make the electric unfeasible?

Yep,folks have their head in the sand,and have been propagandized and indoctrinated (and just plain uneducated) that alternate energy,and alternate transportation,and alternate tech dont work and are unfeasible,the truth is its nothing of the sort.

100 year old combustion engine tech,give me a break,we are are in a whole different world from 100 years ago.Its time transportation came into the 21st century.

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

ZealYouthGuy said:


> Oh sheesh MBB, do we really need to start slinging phrases like "Sheeple"


Dean wont give me a sheep Icon,and I even asked nicely,so what can I do? :shrug: 

Knew you'd like it though,sheeple really gets to you Ohio guys.  

BooBoo


----------



## blufford (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm fat, bald and middle-aged. I really would look kind of pathetic in a sports car. I wonder if my 1992 mini-van could be outfitted with those batteries?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

I keep seeing all this praise for these electric cars and such. What I don't see is them for a reasonable price!!!!! I have not seen any real world test done with them in any type of bad weather. In the location that we live it would have to be 4-wheel drive in order to get out of the valley we live in. The fact of the matter is I can't afford a vehicle that cost 4x or more my yearly take home pay!!! Heck I can't afford the cost for a alternative energy system. If these vehicles are so dang good, then they will sell like hotcakes and production will increase and the price will come down and this could take years. Until then I can only consider it a pipe dream and /or it will do the same thing the alternative energy market has done, and that is remain a niche market. 

I would love to be able to provide my own energy and be free from the grid, but costs and reality have different ideas!


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> I keep seeing all this praise for these electric cars and such. What I don't see is them for a reasonable price!!!!! I have not seen any real world test done with them in any type of bad weather. In the location that we live it would have to be 4-wheel drive in order to get out of the valley we live in. The fact of the matter is I can't afford a vehicle that cost 4x or more my yearly take home pay!!! Heck I can't afford the cost for a alternative energy system. If these vehicles are so dang good, then they will sell like hotcakes and production will increase and the price will come down and this could take years. Until then I can only consider it a pipe dream and /or it will do the same thing the alternative energy market has done, and that is remain a niche market.
> 
> I would love to be able to provide my own energy and be free from the grid, but costs and reality have different ideas!


Many designs ARE direct 4 wheel drive,one electric motor per wheel.

Why does everyone assume 1 electric motor and a tranny, 2 or 4 electric motors and a battery pack costs drastically more than an ICE and transmission and cooling system and exhaust/smog system ? I know for sure an electric motor is tons cheaper and stronger and simpler by far and more reliable than an ICE.

Yes,a pipe dream until we demand a practical electric car.All thats holding it up is politics,Why make a car that WONT wear out and require hugely expensive replacement costs? That is NOT good for an automaker.

As for a car that isnt dependant on oil,that isnt good for Big Oil.

Where to you think the bribe money (political contributions) is coming from,the electric car industry? 
Or Big Oil and Big Auto.Therefore,how will politics play into those monopolies?

But technology,its here now to make a usable electric car.

The EV-1 was both practical and relatively affordable,there was nothing there to make it cost more than a comparable ICE car.

I will agree,Lithium Ion does lose a bit in extreme cold,and they do wear out over time,so Do ICE's and transmissions and fuel systems and exhaust systems and cooling systems.All things that DONT wear on electrics,they dont have em,just electric motors and batteries and controllers.

Hmmm.... Lithium Ions function on Mars,extreme enough? NASA says thats only the beginning for Lithium Ion tech.As for power per size,its the best yet and puts lead Acid to absolute shame.So forget lead acid,it isnt a good battery for this,and it wont be used.Technology has far surpassed them.
So,if you are of of Lead Acid is electric car mindset,dump that,nothing is farther from the reality of electrics than that.


BooBoo


----------



## dirtundernails (Nov 20, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Battery tech---
> The first safe lithium ion battery didnt even reach market until 1991.While an old theory,it is just recently been made to work.They are now working on lithium polymer cells that have come on since 1996.They are even safer batteries than the 1991 tech.
> 
> Battery tech is making huge strides.The Lithium Ion is the newest commercial tech



Ok.... Hod here. (hubby of Dun).

First, let me state that I LIKE the idea of an electric car... really I do.
One with a small deisel genset onbord would really be ideal, imo.

SAFE Lithium Ion? That is an oxymoron. Ever seen what happens when one of those high power density cells goes kaput, or gets damaged? This will make a gasoline explosion look kinda tame by comparison. yep... REALLY NASTY.
Anyone see the recent laptop battery problems? 
In an accident, there is really nothing to keep the batteries from getting damaged, and instant incineration, followed by a mess that requires the EPA to clean up. 
And how do you dispose of them when they go kaput? Lion batteries have great power density but at the cost of limited recharges and some very high cost.

Oh well... But I would like to take a ride in one and see how it compares to an old sunbeam tiger.

Anyway, can I talk about true green vs. wanna-be green? If you have to plug it in to the grid, it is wanna-be green. Electric power is generated by either coal, NG, hydro, or Nuke. And the electrical losses between the power plant and your house are HUGE. Local generated power, ( small diesel gen set, (bio-diesel)) is efficient and available, and relative clean. Wind is very clean, but somewhat noisy. Small hydro is nice... Solar, a true wastland of efficiency. I have heard, but have not researched that there is more embodied energy in manufacturing a solar panel than the thing will every produce. Could be. That seems to be true of ethanol. (made from corn, uses lots of water and fertilizer... fertilizer made from natural gas... Zero sum game at best.)

Were gonna get there one day, it is inevitable. Nice to see the interest and the attempts, and glad there are people who have more dollars than sense, as they usually help prove what won't work. :hobbyhors


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Many designs ARE direct 4 wheel drive,one electric motor per wheel.
> 
> Why does everyone assume 1 electric motor and a tranny, 2 or 4 electric motors and a battery pack costs drastically more than an ICE and transmission and cooling system and exhaust/smog system ? I know for sure an electric motor is tons cheaper and stronger and simpler by far and more reliable than an ICE.
> 
> ...



First off we don't assume that they cost more than an ICE vehicle, just price one, it's not an assumption. When you can get an electric SUV or truck that I can get for $20,000 or less then we will talk. Sure the electric cars are neat/cool, whatever, but at this point in time they are not practical for all of us. I need a work truck that is 4-wheel drive and can handle heavy loads. Granted if I had to buy a new ICE truck I would be in trouble, but there are enough older trucks in good shape out there that I can afford. Now to the L,Ion batteries and Mars, how many days did it take to move what 1/4 of a mile? yes it is extreme enough, but you can't transport people on the Mars rover. My point is it would be nice to do this, but at this time the reality is that most of us can't afford to do it. Part of the reason is because the Big oil and auto companies would lose in the market share, BUT!!! another part is because those that deal in solar/ alternative energies and electric vehicles mainly market their products to the extreme left wing enviroment wackos (this is not to say that all who buy the products are left wing wackos, I'm a conservative and would love the independence of being off grid), they (the marketers) seem to think that the best way to sell their product is in the enviromentalist niche markets. Why? Because it keeps their prices up and they make more money. So don't just blame big auto and big oil, they are only part of the problem. 

In closing when they make it affordable for those of us that make less than $40,000 a year, or when they quit taking most of that income in taxes then alternative vehicles/ power will become more popular. I actually look forward to doing that, but have a sneaky feeling it won't happen in my life time. Look at the computer, was here in the 1940's but didn't hit the public market until the 1980's and from the 1980's till now there is a big change...


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

it is sad to see that the GC flavor of political discussion has polluted this forum. liberal bashing, environmental bashing and taxes are always from the democrats...geesh. i imagine that it was probably pro big business conservatives who killed the electric cars in the 1990s resulting in a decade or more of delays in research and development. conservatives controlling the big oil market bought battery technology and keeps it under wraps. it is indeed sad that big business designs vehicles that are designed to fail and require non-generic replacement parts from the manufacturer of origin, all in the name of long term profits. i also strongly feel that energy efficient ICE were availible long before they were incorporated into today's vehicles...all for the sake of selling more oil. it has been big business, historically leaning to the conservative side of politics, that has retarded to growth of "green" vehicles.

enough of that...

maybe someday vehicles can be produced by big business without concern of how it will affect the oil market. perhaps then big business will lower the cost of alternative vehicles via mass production.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sorry I wasn't trying to make this like the GC forum, I was just pointing out facts of the matter. 

Both my DW and I wish we were more energy independent and had a friendlier mode of transportation, but the fact is we don't, can't afford the costs associated with them. We do use solar lights where possible and don't leave lights on when no one is in the room, we also use CF bulbs where possible. I've also have WVO for use in my old diesel backhoe.. So it's not that we don't want, it's we can't afford it...


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> So it's not that we don't want, it's we can't afford it...


You COULD afford it if they were required to manufacture them.Which they arent.BUT at one time they were,under smog regs.EV-1,EV-1,EV-1,EV-1.........

Accident,what happens? What happens now,40,000 people a year die.

Is a poorly designed laptop  battery what Li ion is,no,it ISNT.There are PLENTY cordless tools working with Li Ion,and MOST cell phones too.Sony making a poor product doesnt negate the tech,any more than flaming Pinto's and roll over Explorers define automotive tech.

As for does it work,for the 10,000th time, EV-1.

It was here,and yes it worked.It was a concept car that ran on NiMh batts for 160 miles and ate Porsches for lunch.That was Gen 2. 

'IF gen 3 got Lithium Ion,make that 250 miles with fast charges.What would gen 4 have brought,dont know they killed it when it became feasible for gen 2.

Wont work in the EXTREME cold,ie,below zero? Make it a diesel hybrid with a 3 cylinder Kobuta,start with that,heat the battery pack with it,charge and heat as needed,yep,there goes the cold argument.Boy,took some heavy unknown tech to solve that issue, THE AMAZING BOOBOO :gromit: just solved range and heat in one stroke.Try some thinking to solve it,instead of "It cant be done". What a bunch of defeatist attitudes.

The political story behind the electrics (Clue..California pollution regs),too big for here,either learn it or dont,but to poo-poo it without a factual base makes no sense.

Getting beyond 'green',how about energy security which is such a big deal.They dont need petroleum,they could run on coal or nuclear power.

What would energy security mean to your tax bill? Means we dont need to 'protect' our oil in the middle east for starters.

When or IF oil actually runs out,SURPRISE,electrics will be produced,GM already has the tech proven and filed away.And thats fact.

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

And for the next line....
Oh CALIFORNIA and the whacko extremists.....

When I was growing up in the 60's smog here was so bad it hurt your lungs to run outdoors,thanks to smog regs,it doesnt anymore,and we have far more cars.

And we have cleaner air across the country as all cars manufactured now meet the clean air requirements of Calif,there are no longer '49 state' cars being produced.

REMEMBER,CLEAN CARS CANT BE PRODUCED,remember that Automotive mantra ??????????

California required zero emission cars,hence the birth of the EV-1,a zero emission tailpipe car that worked.We would NEVER had gotten that far to an alternative to OIL cars without that law,unfortunately,heavy lobbying by the Automakers succeeded in killing it.

AGAIN,educate yourselves fully about them,instead of spouting they are too expensive and dont work,EV-1 PROVED both arguments are false.As did the RAV4 and Ranger electric trucks (Note the word TRUCK,which BTW are being used by SoCal Edison MORE reliably than their ICE trucks,last I heard they had 80,000 miles on the original batteries btw) re: costs,just a truck with an electric motor and lead acid batteries,you cant afford that ?????
Must have been a darned expensive electric motor and batteries.


Yep,even gen 1 electrics shut down the cost prohibitive argument.There is NOTHING involved to make them cost prohibitive except concept car limited production.

BooBoo


----------



## dirtundernails (Nov 20, 2006)

Seldom do laptop, cell phone and power tool batteries get crushed. If you crush and internally short a Li-on battery, you could be in for some interesting fireworks. That power is gonna go somewhere, NOT under control, and FAST. Translated, lots of heat and flames. mighty mighty bad news. 

The m.v. deaths that occur now are not for the most part related to the infernal combustion engine technology. It is related more to the intoxicated and speed happy, and general state of carelessness of a large percentage of the population. My point is that Li-On batteries are not what I would call safe. In a small device, there is not a lot of total power stored, and more important, not likely to get damaged. Put a really BIG battery pack in a situation where something is likely to get crushed, and you can have the makings of a near bomb. True the defective laptop batteries were due to impurities in mfg. But the point is when they short out, things get nasty fast. There are more ways to short out a battery than just impurities in the cell. Direct short across the bus ( think bent metal, a bumper, whatever ) a crushed cell or wiring, etc.... For fun, take a larger electrolytic cap and over volt it.... Ummm, better yet, DON'T. One could, I guess install G-Switches in the cells and between cells to open the circuits in the event of any accident. That might help.

Amen on that kubota engine. As for cold starting, getting a cold kubota going can be a pain sometimes. ( personal experiance w/ my little orange beasty ) Good glow plugs and a shot of start fluid can make it go down to zero or so. After that, it better be plugged in and kep warm.

Range? A small built in diesel is my idea of perfect, cause it can run at max efficiency and keep the smaller batteries charged. Plugging into the grid is my idea of stupid. Had to burn coal, NG, dam a river or such to get the energy, and you waste 1/2 of it. Of course no one really wants to talk about those big losses in the transmission of the power to your home.

The best solutions are about as popular as a mouse in a punch bowl. Walk, ride bikes, etc. Live more local, turn off lights, build more naturally efficient buildings, etc. 

But, this is about a electric sports car. Wheeeeeee! Sounds like lots of expensive fun.

We are most likely at or near peak oil. Technology will change to meet the changing demands, as surely as the auto replaced the horse... 

Interesting times.

HOD


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Lets put a spark on a gas tank,or a metal bumper through the tank,bet it goes boom too,but we've managed to contain that to a reasonable level,not that car fires dont occur,they certainly do.Kill and toast a lot of people.

Now the govs. alternate solution?

High pressure HYDROGEN (produced from gas and nat gas,leaving us vulnerable to outside suppliers,rather status quo,whoopie),thats a solution ?????

Wonder if it goes boom,or somehow they've found a way to safely contain it,like we do with EXPLOSIVE gasoline?

I think the boom aspect is just another bogyman.
-------------------------------------------------
"One could, I guess install G-Switches in the cells and between cells to open the circuits in the event of any accident. That might help."
---------------------------------------------------

I like how you think Dirt,a nice simple solution,I now call you "THE AMAZING DIRTUNDERNAILS"  :gromit: 
You get the dog icon 'cause its my post and I like it,LOL


BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

EV-1

Where did that come from ? Guess it just slipped out,LOL.  

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## dirtundernails (Nov 20, 2006)

Thanks for the cute puppydog. Best part is I don't have to clean up after it. 

Gasoline is funny stuff. In a gas tank, there is too much vapor, so it no go boom easily.
Diesel... too little vapor, so it no go boom. Much safer than gas, and more btu per gallon.

Li-On. Nothing stops a short from shunting all the contained energy through said short. And nothing stops the consequences of all those joules of energy being released in a very short time, and it can only manifest in one fashion. HEAT. One really, really does not want to short Li-On. The warnings on the eensy weensy battery on a laptop, power tool, etc. is not to be taken lightly. On a big scale... I shudder to think about it. I will let someone else test it, thanks very much.

Of course right now no one is making much noise because there are so few on the road. Once these things start showing the weaknesses, the Ralph Nader types will be out in force and suing everyone in sight who has anything to do with the manufacturing, design or distribution of the things. Hey! it's the american way!

And a g activated safety switch to disconnect all current between the cells (patent pending, by me) is the kind of thing that would be needed. I prefer the KISS principle. Less parts to fail.
But with that stuff, I want it reasonably safe before I strap my wife and kids in...

Government solution: H? Hmmmm... Safe as Gasoline? Even safer. Till it gets to the distance where it reaches the magical stochastic point. Then it is capable of BOOM. But the bright side is it would be a VERY CLEAN BOOM! No pollution! Wow, what an advantage. Must not pollute you know. 

Military solution? Fuel vapor bombs. aka poor mans nuke. NASTY. MEAN. EVIL. EFFECTIVE. 
Most liquid fuels are reasonably safe because it takes good engineering work or bad luck to get a decent amount to a stochastic point and then ignite. But, we spend millions and billions to figure these things out, and by golly, we certainly have the know how. Yes sir.. we can make a fuel vapor weapon, and if we had a need, we might even be able to make one that is earth friendly and burns cleaner while detroying every living creature for square miles. 

So, with liquid fuels, it is certainly a bogeyman. With a battery, it is far easier to short than it is to get a gallon of fuel to vaporize and ignited. 

Like I said, I LIKE electric. Familiar with electric golf cars, zamboni, forklift, etc. Dull old Pb technology. I plan on a dull old boring system on the new house. A little wind, a little sun, a little diesel. I am curious how much energy our Belgain could generate. True Bio and solar power with self replicating engines.  


Oh btw... I am HOD.. Hubby of DirtUnderNails.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

So I forget, Booboo, are you for or against these newfangled electrical vehicles again? 

Interesting stuff, tho the electricity still has to be produced somewhere somehow, just think we will end up with more 30% efficent power plants all around if we could snap our fingers & make all vehicles electric. Not sure that actually helps anyone.

Batteries use some high-tech metals & such, which is gonna be kinda tough to source real fast. Battery prices would go up for a generation if we tried to go on-line with this idea real fast. In time we would start recycling the new stuff, but that would take a decade to come around.

ICE life span is measured in run time - hours or miles run. Battery life is measured in passing hours, whether used or not. Thus your examples of pickups that get run to high miles in a short time frame - that's nice, but not a typical commuter application. The battery car will depreciate faster than an ICE car.

You've flipped between full electric vehicle & gone to a diesel/electric hybred - whenever one or the other supports your case. These are 2 different things, and yes we can use both, whichever works best for an application.

BUT, the hybred is always more complicated, less reliable. They use 2 different mechanical components, and will just always be more $$$.

You seem to just blur that line when it is convienient for your case. Nope, not going to go along with you on that! Hybred vehicles cost more. All-electric vehicles can be much cheaper, but then you run into preformance issues which simpley do not work in some situations.

The promise of an electric vehicle is pretty exciting.

They aren't actually quite there yet tho.

Common batteries don't last too long, and don't store too much energy.

New batteries are better, but cost a lot & won't drop much in price if we try to mass-produce them on a grand scale.

Even the new batteries don't have super long range, and are sensitive to weather. Currently ICE vehicles are more cost effiecent. Whatever the reason......

Hybred vehicles make _great_ sense for big heavy long-range loads. That has been proven by the railroad since the 1950s!!!!!  They are less-appealing for small light vehicles. They might work out, but they have a whole lot of 'stuff' working inside them. And to be efficient they need all that 'stuff' to be super light weight. Batteries typically are heavy, not light, and making the rest of the components super light weight tend to make them frail. They break a lot.

In your arguments, you keep jumping from one technology to another, willy-nilly. But you aren't addressing 2 issues:

ICE vehicles are still cheaper & more dependable to own for 10 years.

Electric vehicles still need the electricity to be generated. If everyone in California comes home between 3:00 & 6:00pm 5 days a week & plugs in their electric car, the blackouts will be on an unimagined scale...... Even if you can get the masses to distribute their recharging over the non-peak hours, you still are looking at a _massive_ amount of electric generation to replace liquid fuels.

None of this is going to be solved over night. Or this decade. Or even the next.

But it's really cool to be looking into it, & to look for ways to move foreward. Ultimately the market will decide. Conspiricy theories are so much fun to spread, but never really is much to them. If the numbers add up, folks will follow that route, and business will be scrambling to follow where the consumer points.

Electric shows a lot of potential, but it still has a lot of problems. It's good folks are looking into it.

That's the bottom line.

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

No,Im not jumping between the 2, I think an electric with onboard power generation is the best solution right now,and Ive stated that before.AND more than once.

I also dont think this will occur overnight.Thats ridiculous.But it can surely be ramped up.

I DO think we need to start to wean off the the BigOil 'solution' and all the problems that entails,including the hidden costs we pay for it in a lowered standard of living as cost skyrocket,subsidies (Oh yes,lots of subsidies) taxes (military) and human lives,and lack of transportation security,you know,being at the Mercy of a middle eastern consortium of Arabs ruled by Royal Families.
I find all of that against the interests of America and American citizens.

Something electrics eliminate,with power we can make here,from domestic sources.

An electric with onboard generation,ALWAYS has been my position thats the best answer right now.Exactly as Ive stated in other threads,and in this thread,see post #5.....

"I just love that stuff,250 miles per charge,maybe 10 times a year do I drive further than that.Bet that meets the needs of the vast majority of car usage.
Add on board charging,just has it all."

I'd say thats pretty consistent on what I see as the most viable electric that eliminates just about every 'Bah Humbug' the non believers can throw at you on WHY they are technologically unfeasible.

Note 'on board charging',not Hybrid as in a Prius,or as in a diesel/electric locomotive.Hybrid as in an electric with on board charging.Does generator tech somehow scare you with its enormous cost and complexity? Somehow,just somehow,I think its quite possible at a reasonable cost.

Your contention is only the cheapest possible vehicle can make it,thats absolutely wrong,as the automakers have proven ad nauseum.

As for 'pure' electric,250 mile range would cover 95% of my needs,as it would for the vast majority of folks.Need more than that,will,like most folks,we are also a multiple vehicle family.Time to pull out the old gasser if I chose to get a cheaper 'pure' battery car and skipped the onboard generation option.

As for SCE and the Rangers.....(note yet again EDUCATED on the vehicles,done my homework,not shooting conjecture)
----------------------------------------------------------

The 53 vehicles include 28 electric Ford Rangers and 25 electric Toyota RAV4's. The Rangers are equipped with lead acid batteries and the RAV4's with nickel metal hydride batteries.

Southern California Edison's agreement includes 16 Rangers and 13 RAV4's; ETA's agreement includes 12 Rangers and 12 RAV4's.

The 53 electric vehicles will be used in typical electric utility fleet applications and in accelerated reliability testing to accumulate over 100 miles of usage per day. In addition, some of the Rangers will be tested to examine the effects of normal charging versus fast charging on vehicle performance and maintenance requirements. 
-------------------------------------------------
Lets see,this came about in 1998.What does that come to? 7-8 years and still on original batteries with 80,000 miles on em.Not too shabby for lead acid,gen-1 tech.Also,since they beat ICE in dependability,Edison says they have no plans to retire them,they will be maintained as needed,batteries will be replaced when needed.They've further stated that they too were surprised at how long the batteries have lasted.

But what would they know :shrug: ,they only own and operate them.

As for 'conspiracy theories' the electric was here,had a market,WORKED,was FAST and Comfortable,and when it got 160 miles per charge in gen-2,was pulled and shelved.In 18 months.AFTER they got the regulations negated.Nope,nothing there,move along.Guess we 'imagined' the whole thing.

And remember,it cant be done.Period.Just like clean cars cant be done (You do remember that dont you???,I surely do),too expensive,no tech,blah Blah blah Blah blah blaaaaah.

AND clean cars WERE NOT market driven,they were DEMANDED,that and ONLY THAT,brought about the cleaner air we all breathe today.

It is the same story with electrics,NOT in the Auto makers interests and just like smog regs,will meet the same Market fate (ie,Automakers profit margins) if we dont demand changes to the threat posed to America by our dependence on oil from 'somewhat friendly' to often openly hostile Regimes around the World.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## silverbackMP (Dec 4, 2005)

My question is why don't the oil companies (who are major owners of most fuel station chains) get into the battery business?

Make a couple standard sizes of quick disconnect "battery packs." Pull into the "fuel" station. Pay em $20 and the attendant pulls out the depleted pack and replaces it with a fully charged pack. 

Therefore, there would not be a mileage limit. 

Am I the only one that has ever thought about this?

They still make their money and we become less dependent on foreign oil and still have enough to make plastics and fertilzers with for a long time.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok now I am beginning to understand!!!
The only reason there aren't more electric vehicles is because the government hasn't forced the auto makers and the oil companies out of buisness and made the EV's the only vehicles on the road.

I keep seeing this idea in the posts, so to keep this from turning in to a GC forum I will say no more on this thread.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Or we could give them free run and pay through the nose for petroleum and all its shortcomings ,and allow the automakers to offer one vehicle type only with its considerable costs built in.No matter the consequences?? Again I will point to my smog arguments as ONLY intervention solved that problem (NOT voluntary action by the automakers,remember smog control was going to destroy the automotive sector,that was one of their contentions,remember that?) We also need intervention to save our economic systems too,and energy is the controlling force.

After all,they should be allowed to hold us hostage on their terms? Right down to our ability to travel, and hold Americas economic security hostage to foreign energy? 

If thats what we are talking,yes I want intervention into this so called free market (Opec,which IS a CARTEL,NOT market driven),which is a giant monster that needs taming in our interests first,not theirs.They need to make and sell socially responsible products that dont allow control of our NATIONAL BEST INTERESTS being placed into the hands of a very few mega corporations.Yes,I think Nationalism over Corporatism is in our National/Americas Best Interests.

I also remember the trust busters and robber barons,just because they can get away with it doesnt make it right. I dont think We The People should dance to the tune of Corporations,I think it should be the other way around.Unfortunately we are once again heading into the Monopolistic sytems of the 1900's.

And energy cannot be discussed without talking politics,they are joined at the hip.

Now are your politics different from mine? Most likely,and I respect your opinions as much as I respect mine on the matter.I may disagree,and will state my position as I see it.I wont slam your take on the politics involved,or call you names,thats the difference between here and GC.One is a name calling scream fest (GC) ,the other is a discussion on the issues involved and our take on them (Elsewhere on the boards),ie,mature discussion.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

beowoulf90 said:


> I keep seeing this idea in the posts, so to keep this from turning in to a GC forum I will say no more on this thread.


It is already there. Pure out and out socialism.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Explorer said:


> It is already there. Pure out and out socialism.


And electric regulation,guaranteeing a steady supply and a fixed profit ratio,is that socialism or protection in a monopolistic system.In exchange for a monopoly system,and protection of the supplier in market and profit and risk, and economy of scale,we regulate the industry.Thats how we do it in America.

Or we can have a robber baron system,that didnt work so well with the railroads,or the Standard Oil trusts,which is why we did away with them.They were able to game the system by stifling competition.That isnt a free market when you become the only player.

Thats a monopoly. THATS a socialist economic model.And its also OPEC.

I will shed no tears when we free ourselves from Opec's grip,and we can.We have to DEMAND changes to the current system.

The reduction of OPEC's FOREIGN power and influence of Americas economy and National Policy making is in AMERICA'S and yours and mines best interests. I support that fully.

I am an AMERICAN.And truly believe in AMERICA first,not foreign OIL power brokers.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

It's easy to store liquid fuel. Put it in a tank. Pretty stable deal. Lasts for 3 months, or much longer. Stable, available supply. People can keep a few gallons at home, or get all they want when they get off work. Both wholesale & home user can pull of that supply in irregular demands.

Electric is much more difficult. 'Peak demands' come into play. You'll have to train the sheeple to work with you on this deal.

You'll trade oil company for col company being in charge. I don't see that as a bad thing mind you.

A couple dozen people, you are one oerhaps, will make their own electric from a waterwheel or wind mill or photovoltics.

95% of the people won't be allowed to do so and will just be hooked up to the grid, and will demand fuel -right now- for their electric car.

_Those_ issues are the hard ones to deal with on mass electric vehicles.


You say you are for an onboard electric generating vehicle - not plugged into the grid for recharging. You are the one who suggested the Kubota diesel engine on board. So, then, you are still using petro products to power your electric vehicle. No gain over what we have right now......

So I'm not seeing any big advantage over what we have right now.

There needs to be a reason to make the change, & I don't see any gain for the masses?

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

rambler said:


> You say you are for an onboard electric generating vehicle - not plugged into the grid for recharging. You are the one who suggested the Kubota diesel engine on board. So, then, you are still using petro products to power your electric vehicle. No gain over what we have right now......
> 
> --->Paul


NO! I am for a vehicle AT TIMES petrol powered,95% of the time powered from the grid,with AMERICAN energy.You've read that wrong,or I havent made that clear.The charging on board is ONLY for extended range or weather issues,ie,should the batteries need heat for best function.

Cold may slow down batteries to a degree,but does it make them nonfunctional? I know cold is a big factor on lead acids,Nimh or lithium Ion packs,I dont know.The results arent out there that I can find on these packs in cars.

IF that is 'truly' a tech bottleneck; Im not so sure it is.So I wont state that as fact,because I cant prove what these battery packs are doing in the real world COLD enviornment,speculation wouldnt be honest.I want true facts.

Losing 20% range or some number (closest Ive seen for these batteries) close to that on a 250 mile vehicle wouldnt kill most of us,not the huge majority of drivers.

And truth be told,I dont care if I have to have an ICE to heat them up in extreme cold until they put out their own heat under load.BTW, Li Ion and NiMh do put out heat,lots of it.

Add the genny,the issue is moot.And we are talking genny at zero degrees or some other extreme temp,or extended range.Very little use of genny.

I see the gain in putting foreign oil greatly out of the transportation equation.And out of the National political equation of foreign interference.And keeping our dollars at home,not overseas.And keeping energy employment dollars here,not overseas.And using dollars to benefit AMERICANS,not hostile Regimes or non democratic societies ruled and controlled by Royal Families,thats a huge benefit for American Security in my book.Economically and politically.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

rambler said:


> Electric is much more difficult. 'Peak demands' come into play. You'll have to train the sheeple to work with you on this deal.


Not really,the majority of charging occurs off peak,at night.Thats rather nice as they interplay so nicely with the system as it is now set up.

When you meter peak and off peak rates,it wont be too difficult to get folks to charge off peak,as folks with electrics prefer from a financial standpoint right now.I know my choice to charge at 1/2 the cost would be pretty simple to decide upon.

BTW,cool article in Homepower recently about that.Guy makes solar electric during the day which he sells to the grid at Peak rates.He charges his electric car at night,at non peak rates.Pretty sweet deal.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> NO! I am for a vehicle AT TIMES petrol powered,95% of the time powered from the grid,with AMERICAN energy.You've read that wrong,or I havent made that clear.The charging on board is ONLY for extended range or weather issues,ie,should the batteries need heat for best function.



And here is where we lose efficiency. And I disagree with you.

Hybred vehicles are costly. You need 2 different systems. A full electric one, and a full liquid fuel one. Plus you need the hi-tech controllers to interface the 2.

Yes, you use a small battery bank & a small ICE and try to manage for best fuel efficiency. So they tend to be smaller vehicles, and look efficent.

But, actually you are buying a double-powered vehicle, so they will always cost more than a full electric or full ICE. A similar diesel vehicle can always be made to e more efficient, less costly, than a hybred.

Is it really a good idea to be carrying that ICE engine around, all that extra weight, for using it only 10% of the time? Does not seem very good design to me.

A single technology will be less costly than a dual setup.

Either we drive out ICE machines, or we drive a 100% electric.

I see the combo vehicles as a nitche market, bridging the gap. The are not practical. They are too complex, and too heavy, and too costly.

Putting the 2 systems in a vehicle, esp your deign of using the grid 90% of the time, the ICE part only 10%, is not in any way going to come out effective.

The hybreds don't get plugged in. They depend on the ICE engine, not a cord.

One can have a big battery bank.

One can have a big ICE.

Or one can have a small battery bank & a small ICE & try real hard to squeeze efficency (with hi-tech controllers) of both to overcome the weight of having both.

Grid charging the battery bank and carrying an ICE for only 25% or less use is a lost cause. No efficency in that at all. Bad design.

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Paul,look at it this way.....

100% electric,grid charged,with a Honda 5000 watt genny(as an example) for charging or heating if and when needed.You keep missing the boat,this is NOT A HYBRID like a Prius,with a small battery and an ICE powering the vehicle directly,Its a 100% electric,that has a back up ELECTRIC genny that does nothing but CHARGE batteries,and heat if needed,in very RARE situations.Predominately it is a grid charged car .

The Genny is no way involved in mechanical propulsion.Used strictly in rare or extreme situations.Rest of the time its dead wt,like a fender or a bumper or spare tire or ..........
Wt. 100,or 200 0r 300 lbs or so?Big deal,think thats going to stop the vehicle? Adding the wt of a passenger or 2??? 

And what wt. makes an electric not work?(I would really like your FACTS on that,what wt does or does not work)
In any event,it must be more than an EV-1,right? So just what wt is it?

Im pretty sure the Rangers are fully capable of hauling a genny around without it destroying range.

For comfort,the batteries supply plenty heat to keep the interior toasty if you arent aware.

Why wont that work,and what is the complexity? Controllers are not complex to auto start a genny.Nor is it a big deal to add to the vehicles computer chip instructions to do so.Charge below so many volts,batt temp below X send signal to autostart. My car already has a self setting temp. controller,and wipers that come on when needed,at the speed needed, in the comfort/convenience computer.NOT a complex system.Just one chip in a box.Plenty home gennies offgrid use the same tech,and it isnt ridiculously expensive at all for an autostart genny.

My honda generator is a very simple machine.

Why do you think that cant work,are you again going on a 2-3000 dollar increase in vehicle cost is a deal killer? I can spend that on a moonroof,leather seats and stereo,many of us do so now.

I dont drive the absolute cheapest vehicle now,nor would I drive a stripper electric.

A 30,000 dollar electric.With a genny available,It can be done and I would drive it.So would plenty others,esp. if ICE main propulsion was eliminated with a viable alternative.Which can be done without destroying the world as we know it though you seem to say it would?

As for your take on Hybrids,ala Prius,they DO work,sorry.

And a full electric with a backup genny,simpler system yet.By far.Dont need a high powered complex ICE,dont need a transmission,and dont need THEIR wt either.

Oh well,it wont work.

And them new fangled flying machines,wont work.
Ya hear,some flake wants to send your voice through the AIR????
And that telephone,who needs it.
TV,its a specialized toy,HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Home computer,are you kidding me???They fill a HOUSE!
Fly to the moon???? Science fiction!!!!!!! (though in just 10 years we did that)

Give me OPEC or give me death,thats my Mantra.  

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

EV-1.

Oops,that keeps slipping out somehow.Darned reality.....And it just keeps getting ignored,that 'Real World' Electric  with the 160 mile range that eats Porches for breakfast,and has all the creature comforts any other modern vehicle has.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Im baaaack.

Just was emailing SCE and letting them know that their highly reliable Electric Rangers they are so proud of,wont work. :nono: 

BooBoo


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

At the MREA fair this past summer I got to ride in a Prius (sp).
Nice-quiet- low and sleek etc.
But I shure would like to know about its winter ___Snow__ abilitys..
Our last storm brought down many many inches of snow per hour.
That sleek 5 inch off the ground belly pan would be nothing but trouble.
So where were the Prius's then . . . . . .in the garage . . .??

So the tried and true F150 4x4 was\is the way to get thru the snow.

When will *they* realize that some of us live where "low slung and sleek" is useless.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Jim-mi said:


> When will *they* realize that some of us live where "low slung and sleek" is useless.


Doncha know it,when I got the Jetta I didnt realize the handling package included lowering it still further.It has like a few inches ground clearance.Road Rocket that can be taken out by a pine cone.Definitely worthless in the snow.WORTHLESS!
Great road car though,its on rails,Freeway Flyer. Gotta go 2000 miles,its Supreme.

Now the 1965 Baja Bug,thats an offroad monster!I can go in snow where others quake in fear,BTDT. [strongbad 


BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i don't know...i had a 1985 subaru gl hatchback that didn't seem to have a whole bunch of clearance. it was the best snow vehicle i ever had. i drove through 12 inches of virgin snow no problem. i drove over packed snow and icy mountain roads with no problem. i think if conditions are are so bad a 1985 gl hatchback cannot handle them, one should not be driving at all.


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

BooBoo, I agree with everything you have said, 100%
I would say 110%, and a few of them would believe that, but the fact is, there is only 100% of anything, but you probably couldn't tell some people that either.
They give 110% at everything they do, except think. :shrug: 
What can I say, except the site won't come up for me. :help: :hobbyhors


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i don't know...i had a 1985 subaru gl hatchback that didn't seem to have a whole bunch of clearance. it was the best snow vehicle i ever had. i drove through 12 inches of virgin snow no problem. i drove over packed snow and icy mountain roads with no problem. i think if conditions are are so bad a 1985 gl hatchback cannot handle them, one should not be driving at all.


Interesting note,the largest sales market in the USA for Subarus is right here in our local mtns.They are GREAT snow cars,and now that I think about it,Ive never seen one stranded here either.It snows,they come out in droves,so do the old bugs.

A car I would seriously consider,enough folks around here swear by em.2 subies just 2 and 3 houses down from me.

Do Subaru owners honk and wave at each other? If you have your Bug out,you have to,its an unwritten law I think.

Edit-surfed Subaru's :typomat: ,nice cars and Pricey.You could get an electric for that! :gossip: 

BooBoo :gromit: <---------- :stirpot: :bdh:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

crafty2002 said:


> BooBoo, I agree with everything you have said, 100%
> I would say 110%, and a few of them would believe that, but the fact is, there is only 100% of anything, but you probably couldn't tell some people that either.
> They give 110% at everything they do, except think. :shrug:
> What can I say, except the site won't come up for me. :help: :hobbyhors


What site are you looking for?
Isnt there a line about how statistics are wrong 79% of the time?  

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Paul,look at it this way.....
> 
> 100% electric,grid charged,with a Honda 5000 watt genny(as an example) for charging or heating if and when needed.You keep missing the boat,this is NOT A HYBRID like a Prius,with a small battery and an ICE powering the vehicle directly,Its a 100% electric,that has a back up ELECTRIC genny that does nothing but CHARGE batteries,and heat if needed,in very RARE situations.Predominately it is a grid charged car .


Oh my. You are changing the specs again.

I'm looking at a national solution, you are just putting something together for yourself. Just a hobby.

Sorry I was on the wrong track.

Nationally, abandoning personal vehicles & going to forced (by govt) mass transit for 80% of our transportation would really cut transport costs & raise national efficiency. Cut power useage.

Don't think us folks would go for that plan tho. 

If we want folks in general to switch from gas/diesel vehicles to electric ones, we need to give them a reason to want to make that switch.

Don't think very many housewives in the cities will choose a Ranger pickup converted to batteries (you know they are discontinuing the model entirely next year?) with a Honda generator & a few feet of copper wire rattling around in the back.


As a hobby, I _love_ all of your ideas.

As a plan to get folks to want to buy electric vehicles, we would need to do better than that.

Shouting at me in pretty colors won't do much. 

Thinking a little bit bigger at the largeness of the issue might help.


Actually, I love alternative energy. Twenty five years ago, I cut out clippings of all the info I could find on solar, wind, biofuel, and other issues. Read allt he soft-cover books from the library on putting up old refurbished windmills from the 1930-40s. Read all about electric cars. Attended meetings on several of the technologies.

I'm on your side of this.

I thought the point of your thread was to get much of the country converted over to electric type vehicles.

An old smokey generator boucing around the back of a discontinued pickup model just isn't going to thrill the masses.

It is pretty exciting to me - tho old news. But the masses, they want a solution, all pretty, that saves them some money.

A machine that costs $2000 more for less range, & more complicated internals that only last 10 years (even if they trade vehicles every 5 years.... people are funny that way.....) will not get too many sales.

We have to figure out a way to give people something of value.

You haven't gotten there with your ideas yet.

Mind you, I love the geek-factor of what you are talking about, & think it is very cool. I was with you on that part before the internet exsisted, actually.

The bottleneck is getting a reliable, useful, dollar-sensible machine accepted by the masses.

The Wright borthers proved you could fly.

Took until the DC-3, decades later, until it was $$$$ possible to use that idea. In between, it was just a cool hobby.

Same with your EV-1, and your Ranger pickups with a gas generator banging around in the back. Certainly proved electric vehicles can work.

Now for the hard part, take the time & investment & advancement to make that crude idea pay off & offer people some bang for the $$$$, so they buy the idea. That will be a decade or 2 yet.

imho

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Paul,nothing has changed.

You're misunderstanding.

"Don't think very many housewives in the cities will choose a Ranger pickup converted to batteries (you know they are discontinuing the model entirely next year?) with a Honda generator & a few feet of copper wire rattling around in the back."

Im referring to the wt. issue when I say a Ranger can carry the wt. of an onboard generator,youre being obtuse in your characterization in a genny bouncing around in the back.Would you buy a car with a generator bouncing around the bed??????
I wouldnt.I thought you could understand the concept AS STATED that the wt of a genny would not destroy the ability of an electric to function.And that a Ranger is capable of hauling the wt.

"Oh my. You are changing the specs again."

No I am not,you keep refusing to accept it.Its a 100% electric,that has a back up ELECTRIC genny that does nothing but CHARGE batteries,and heat if needed,in very RARE situations.Predominately it is a grid charged car .
My same contention from the get go.I changed the genny MODEL as you arent grasping the simplicity of an autostart genny,pick any genny you like,or one not manufactured yet for this application,the TECH is there and proven.

"An old smoky generator bouncing around the back of a discontinued pickup model just isn't going to thrill the masses."

Hmmmm......My Honda meets California clean air standards,so obviously a clean running quiet generator is both available and inexpensive,and can be produced for these vehicles without 'Bouncing around in a pick-up bed'.The tech is there.Again,you are just being obtuse.

"If we want folks in general to switch from gas/diesel vehicles to electric ones, we need to give them a reason to want to make that switch."

Ive been there done that.Cheaper energy mileage Costs,security,reliability,clean air,jobs.

This is pointless.Until you will research the vehicles Ive mentioned,and come at me with KNOWLEDGEABLE FACTS on the vehicles involved,instead of ridiculous assumptions,this is a waste of time trying to discuss it.

"A machine that costs $2000 more for less range, & more complicated internals that only last 10 years (even if they trade vehicles every 5 years.... people are funny that way.....) will not get too many sales."

They are MORE reliable,and simpler,have far less moving parts.Yes,the batteries will need replacement.That is HARDLY a vehicle that only lasts 10 years.They will certainly last more than 10 years,again RESEARCH the Rangers and you would grasp that.Its already being done.

"Now for the hard part, take the time & investment & advancement to make that crude idea pay off & offer people some bang for the $$$$, so they buy the idea. That will be a decade or 2 yet."

Again wrong.EV-1 has already done it,and had a waiting list for vehicles when discontinued.The development costs have already been paid for,BTW,with our tax dollars.The tech is proven real world,not conjecture,proven on the road.It was hardly crude,and in fact was a techno wonder showcase of the most modern vehicle tech on the planet.
BUT,you MUST make the effort to study in-depth the EV-1 or you are talking from a position of ignorance (not calling you ignorant,just your knowledge of the EV-1 is non existent)


BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

boys, boys quit yer argueing.

My point was\is I need something that will haul more than just a couple bodys.
Getting a 4x8 sheet of plywood into a Prius or EV 1 is a wee bit diffucult.....
I can get 8' long lumber into my Saab 900.
Altho it is low, the Saab folks know a thing or two about building a winter ready vehicle.
I used the Saab for my 140 mile trip to a funeral during the BIG snow storm last weekend.

And yes those were the conditions where travel was NOT advised.

But it was my 99 year old Uncle . . . ..And I wanted to say goodbye . . . . . . . . .so I went.

Ok back to the subject.
I really need\want something that can go, and haul, where ever and when ever.

I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that the guy whose Prius I rode in last summer would have had his vehicle safely incased in a garage during the blizzard that I drove thru.

Show me an electric that will fill my needs . . . . . .???


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Jim-mi said:


> boys, boys quit yer argueing.
> 
> My point was\is I need something that will haul more than just a couple bodys.
> Getting a 4x8 sheet of plywood into a Prius or EV 1 is a wee bit diffucult.....
> ...


Hi,

Not that a Prius is probably the answer for you, but you can get a roof rack for it. From what I have heard it cuts the gas mileage down to a horrible 40 mpg 

My Prius does quite well in the snow, and withstands the -20F nights with no complaints. Its only problem relative to snow is that its too low to the ground to plow through deep snow. 

On the hybrid front, Toyota and Ford both offer hybrid SUV's that do pretty well on gas mileage.

---
It seems like most familes in the US own two cars (or more). When it came time replace our Subarau after 200K miles, we figured why do we need two cars that can haul a lot and go through deep snow? So, we got the Prius, and we find we can use it 98% of the time -- our other SUV mostly just sits in the driveway looking lonely. 
Knowing a bit more now about electric cars and electric car conversions makes me think that electric cars could be successful as 2nd cars for around town, where a lot of people do the bulk of their driving. 

---
Someone was speculating on what would make people go to more efficient cars. We did a vacation to Norway a few months ago. Norway is completely independant on oil -- they have lots of it. But, they set their gas prices at $7 per gallon. Even though Norway is a largely AG country, it was very rare to see anything as large as a pickup truck on the highways -- very few SUV's. A lot of farmers on the roads hauling stuff with trailers on tractors. So, it looks like $7 a gallon gas would push people toward high gas mileage (or electric) cars.

Gary


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Jim-mi said:


> boys, boys quit yer argueing.
> 
> My point was\is I need something that will haul more than just a couple bodys.
> Getting a 4x8 sheet of plywood into a Prius or EV 1 is a wee bit diffucult.....
> ...


Jim-mi,would a Ford Ranger electric meet your hauling needs?

My 1959 VW transporter truck will haul 1 ton with 40 horsepower,up a mtn to 5000 feet.25 mph,not blazing,but it does it.I wouldnt do much more than 45 if I could in any truck hauling up the same road.

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

SolarGary said:


> My Prius does quite well in the snow, and withstands the -20F nights with no complaints. Its only problem relative to snow is that its too low to the ground to plow through deep snow.
> 
> It seems like most familes in the US own two cars (or more). When it came time replace our Subarau after 200K miles, we figured why do we need two cars that can haul a lot and go through deep snow? So, we got the Prius, and we find we can use it 98% of the time -- our other SUV mostly just sits in the driveway looking lonely.
> Knowing a bit more now about electric cars and electric car conversions makes me think that electric cars could be successful as 2nd cars for around town, where a lot of people do the bulk of their driving.


Now Gary,real world experience proving the point .............  

Willing to bet more families than not are multiple vehicle owners,the great majority of my neighbors are.That doggone real world again.

BooBoo :gromit: <----- 4 vehicles here,all with specific uses.A Jetta daily driver,a Motorhome,A Baja for offroad/bad weather,and a pick-me-up truck.You know,more real world stuff,the right vehicles for the right purposes.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Yes 4x4 Ranger is something I would consider . . .for shure.
But somebody here said that Ford's going to drop that line . . 
??

Gary, youall bring that Prius on up here and "show me" its winter ability . . . . . . .I would really hope that "it can do"

Course the road I live on had a foot of snow on it from Fri to Monday.
On Saturday morning the gal followed behind me and the F150 with plow . . . .I plowed a mile out to the main road . . . .so she could get to work.

Ho hum . . . just another winter event here in northern Mich.

If they will make the likes of a 4x4 Ranger work well as an EV then I'll consider it . . . . . .but watch that price tag.


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Jim-mi said:


> Gary, youall bring that Prius on up here and "show me" its winter ability . . . . . . .I would really hope that "it can do"
> 
> Course the road I live on had a foot of snow on it from Fri to Monday.
> On Saturday morning the gal followed behind me and the F150 with plow . . . .I plowed a mile out to the main road . . . .so she could get to work.
> ...


Hi Jim,
We get the foot of snow thing once in a while too -- thats when the tractor comes out 

The book listed here:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Vehicles/vhehicles.htm#Conversions
"Build Your Own Electric Vehicle" has full details for converting a pickup (don't remember which one) to electric. The author likes pickups for conversions because there is a good place for batteries that is well separated from passengers.

Gary


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Thanks Gary.

What a lot of good links.
I bookmarked it

I have been thinking for some while about the veggie oil conversions, and that Jetta one hits the spot.

A "Plug in" unit is also big food for thought, since my system is large enough to handle it.

Lots of wishful thinking . . . . . . . . .


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> "Oh my. You are changing the specs again."
> 
> No I am not,you keep refusing to accept it.Its a 100% electric,that has a back up ELECTRIC genny that does nothing but CHARGE batteries,and heat if needed,in very RARE situations.Predominately it is a grid charged car .



Booboo, I enjoy the conversation, & I hope we aren't arguing, just discussing.  Neither of us are polished debators, so we are both a little gruff around the edges. 


I cannot grasp the above quote.

You are saying a 100% electric, but it will also have on-board electric generator coming from diesel (or other ICE) power souce. While it won't be a true hybred in that both systems can/will power the vehicle directly or combined, nor do you see the generator running very often, it still will be a vehicle that has 2 different systems. Both plug in electric, and on-board petro-fueled generator.

A Honda generator (quiet, low-emmissins, dependable which is what we'd need you agree, not a cheapie China smoke belching loud deal...) Runs about $2000 and Puts out about 4hp of electricity. It weighs about 300 lbs.

So, that is what you are adding to your electric vehicle.

Toting an extra 300 lbs along _all_ the time will really decrease the range of your electric vehicle. At 4hp, it will barely keep up with charging the system, so it just doesn't seem real useful to me. Not enough output.

I'd suggest that using the $2000 and 300 lbs for a better battery bank, or better materials in constructing your vehicle, would be a better bang for the buck.

Leave the generator off, and do a really nice all-electric plg-in vehicle. It will have better range, be simpler to work on, have less moving parts, be a cheaper warrenty, and so on.

I think that add-on generator will harm the vehicle more than help it. Will slow it down, decrease it's range, add cost to the vehicle, and add complexity to the vehicle for future maintenence, decrease it's appeal bcause now it has an ICE anyhow & will still put out emmissions at times anyhow.

Can you see my point on that at all? I think the on-board generator, no mater how simple and especially for how little it is used, is a big negative.

That's been my whole point.


Another issue I have with electric vehicles is that it just moves the pollution from the streets to some big powerplant somewhere else. a 'not in my backyard' kind of deal. Electric production & transmission is not very efficent.

I think small diesel vehicles running on a diesel/ biofuel blend can be much more effective and efficent, actually.

I understand some folks can generate their own electricity, but getting permits & capitol for wind, water, or photo arrays is about impossible for many people, so this remains a 'hobby' catigory. Mind you, a good thing, but not so practical for the masses, at least at this time. It seems you have an 'if only everyone would do this' attitude about this, ad so we have to ask the questions? If it's just you as a hobby, cool. If you want to force or encourage 'everyone' to switch to electric, then we better understand the full implications.

So I'm not so sure what the benifit of going all-electric vehicles really is, other than moving pollution out of your back yard and perhaps into my back yard.


I'm for it. I just have questions along the way. 

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Rambler-"Leave the generator off, and do a really nice all-electric plug-in vehicle. It will have better range, be simpler to work on, have less moving parts, be a cheaper warranty, and so on.

I think that add-on generator will harm the vehicle more than help it. Will slow it down, decrease it's range, add cost to the vehicle, and add complexity to the vehicle for future maintenance, decrease it's appeal because now it has an ICE anyhow & will still put out emissions at times anyhow.

Can you see my point on that at all? I think the on-board generator, no matter how simple and especially for how little it is used, is a big negative.

That's been my whole point".
==================================================

What a difference a year makes.My dream is Chevy's vision.

GM Volt.

40 miles on plug in charged battery,then a separate generator that does nothing but power the batteries for extended range.

Why didnt I think of this? Oh ,I did,only my version has a 150-250 mile battery range. 

Still want to say it cant be done or is technologically unfeasible?
=================================================










The concept Chevrolet Volt automobile is driven on the streets of Washington. While not in production yet, the Volt can be configured to run on a rechargeable electric drive system, gasoline, ethanol 85 or biodiesel, and will use the General Motors E-Flex Propulsion system.
---------------------------------------------------
Seventy-eight percent of commuters drive 40 miles or less to and from work.(1) If we could change the technology behind these daily drives, imagine how much gasoline and money we could save while helping reduce emissions. It might be possible with a vehicle capable of running on electricity, E85, biodiesel and gasoline fuels.

The New Electric Vehicle

Introducing a new kind of electric vehicle â Concept Chevy Volt. Itâs unlike any previous EV (electric vehicle), thanks to its innovative rechargeable electric drive system and range-extending power source. It can be configured to run on electricity, gasoline, E85 or biodiesel. So you have at least a couple of options for the most efficient drive â all made possible by GMâs innovative E-Flex Propulsion System.

Features You Can Use

Off-the-line torque is instantaneous, giving you responsive acceleration. Plus, this four- to five-passenger sport sedan still maintains the passenger and cargo capacities of a production car.(2) You'll also enjoy the benefits of features you've grown to expect â driver and front passenger air bags(3) and the StabiliTrak Stability Control System, for instance â as well as new convenience features allowing you to charge certain small electronic devices without plugging them in.

Concept Chevy Volt is just another way Chevy is working to bring you drivable and practical vehicles that help decrease our dependence on petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This major advancement in existing technology will make it possible for those short, up to 40-mile or less commutes to be gasoline-free.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

What is cool is its different from a hybrid.Hybrids have an internal combustion engine (ICE) that actually is part of the drivetrain turning the wheels.Electric is only used sparingly in stop and go driving,and only up to 15 MPH speed or so.Beyond that,the ICE is running

The Volt is a true electric,powered by its battery for the first 40 miles.At that point the ICE takes over,powering the generator only that charges the electrical system that actually runs the vehicle.
Rather like a Diesel/Electric locomotive,except it doesnt have the plug in battery charging component.

Ive read most driving is 40 miles or less,like to the tune of 90% or so of our trips.In my case 40 miles is just about right,some are 60 miles,a few are 100 or so miles,and rarely do I knock out more than a hundred a day.

So about 90% of the time I would have an electric car.The rest of it I would still have unlimited range with the generator running.

Efficient too,the generator would run at a set speed,at its most efficient point,easier on fuel AND easier to control the pollution.

Speaking of pollution,lets say you are using grid electric.The power plants might pollute,but you would have a lot less sources,so easier to control those fewer sources than controlling a lot of tailpipes.

Energy,cars would be running on natural gas,coal,water,and wind from the grid.Better than Opec oil,or non Opec oil,doesnt matter,its all tied to Opec price fixing as far as that goes.OK,and futures and such,but thats a whole 'nuther story.

Grid electric is also much cheaper than Opec oil. Grid electric keeps money spent here in America in many cases,providing American jobs,and providing America with energy security.Screw Saudi Arabia and Iraq,dont need em using our coal,wind and nuclear plant power. Dont need energy wars either.

Over power the grid? As these cars are now,they can charge at night,where we have huge excesses of grid capacity.As the grid reaches full utilization,we ramp up infrastructure at the pace needed to keep up.More American jobs,and good paying jobs too.Money that STAYS here,not to our Muslim countries that dont like us so much.

Another argument that doesnt fly is electrics cost more than Oil burners.Not true,the true cost of oil includes our military expenditures in trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of Americans,and many times more lives lost in occupied countries citizens' death.

Like Iraq,where 75% of IRAQI's polled think its OK to kill Americans! Just what the HELL are we doing over there for That kind of gratitude,hmmmm!!??

We can do without that.

Another argument,electrics are slow.Thats out the window,they out power ICE vehicles,developing maximum torque the minute you touch the accelerator.

Poor range,out the window with vehicles like the Volt.

No 'modern' conveniences,hogwash! The 2nd generation GM EV-1 was all battery powered,had 150 mile range,had air conditioning that would freeze you out of the car,and outran Porches!!

GM EV-1










Lets hope the Volt is the future,and not the past like the demise of the EV-1.GM has the future in its grasp,lets hope Americans pick up the ball and run with it.Then we can get back to when America was GREAT,when 'Whats good for GM is Good for America'.

I know I will jump on this,this is my next vehicle,the Chevy Volt or its equivalent.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Oh wait.

Its too expensive. I forgot that. 

Never mind.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> That was a set up in the way they drove into the side of the truck. gesh........ And has been proved although Chevy did put the tank on the inside of the frame after the bad publicity, still it was a set up. Just like that no good Ralph Nader, got the Corvair from the streets. All were sets up and not actual test data from true accidents.. Anything can happen at a time of an accident.


You all know I hate to agree with AK but on the truck tank explosion videos they did indeed set it up even used model rocket engines and ignitors to make sure it was a hollywood explosion.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Yes that Chev Volt does look snazy. Might be good for a certain segment of the market.
But I still wanna be able to haul my sheet of plywood so back to the drawing board and put that drive train under a real utility unit. . . .with 4 X 4
Oh ya . . .the nearest place that I can get that plywood is 50 plus miles. So I need to have enough umph in the batts to make it back home with a load of *stuff*.

Yup that Ranger with my little Yamaha gen in the back would get the job done.

Yes, I think it would be better to live with the effects of Coal rather than middle east oil.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Well,Chevy is working on 'conventional' Hybrid BIG trucks and SUV's,I just saw them a month or so ago at the LA Auto show.Supposed to be brought out in production,are they out yet,I dont know.Chevy had such high tech on display I couldnt believe it.

They also had the Volt there,it drew quite a crowd.I talked to a lot of people,the electric and the hybrids had a lot of attention and positive comments.

What I dont understand is why Chevy doesnt jump in with both feet? They could control a whole market segment.Define the automobile of the future.And be the innovation leader instead of taking a backseat to Toyota like they are now.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Boo that just shows you that those *bean counters* sitting in their ivory towers are not in touch.
Those bean counters are the idiots who give the go or no go for this sort of thing.

ITS TOO EXPENSIVE

Plus GM is so top heavey that decisions and lead time take forever and a day.
What goes on behind those closed doors. Why kill the EV1
Why isn't the Volt allready on the road.

Shure makes ya wonder . . . . . .


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

I doubt there is any conspiracy - more like economics. If there was enough profit to be made in an all-electric vehicle, I'd think the North American auto makers would be all over it - since they could have easily been producing an all-electric 15 years ago. I just don't see the profit being there or the demand being large enough. The majority of the people do not want an all-electric car, regardless of the realities of all-electric. Even propane and natural gas powered vehicles have advantages - and those were a giant flop.

With todays technology, you could build a small urban car (like the Smart Car or even a Geo Metro) and get close to 70 mpg on gasoline - but even demand for something like these would be small, and since selling price would be low, its difficult to hide enough profit in such small numbers. We've had the Smart Car here in Canada for years - and I believe demand/sales are quite low. The car is actually viewed as a "fad" with a sort of cult following - as opposed to a realistic choice for transportation.

The automakers have no reason to promote anything which doesn't equate to profit for them. Auto makers are in the business of selling cars, not saving the planet. Hybrid SUVs and hybrid pickups? Sure they will - since those are expensive & profitable vehicles. They'd grow grass on the roof and bolt pink antlers to the hood of a pickup/SUV if they though it would increase sales/profit. 

Don't hold your breath for a Chevy Volt, EV1 or even a new Chevy Metro.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

[OntarioMan]The majority of the people do not want an all-electric car, regardless of the realities of all-electric. 

[Boo]As oil rises and people get tired of wars and taxes and endless gas price increases,they will be looking more attractive.If they are cheaper to drive and maintain,more attractive still.Get em on the street,more attractive still.I think a LOT of folks would catch on,but thats just conjecture,who knows for sure? 

[OntarioMan]The automakers have no reason to promote anything which doesn't equate to profit for them. Auto makers are in the business of selling cars, not saving the planet.

[Boo]Thats right.It has to be mandated,just like clean air and safety standards and mileage standards are.EV-1 would be a reality but for the automakers getting the Calif. ARB to back down,Yes,THAT I see as conspiracy because politicians and Judges can and will be bought.Not 'conspiracy theory',thats fact,they are corruptible to the extreme.

[OntarioMan]Don't hold your breath for a Chevy Volt, EV1 or even a new Chevy Metro.

[Boo]I wont.Since GM sold the NiMh battery tech to the oil company,and it sits there languishing,now they are saying they dont have a battery for it.Gotta love it.
Hopefully nanotech Li-Ion will change that.Its a super high capacity,fast charging,long cycling SAFE battery.

But Hold my breath,nope.Wont do that!


----------

