That is very cool. I wish I had more words but I'd really like to try one of these ;D
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
comicIDIOT wrote:
That is very cool. I wish I had more words but I'd really like to try one of these ;D
I'm particularly impressed by the truck-pulling bit at the end. I'd love to know if this is fully-electric or if it has an internal combustion motor of some kind, a transmission perhaps? and most of the other technical details of this
Aw, you beat me to it. I was going to mention the towing in another post.
If you watch the video again at the part where the go over the grass (1:17-1:21) you'll notice an exhaust. When it pulls the truck you'll hear the sound of the cylinders. It's definitely a combustion engine.
If you watch the video again at the part where the go over the grass (1:17-1:21) you'll notice an exhaust. When it pulls the truck you'll hear the sound of the cylinders. It's definitely a combustion engine.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
I heard what sounded like a combustion engine at the end with the truck, but then I thought perhaps it was just some kind of gear slipping with an electric motor to keep the motor from stalling out. I do indeed see the exhaust now, and I guess a combustion engine would be more powerful for a small engine for this kind of application, unfortunately.
I'd much prefer an electric version for the public. We don't need all the torque a combustion engine provides.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'd much prefer an electric version for the public. We don't need all the torque a combustion engine provides.
Definitely. And it needs to be made street-legal and affordable; I bet that this prototype is neither of those. 
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'd much prefer an electric version for the public. We don't need all the torque a combustion engine provides.
Uh, actually, for torque electric wins by a landslide. The only reason to use combustion at all would be to last longer than a half hour and to be able to quickly refuel it, because batteries still totally suck.
Kllrnohj wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'd much prefer an electric version for the public. We don't need all the torque a combustion engine provides.
Uh, actually, for torque electric wins by a landslide. The only reason to use combustion at all would be to last longer than a half hour and to be able to quickly refuel it, because batteries still totally suck.
KermMartian wrote:
I'm sure you're right about that, but is there something specific you can quote on that?
Which part? The torque bit?
Here are some real world torque graphs:
(Lotus Exige S)
http://www.exiges.com/gallery/comparison.jpg
(VW GTI)
http://www.goapr.com/includes/img/products/dyno/20tsi_trans_s1_93_engine.gif
(Porsche 911)
http://www.goapr.com/includes/img/products/dyno_997car_s_93.gif
Notice that at ~2,000 RPM, the torque sucks.
Here is the torque graph for a Tesla Roadster:
http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/torquegraph_v2.gif
Note how it's completely flat from 0-5,000rpm. I mean perfectly flat. Full power from idle.
To see what that sort of torque from 0rpm can do, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp_jwE0KdOk&feature=related (jump to :33)
Fascinating, thanks for that. Full power from idle would be useful for this truck-pulling sort of thing.
Kllrnohj wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'd much prefer an electric version for the public. We don't need all the torque a combustion engine provides.
Uh, actually, for torque electric wins by a landslide. The only reason to use combustion at all would be to last longer than a half hour and to be able to quickly refuel it, because batteries still totally suck.
very true
there are a couple of cars out there that(through the use of very large battery packs) can run for long enough to rival internal-combustion-powered cars, but, of course, any such developments are discouraged from becoming widely commercially available by today's oil-fixed market.
and the skateboard tank is pretty cool, but i still prefer the 40mph, electric unicycle:
shmibs wrote:
there are a couple of cars out there that(through the use of very large battery packs) can run for long enough to rival internal-combustion-powered cars, but, of course, any such developments are discouraged from becoming widely commercially available by today's oil-fixed market.
Developments aren't discouraged at all, the problem is that they can still only do 100 to 150 miles, and they take hours and hours to recharge. That is why EV hasn't really gone anywhere, they take too bloody long to recharge. Once they get down into the minute range like gas, they will explode in popularity. Even if the range doesn't go much past 150 miles, if you can recharge them in minutes it won't matter as much.
There isn't an "oil conspiracy" or any such crap, EVs just don't work well.
The contention (did you watch Who Killed The Electric Car?) is that the automobile industry, oil industry, or some kind of mix thereof, is suppressing advanced in battery technology for their own gain.
KermMartian wrote:
The contention (did you watch Who Killed The Electric Car?) is that the automobile industry, oil industry, or some kind of mix thereof, is suppressing advanced in battery technology for their own gain.
People making such assertions are morons.
There are hundreds of research labs working on making a better battery, we just haven't really figured out how. There is no way the auto, oil, or any other industry would be able to suppress it because equally large and rich industries want it. Heck, even the oil industry would want it. Why would, say, Chevron suppress a new battery when they could instead buy the technology and become an oil *AND* battery company? Oil companies don't care how they make their money, just that they make it. They would be equally happy making billions selling the greatest battery the world has ever seen.
And I haven't watched "Who Kill The Electric Car" because I'm fairly positive it is typical conspiracy bullshit - you know, a movie playing fast and loose with facts and heavily pushing an agenda.
Quote:
GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including
significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass
market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure
electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow
through to a lease.
Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit
making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the
vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.
significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass
market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure
electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow
through to a lease.
Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit
making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the
vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.
They canceled the EV1 because it failed commercially. Blaming the oil companies (or whoever) is simply blaming an uninvolved party. GM is in the business of making money, and the EV1 wasn't doing that.
Kllrnohj wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
The contention (did you watch Who Killed The Electric Car?) is that the automobile industry, oil industry, or some kind of mix thereof, is suppressing advanced in battery technology for their own gain.
People making such assertions are morons.
There are hundreds of research labs working on making a better battery, we just haven't really figured out how. There is no way the auto, oil, or any other industry would be able to suppress it because equally large and rich industries want it. Heck, even the oil industry would want it. Why would, say, Chevron suppress a new battery when they could instead buy the technology and become an oil *AND* battery company? Oil companies don't care how they make their money, just that they make it. They would be equally happy making billions selling the greatest battery the world has ever seen.
KermMartian wrote:
Yeah, but would they rather sell you thousands of gallons of gas at $2.70/gallon, or have you pay a thousand dollars for a battery pack that you recharge from the electric company? I'm not saying the film is right about the batteries, because I want to keep an open mind, but I think their assertion is certainly plausible
Except the official explanation is far more logical and far more likely.
Besides, if everyone starts using electric cars, that power has to come from somewhere. Oil companies would just need to transition to generic power companies - coal, oil, nuclear, etc... And, of course, cars aren't the only things that use oil.
Not to mention just how impossible it would be for the oil companies to actually suppress improvements of batteries in the first place. Conspiracy theories like that fail on the simple impossibility of the task itself. Even before the internet, suppressing information at worst delayed it's widespread release, it's never completely stopped it. Now if a super battery is created and it is silenced by management, you can bet someone will leak it online and clones of it will stream out of China the next day. And even then, the only way to suppress it would be if the oil companies owned the resulting IP - which they wouldn't, since they don't run the companies doing battery research in the first place. Those companies sure as crap aren't going to care what the oil cartel thinks.
But that was the whole point: by buying the battery company, they supposedly acquired and suppressed their IP.
KermMartian wrote:
But that was the whole point: by buying the battery company, they supposedly acquired and suppressed their IP.
And that is why such arguments are completely retarded. The battery companies aren't owned by oil companies. Hell, Energizer isn't owned by anyone period, and Duracell is owned by Proctor & Gamble - which doesn't own any oil companies.
So what battery companies does the oil cartel own? 'Cause it ain't the big ones.
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement