This is ChrisL's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following ChrisL's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
"62% either absolutely agree (22%) or partly agree (40%) that battery-electric vehicles will fail due to infrastructure challenges." Wishful thinking? Primary infrastructure for BEVs is charger in the home. There will be a segment of drivers for whom BEVs are not a good fit, but that hardly rates a fail for the class. Auto executives also seem to have a bias against Tesla in favor of traditional manufacturers, suggesting that BMW is the leader in EVs and autonomous driving. BMW introduced their only BEV, the i3, years ago, and has no new confirmed ones in their pipeline. Tesla not the leader in autonomous driving?
FF91 is not a production car. Teslas are. When (if) the FF91 starts production, then there can be a comparison to a future (2018?) Tesla, assuming Faraday Future gets past its serious financial problems. In the meantime, the Pike's Peak Hill Climb EVs are much faster (0-60 in 2 sec).
Nice except for goofy front end — that is, the radiator grille that does nothing but add drag. Cd of 0.29 is pretty bad for an EV. They've even decided to run air through the grille and exhaust on the back of the hood, so they've even sacrificed luggage space in the frunk, all in the name of retaining Jaguar design DNA, i.e. gasoline engine body design. Old designers apparently can't learn new tricks. Where's the creativity?
The Federal EV incentive is in the form of a tax-credit, rather than a point-of-sale rebate. For retired people (like myself) who have low incomes but ample savings, the tax-credit is not available. I can afford to buy any EV, but still do not qualify for the Federal incentive. Please do not stereotype; it's not becoming. But likely the drafters of the incentive rules held the same biases. The program is discriminatory.
Who's to blame for higher greenhouse gases? People who eat animals, that's who. GHG emissions from raising "food" animals are higher than all transportation CO2 emissions combined. It's methane, a more potent GHG than CO2. (I'm a vegetarian, BTW) So to reduce global warming, give up or cut back on eating meat. And drive an EV charged by renewable energy.
They don't race Formula E on purpose-built race tracks; they race in city centers on city streets. Hong Kong, Paris, Berlin, Monaco, Buenos Aires, New York, Montreal, Moscow . . . The cars are fast and have a great sound, especially bunched together. The drivers are the best in the world, uniformly at the top of their profession. Check out Formula E's youtube channel and watch some of the races, or highlights -
Looks like a conversion car, with that big, tall, boxy front end — designed to house an ICE under the huge hood?
The narrow-minded oilman should stick to what he knows. Lithium is not a "fuel" like oil. It does not get used up. As mentioned in another comment, it can be easily be recycled.
Perhaps time to increase the Federal gasoline tax by $1 per gallon.
The Tesla autopilot system does limited access highway driving. It does not do traffic lights, stop signs, or essentially intersections. People who misuse the system by driving at high speed through uncontrolled intersections are stupid. If you drive 85 mph through an intersection with the green light in your favor, and someone runs the red light right in front of you, would you be able to avoid an accident? Would any autonomous car? There are situations (caused by human negligence/recklessness) where an "accident" cannot physically be avoided, by man or machine. Nobody has claimed that autonomous cars can ever eliminate all accidents. Why would anyone assert that even early versions should be able to do that? (although not surprised self-righteous Consumer Reports would)
"There is a failure to explain acronyms here. What is the difference between a "BEV90" and a "BEV210"? What is the difference between a "PHEV10" and a "PHEV35"?" The numbers refer to the range in miles. A measure of the size of the battery.
Fully-autonomous racing cars will be here soon, appearing during the third (2016-17) season of the all-electric Formula E series. Called RoboRace — a bunch of these electric race cars will compete at speeds well over 100 mph around street courses in big cities all over the world.
Putting electric motors in a car designed for a big ICE?! Must be some kind of mental block.
The authors have apparently never spent any time with BEVs, and focused on the traditional "numbers," apparently without any thought given to the bigger, more relevant picture. The usual "range" criticism is presented, without comment on how much range is actually needed by the vast majority of Americans (average daily miles = 29, and 80% drive less than 40 miles per day). More is not necessarily better, because "more" means more upfront cost, and more weight. Time to refuel? Typical argument made by petrolheads against BEVs. But since "refueling" a BEV typically takes place at the owner's home, overnight, what is the relevance. And refueling time for an ICE car is claimed to be 5 minutes — that would be five minutes after you are parked next to the pump. No mention of the 30-minute round-trip detour to drive to the gas station. Efficiency of BEVs is given in the archaic mile-per-gallon "e". There are no "gallons" with BEVs. The authors need to present BEV efficiency in terms that BEV drivers actually use. Their category "Availability of qualified mechanics" is a joke, and proves the authors are stuck in the world of ICE. Electric vehicles do not have the inherent maintenance needs of ICE vehicles. BEVs also can be updated with over-the-air software enhancements. And nowhere do the authors discuss the much better driving experience that BEVs bestow on their owners—a huge advantage over ICE vehicles, and perhaps the most importance distinction. Magnetic braking? Single-pedal speed control?
ICE and electric drivetrains are so different that any BEV built on a platform designed to accommodate an ICE drivetrain will be seriously compromised.
Doubling energy density is great, but that shouldn't translate to double the range for every EV. Most people drive less than 40 miles per day, so why not use the improvement in energy density to save hundreds of pounds in the car's weight (thus improving efficiency, performance, and handling), save lots of money, and reduce the battery volume (more room for people and their stuff)?
The average person in the U.S. drives 29 miles per day. 80% of the people in the U.S. drive fewer than 40 miles per day. BEVs start out with a full charge every morning. Long range BEVs means more cost with no benefit, means the car will be unduly heavy with a huge detriment. The minority of people who need long range because they take road trips or have cold weather in the winter can buy a PHEV, or keep their ICE cars. Lots of PHEVs coming on the market. Sometime in the future, when battery tech improves dramatically, the situation will change, but adding range now so that EVs imitate ICE will only make EVs heavy and expensive. If you want a long-range luxury EV now, buy a Tesla. For most ordinary people, an EV with 100-mile range will meet their needs perfectly.
The authors are nitwits! By providing the incentive as a tax credit rather than a rebate, the government is excluding everyone who pays no taxes, including retired people (such as myself) who own their houses and cars outright, and are living off their savings. I am a big EV fan, and can afford to buy one, but I refuse to pay $10K more for an EV than what people with big incomes would pay for the same car. That's socially unjust.
Interesting about vehicle fires. I see stories almost every day about horrific car, truck, or bus accidents where the vehicle is completely engulfed in a raging fire, and nobody seems to bat an eyelash (that there was a fire). The old double standard, I guess. And there are self-sealing fuel bladders used in race cars and fighter jets to prevent fires—no cry from legislators to require those in everyday vehicles. Hmm....
These guys seem to have a complex solution in search of a problem. Single-speed EV transmissions are elegantly simple and reliable; I see no evidence of a high-speed issue.
Why such a big ICE in an "electric" car? BMW uses a 1.5 liter 3-cylinder engine in the Mini Cooper and the 2-Series Active Tourer, and Ford now puts a 1 liter, 3-cylinder engine in the Fiesta and other cars as their sole means of propulsion. GM needs a 1.5 liter, 4-cylinder ICE just to run a generator?! Backward-think.
The author suggests that government incentives to consumers may not be as effective as investing that money in battery research. This seems to reflect the same old mindset that consumers will only buy BEVs if their costs are comparable to ICE. He ignores the reality that people routinely spend lots more money for a car that makes them feel good (aesthetics, performance, technology, etc.). Once people experience BEVs, they buy them for a much better driving experience (and other non-quantitative factors). He also ignores the fact that you can already buy a BEV for not a lot of money (Mitsubishi iMiev, Nissan LEAF, etc.). He also implies that BEVs should have a 200-mile range, and that battery cost needs to be significantly lower for that to happen. The fact is that most people drive less than 50 miles per day, and that's not going to change in the future. BEVs do not have to satisfy 99% of the population's transportation requirements. The study apparently is based on current generation battery technology, predicting several years ahead to the economics of Tesla's mega-factory. There are any number of battery chemistries in the pipeline, with production techniques that have not yet been developed. Why would this study even be relevant? I have more faith in the backers of the mega-factory, given that they're putting their money where there mouth is.
I found some torque figures. P85D has 687 vs. 443 lb-ft for the P85, and 362 lb-ft for the D versions of the 85 and 60 vs. 325 for the single motor versions.
Acceleration is a function of torque, not horsepower. I have not seen torque figures yet. Also, as sd noted, 4WD makes a difference.
Most people think they should get the advertised fuel efficiency (if they even calculate it) without regard to how they drive, and most people drive very inefficiently. The mileage label on a car should show a range of mpg, "depending on your driving style." I think most people would be shocked at the variation, and that might prompt them to learn what they could do to drive more efficiently (not that they would actually change their bad habits!). I get significantly better mileage than the Mulroney label indicates for my car, without resorting to extreme hyper-miling techniques, so don't blame the test procedures.