The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.
Electrical distribution and production (are they using fossil fuels) in a whole lot of the world is abysmal; that also needs to be taken into account if you switch electric cars. In a lot of places, charging from home is out of the question, and even commercial electric infrastructure is pathetic.
Four-wheel drive that is computer controlled should make for a vehicle that can hug corners in amazing way without losing performance. I predict the next decade is going to be exciting for cars.
OT: It just occurred to me that I don't recall Top Gear having tested the Model S. It appears that they haven't. I'd like them to, because this is the future of the supercar. There is simply too much instant power with a low center of gravity that can't be ignored with this cars. And, as we've also seen, these are much similar in many ways than your standard automobile that we may see a resurgence of the small car company as individuals start making their own with "off the shelf" components.
Electrical distribution and production (are they using fossil fuels) in a whole lot of the world is abysmal; that also needs to be taken into account if you switch electric cars. In a lot of places, charging from home is out of the question, and even commercial electric infrastructure is pathetic.
That analysis has been done in spades. While it does not get rid of fossil fuels, the emissions from using today's power plants in electric cars are a fraction of that produced by IC engines for the same amount of weight-distance traveled.
Really -- why? After all, they do have a massive, widely advertised car project going, don't they?
Because Musk is even less likely to fit with Google than with Apple (I think he fit with neither). He'd have to leave the company which seems unlikely.
That analysis has been done in spades. While it does not get rid of fossil fuels, the emissions from using today's power plants in electric cars are a fraction of that produced by IC engines for the same amount of weight-distance traveled.
I'm not arguing against electric cars at all. I'm saying that for a while (possibly a long while), they will be mainly centered in the develloped world and the top end develloping nations (and even there, it will be patchy).
Because Musk is even less likely to fit with Google than with Apple (I think he fit with neither). He'd have to leave the company which seems unlikely.
Musk has previously stated that he would be leaving Tesla after they achieve their goal of a releasing their midrange sedan. It has never been Musk's goal to run a car company. He made the car company to subsidize the development of battery technology, which he'll need for Mars.
Musk has previously stated that he would be leaving Tesla after they achieve their goal of a releasing their midrange sedan. It has never been Musk's goal to run a car company. He made the car company to subsidize the development of battery technology, which he'll need for Mars.
Not even waiting to turn a profit at least... man, that's kind of lame :-).
I can easily get 400 miles on my 2014 4-cylinder. 11 gallon tank seems small.
Here's a list of popular *new* cars sold in the US in 2014. Note that even when I use the maximum city driving for an entire tank against 2/3 of the vehicles still don't even meet the bare minimum stated is required between refueling for an automobile to be successful.
We had a Q7 until three years ago. Great vehicle! <span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">But here's the bad news: BMW's iDrive -- which is not great -- is actually better.</span>
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">Certanly worth the extra work!</span>
It looks like this is an area Apple could make ideal for the customer.
Here's a list of popular *new* cars sold in the US in 2014. Note that even when I use the maximum city driving for an entire tank against 2/3 of the vehicles still don't even meet the bare minimum stated is required between refueling for an automobile to be successful.
None of them sound like that much fun to drive either... " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I can easily get 400 miles on my 2014 4-cylinder. 11 gallon tank seems small.
Here's a list of popular *new* cars sold in the US in 2014. Note that even when I use the maximum city driving for an entire tank against 2/3 of the vehicles still don't even meet the bare minimum stated is required between refueling for an automobile to be successful.
We had a Q7 until three years ago. Great vehicle! <span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">But here's the bad news: BMW's iDrive -- which is not great -- is actually better.</span>
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">Certanly worth the extra work!</span>
It looks like this is an area Apple could make ideal for the customer.
Those are terrible mpg figures.
Even of the ones in the chart, 8 of them do closer to 400 than 300, and some closer to 500. Only one does closer to 300 (345.6).
Electrics average 100 to a charge.
Most new petrol/diesel cars average 50 mpg all-round.
None of them sound like that much fun to drive either...
If you get a much larger and more expensive sedan you'll get a larger and faster engine with worse gas mileage but a fuel tank that is larger, as well as better driver. Those are the most common cars I could find for the US market.
If we move into the super small range, which may be common in Europe with their woefully inadequate city roads, we have the Fiat 500 with 10.5 gallon fuel tank and 31 mpg for city for a range of 325 miles. If we move the other way to a more luxury car, like the Mercedes Benz S Class with a 20.7 gallon fuel tank we get 13–17mpg for a range of 269.1–351.9 mpg.
Long term, I think the benefits of the electric engine are great because electronics can be used to minimize waste the way power usage per person in the US has dropped even as we become more "plugged in." It's only electric and hybrids that have the potential to give power back to the car when stopping.
If you get a much larger and more expensive sedan you'll get a larger and faster engine with worse gas mileage but a fuel tank that is larger, as well as better driver. Those are the most common cars I could find for the US market.
If we move into the super small range, which may be common in Europe with their woefully inadequate city roads, we have the Fiat 500 with 10.5 gallon fuel tank and 31 mpg for city for a range of 325 miles. If we move the other way to a more luxury car, like the Mercedes Benz S Class with a 20.7 gallon fuel tank we get 13–17mpg for a range of 269.1–351.9 mpg.
Still though, the penalty for hitting a gas station is much lower than a charging station.
I think there is a lot of opportunity in the next 5 years or so for retail around Tesla SuperCharger stations though. There aren't too many places in flyover country where you can guarantee that drivers of $70K-$110K cars will be stopping for 45+ minutes.
This whole story about Apple getting into car is getting its own legs. Just the way all those financial blogs were advising Apple on what to do with their money and how they should be running their company while back, they are at it with giving advice to Apple on how they should be running that car division creating dealership networks, etc. Some are even claiming that Apple cars will fail, before the first car is even rolled out of this fictional car division at Apple. You can't buy such free PR (not that Apple needs a PR)
Still though, the penalty for hitting a gas station is much lower than a charging station.
Penalty for hitting? You mean the cost to life and property for literally crashing into a station? :???:
I think there is a lot of opportunity in the next 5 years or so for retail around Tesla SuperCharger stations though. There aren't too many places in flyover country where you can guarantee that drivers of $70K-$110K cars will be stopping for 45+ minutes.
Sure, that will change in time. I don't think anyone is saying that petrol engines are obsolete today, just as people in the 1920s weren't saying there were use for horses even though the future of the automobile was apparent. And that was before we had an intricate highway system in the US.
Comments
My wife has fallen in love with the new Audi Q7, ....
We had a Q7 until three years ago. Great vehicle! But here's the bad news: BMW's iDrive -- which is not great -- is actually better.
Certanly worth the extra work!
The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.
Electrical distribution and production (are they using fossil fuels) in a whole lot of the world is abysmal; that also needs to be taken into account if you switch electric cars. In a lot of places, charging from home is out of the question, and even commercial electric infrastructure is pathetic.
Four-wheel drive that is computer controlled should make for a vehicle that can hug corners in amazing way without losing performance. I predict the next decade is going to be exciting for cars.
OT: It just occurred to me that I don't recall Top Gear having tested the Model S. It appears that they haven't. I'd like them to, because this is the future of the supercar. There is simply too much instant power with a low center of gravity that can't be ignored with this cars. And, as we've also seen, these are much similar in many ways than your standard automobile that we may see a resurgence of the small car company as individuals start making their own with "off the shelf" components.
Hypercars, are already there, the Porsche 918 is a hybrid track beast; there are rumors about the GTR R36 going hybrid.
Electrical distribution and production (are they using fossil fuels) in a whole lot of the world is abysmal; that also needs to be taken into account if you switch electric cars. In a lot of places, charging from home is out of the question, and even commercial electric infrastructure is pathetic.
That analysis has been done in spades. While it does not get rid of fossil fuels, the emissions from using today's power plants in electric cars are a fraction of that produced by IC engines for the same amount of weight-distance traveled.
Question: how much does the Model S weigh, without batteries? Or if with batteries, how much does the battery package weigh?
Edit: I see the curb weight is 4600 lbs, that is, with the batteries.. It's a heavy car, something that Apple might want to improve upon.
The clever bit is that all the heavy batteries are laid out on the floor. It brings the weight of the car as close to the tarmac as possible.
Really -- why? After all, they do have a massive, widely advertised car project going, don't they?
Because Musk is even less likely to fit with Google than with Apple (I think he fit with neither). He'd have to leave the company which seems unlikely.
That analysis has been done in spades. While it does not get rid of fossil fuels, the emissions from using today's power plants in electric cars are a fraction of that produced by IC engines for the same amount of weight-distance traveled.
I'm not arguing against electric cars at all. I'm saying that for a while (possibly a long while), they will be mainly centered in the develloped world and the top end develloping nations (and even there, it will be patchy).
Because Musk is even less likely to fit with Google than with Apple (I think he fit with neither). He'd have to leave the company which seems unlikely.
Musk has previously stated that he would be leaving Tesla after they achieve their goal of a releasing their midrange sedan. It has never been Musk's goal to run a car company. He made the car company to subsidize the development of battery technology, which he'll need for Mars.
Musk has previously stated that he would be leaving Tesla after they achieve their goal of a releasing their midrange sedan. It has never been Musk's goal to run a car company. He made the car company to subsidize the development of battery technology, which he'll need for Mars.
Not even waiting to turn a profit at least... man, that's kind of lame :-).
Here's a list of popular *new* cars sold in the US in 2014. Note that even when I use the maximum city driving for an entire tank against 2/3 of the vehicles still don't even meet the bare minimum stated is required between refueling for an automobile to be successful.
It looks like this is an area Apple could make ideal for the customer.
Here's a list of popular *new* cars sold in the US in 2014. Note that even when I use the maximum city driving for an entire tank against 2/3 of the vehicles still don't even meet the bare minimum stated is required between refueling for an automobile to be successful.
None of them sound like that much fun to drive either...
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Those are terrible mpg figures.
Even of the ones in the chart, 8 of them do closer to 400 than 300, and some closer to 500. Only one does closer to 300 (345.6).
Electrics average 100 to a charge.
Most new petrol/diesel cars average 50 mpg all-round.
3. The battery is extremely heavy and bulky. This means that boots are tiny.
That depends on the implementation. The Model S has up to 63.3 cubic feet of storage, or it can be 7-passenger.
If you get a much larger and more expensive sedan you'll get a larger and faster engine with worse gas mileage but a fuel tank that is larger, as well as better driver. Those are the most common cars I could find for the US market.
If we move into the super small range, which may be common in Europe with their woefully inadequate city roads, we have the Fiat 500 with 10.5 gallon fuel tank and 31 mpg for city for a range of 325 miles. If we move the other way to a more luxury car, like the Mercedes Benz S Class with a 20.7 gallon fuel tank we get 13–17mpg for a range of 269.1–351.9 mpg.
Long term, I think the benefits of the electric engine are great because electronics can be used to minimize waste the way power usage per person in the US has dropped even as we become more "plugged in." It's only electric and hybrids that have the potential to give power back to the car when stopping.
Those are terrible mpg figures.
Even of the ones in the chart, 8 of them do closer to 400 than 300, and some closer to 500. Only one does closer to 300 (345.6).
Electrics average 100 to a charge.
Most new petrol/diesel cars average 50 mpg all-round.
Yeah, we're getting 600 miles on a tank in our Accord Hybrid. (with its tiny boot
)
If you get a much larger and more expensive sedan you'll get a larger and faster engine with worse gas mileage but a fuel tank that is larger, as well as better driver. Those are the most common cars I could find for the US market.
If we move into the super small range, which may be common in Europe with their woefully inadequate city roads, we have the Fiat 500 with 10.5 gallon fuel tank and 31 mpg for city for a range of 325 miles. If we move the other way to a more luxury car, like the Mercedes Benz S Class with a 20.7 gallon fuel tank we get 13–17mpg for a range of 269.1–351.9 mpg.
Still though, the penalty for hitting a gas station is much lower than a charging station.
I think there is a lot of opportunity in the next 5 years or so for retail around Tesla SuperCharger stations though. There aren't too many places in flyover country where you can guarantee that drivers of $70K-$110K cars will be stopping for 45+ minutes.
This whole story about Apple getting into car is getting its own legs. Just the way all those financial blogs were advising Apple on what to do with their money and how they should be running their company while back, they are at it with giving advice to Apple on how they should be running that car division creating dealership networks, etc. Some are even claiming that Apple cars will fail, before the first car is even rolled out of this fictional car division at Apple. You can't buy such free PR (not that Apple needs a PR)
Yeah; hybrids are great. Electric only, not so much.
Penalty for hitting? You mean the cost to life and property for literally crashing into a station? :???:
Sure, that will change in time. I don't think anyone is saying that petrol engines are obsolete today, just as people in the 1920s weren't saying there were use for horses even though the future of the automobile was apparent. And that was before we had an intricate highway system in the US.