Tesla Motors - I want one
Click here for an absolutely gorgeous all-electric sports car.
0-60mph in ~4 seconds
135MPG equivalent
Two pictures say it all:
Look at that torque curve!
I keep putting off a new automobile purchase (I drive a '92 Lexus (123,000 miles) and the wife drives a '93 Camry (152,000 miles)) because I have myself convinced that if I can keep these two running past 200,000 we will have a replacement for the internal combustion engine. I literally want these two cars to be the last gas-powered cars I ever own. Possible? Probably not.
0-60mph in ~4 seconds
135MPG equivalent
Two pictures say it all:
Look at that torque curve! I keep putting off a new automobile purchase (I drive a '92 Lexus (123,000 miles) and the wife drives a '93 Camry (152,000 miles)) because I have myself convinced that if I can keep these two running past 200,000 we will have a replacement for the internal combustion engine. I literally want these two cars to be the last gas-powered cars I ever own. Possible? Probably not.
Comments
But I'm all for it!
I worry about EMFs a little though - are you going to get testicular cancer from the car or something?
reg
Originally posted by reg
The signature ones are going for $100,000. The production ones will be around$80,000. It was on a NPR segment last night. They were also talking about a minivan that they would be doing. By the time they come out (minivans), I won't need the minivan and will be in the market for the 2 seater. Hope the price will be down to $40,000 then. They also say that it will take about 3.5 hours to charge. If they had a quick charge, say 30 minutes that would get you and extra 150 - 200 miles it would make it more than just a commuter car.
reg
Acura has had a hybrid with similar performance numbers in development for a while. It was called the "Dualnote" at first, and then the name was changed to DN-X:
http://research.cars.com/carsapp/nat...acura/dnx.tmpl
Kind of ugly body, but it is a test mule only. I imagine that the end product would look kind of like the Acura NSX.
Hey Groverat, "my" Wrightspeed X1' can beat "your" car! 0-60 in 3 seconds.
"Yours" is nicer and more normal looking though. The creator of the Wrightspeed, Mr. Wright used to work for Martin Eberhard, co-founder of Tesla Motors (Tesla gets funding from PayPal founder Elon Musk). In fact they were neighbors.
Wow, I was just reading the info. on the website. These guys have thought of everything. They even have solar panels for your home to charge this puppy and more. And 250 mile range is outstanding.
There are companies working on high-performance batteries that are half the cost, lighter and charge even faster. I hope whoever wants a cool looking car that's faster and cheaper than almost any gas powered sports car out there will look into these and help create economies of scale.
This car will be at the Petersen Automotive Museum in LA this weekend. Definitely gonna go check it out. Thanks for the info.
Originally posted by e1618978
This is why I have been a proponent of electric cars and hybrids - for that instant on torque.
I worry about EMFs a little though - are you going to get testicular cancer from the car or something?
It depends on how the speed is controlled. If the company is aptly named, then I'd expect that AC power is used, which I've never seen get into the frequency ranges that can affect organic tissue.
But if traditional batteries are used, I don't think there's any good way to utilize AC, and hence there will undoubtedly be some degree of high frequency harmonic EM energy. This will occur whenever "switching" is used (usually pulse-width-modulation). Incidentally, PWM harmonics are also responsible for the buzzing you sometimes hear when certain battery-powered electronics are charging.
Edit:
It appears that the car uses 1000 pounds of Lithium-Sulfur batteries and uses a switched-3-phase-AC power system. Depending on the design of the power controller, it could potentially deliver a relatively clean AC waveform since there are so many battery packs. The cleaner the waveform, the less parasitic EM energy, and the less harmonic energy.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It depends on how the speed is controlled. If the company is aptly named, then I'd expect that AC power is used, which I've never seen get into the frequency ranges that can affect organic tissue.
But if traditional batteries are used, I don't think there's any good way to utilize AC, and hence there will undoubtedly be some degree of high frequency harmonic EM energy. This will occur whenever "switching" is used (usually pulse-width-modulation). Incidentally, PWM harmonics are also responsible for the buzzing you sometimes hear when certain battery-powered electronics are charging.
The power lines that people worry about living under are AC also - and I thought that both AC and DC power transmission resulted in electric fields. I doubt that the car is AC, because the batteries will supply DC, and would there be a purpose to including an inverter and running AC motors?
I don't know if I believe that living under power lines causes cancer, but the people liable to buy this car are also the people liable to believe that EMFs cause cancer.
As far as whether or not this will zap your little sperm soldiers I leave that to the experts. I doubt they're putting out a cancer machine.
With 1700 lbs of batteries, it has to be about the same weight as my wagon, too.
I wonder how they are getting the performance?
reg
Originally posted by e1618978
The torque isn't actually that high - my Volvo wagon has 295 foot pounds, almost twice as much, and my car is 0-60 in 5.6 seconds.
With 1700 lbs of batteries, it has to be about the same weight as my wagon, too.
It's not obscenely high, but there's no way in hell your Volvo gets that kind of torque before ~4500 RPM, meanwhile the Tesla is hitting max torque at 0RPM. Max torque at stall, which is really cool.
And you're burning a hell of a lot more fuel doing it, which is the whole point in this thing.
All we need are more powerful batteries that can sustain the power over an extended period of time. Now that isn't super simple, but it's certainly do-able.
My only real problem with electric cars is that they won't sound good. As far as I know they are pretty much silent so the only noise would be brakes and tires-on-pavement.
I suppose you could have some kind of speaker system set up to emulate whatever car you like the sound of (a Ferrari 275 GTB for me, please, oh god).
Of course, I could see people using that like cell phone ringtones. Punch the gas and Avril Lavigne starts screaming about boys, irritating the hell out of everyone around you.
[edit]
Another thing to keep in mind is how much simpler mechanically an electric car could be. Fewer moving parts mean fewer broken pieces.
Originally posted by groverat
It's not obscenely high, but there's no way in hell your Volvo gets that kind of torque before ~4500 RPM, meanwhile the Tesla is hitting max torque at 0RPM. Max torque at stall, which is really cool.
More like 1800 rpm for max torque on the Volvo (plus turbo lag) - I just don't see how you are going to save 1.6 seconds with less torque overall, and just an advantage in the fraction of a second that it takes to rev the engine. Maybe it is the time saved in gear changes that makes the difference.
Only thing is that I've never seen a "high-performance" 4 cylinder engine with a torque curve like that.
Originally posted by groverat
My only real problem with electric cars is that they won't sound good. As far as I know they are pretty much silent so the only noise would be brakes and tires-on-pavement.
My neighbor had a GM EV-1 and it had a rather subtle but unique high-pitched turbine-like whine when underway. Not at all annoying but satisfyingly attention-getting. It *was* silent at very low speeds and therefore had a quiet two-tone horn that activated when in reverse to warn nearby pedestrians.
I had a chance to borrow it for a day and found the low-RPM torque to be amazing. With a single-speed transmission, acceleration was felt as constant pressure against your back until you let up on the accelerator at cruising speed. If you didn't care about battery life, you could surprise most other cars on the road.
The EV-1 was computer-limited to 85 MPH, but the power train was obviously capable of much higher speeds. However, the very narrow rear track and narrow, low-resistance tires produced some weird handling characteristics (oscillations), so an 85 MPH limit was smart thinking on GM's part.
Originally posted by e1618978
The power lines that people worry about living under are AC also - and I thought that both AC and DC power transmission resulted in electric fields. I doubt that the car is AC, because the batteries will supply DC, and would there be a purpose to including an inverter and running AC motors?
There has to be flux for electromagnetic radiation to occur. DC has no flux, but quite often DC power systems are modulated with on-off circuitry, and this results in flux. The nature of DC power switching actually creates a lot of noise.
I suspect that the car uses AC because the literature suggests that it has a three-phase induction motor. I would also be extremely tasteless to call any kind of DC product a "Tesla." A sort of AC power could be arrived at via the car's much-vaunted power controller. The end result is that individual battery cells are cycled on and off in combination, creating a quantized representation of the ideal sinusoidal waveform. In other words, it would be somewhat similar in operation to a DAC.
As for the batteries in this car, I suspect that they are Lithium-Sulfur cells. These are pretty new, but should be subject to the same kind of advancements as the nano batteries. Since Li+S batteries are much lighter than typical Li ion batteries.
Overall I'm very impressed with the Tesla roadster, and if I have $100k to spend on a car in 2007, I'll definitely get it.
Originally posted by skatman
Ah... another glorified golf-cart.
Only thing is that I've never seen a "high-performance" 4 cylinder engine with a torque curve like that.
It's actually very similar to that of the Honda VTEC engines, which is very much a high performance 4-cylinder. It's also similar to the Toyota 1.8L that's in the Lotus Elise.
Paz
Originally posted by rufusswan
I didn't have the time to check out the specs for this car, I apologize, but are you all suggesting that there is no transmission? I would guess that a CVT would be in line, or am I a dumb ass?
Paz
There's a 2-speed electronically operated manual (geared) transmission. I would imagine it operates similarly to push-button 4WD, but I really have no idea and the marketing verbage doesn't go into too much detail about the transmission.
Wouldn't it be better to have a conventional gear system in these things so that the electric motor is always doing low revs? Wouldn't that save alot of electricity, and extend the range somewhat?