The Best Car Ever Tested?

[Ace-Garageguy]

There's another option that hasn't been enthusiastically embraced, and Honda has proven it to be viable. Rooftop PV arrays would pass a current through filtered waste-water, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis (remember high school chemistry, or do they even teach that any more?). The hydrogen is collected and stored under pressure, and the oxygen is vented to the atmosphere.

Before the safety hysteria starts, storing gaseous hydrogen is perfectly safe if done correctly, and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with hydrogen bombs (which involve fusing hydrogen nuclei).

Honda's residential rooftop experimental unit was specifically sized to provide enough hydrogen, daily, to power a fuel-cell vehicle the length of an average commute.

But here's the really cool part. Gaseous hydrogen makes an excellent fuel for internal combustion engines, the conversion is relatively simple and well understood, and it doesn't require replacing the entire vehicle fleet. The exhaust is water vapor, pure and clean.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

There was a lot of talk about hydrogen-powered cars a few years ago, then it sort of just went away. I guess the oil companies don't like that technology one bit!

[Ace-Garageguy]

It's really kind of a shame for all of us that maintaining the status-quo, which includes prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels for as long as possible, isn't replaced by a more rational approach where OIL companies redefine themselves as ENERGY companies, and whole-heartedly embrace and develop technologies that already exist.

I wouldn't mind seeing an Exxon logo on my rooftop H2 generator, leasing it from Exxon the ENERGY company, rather than being forced to buy $4 /gallon gas from Exxon the OIL company.

Iceland has abundant geothermal energy available, is using it to make hydrogen to power its vehicles, and is getting away from importing petrochemical fuels.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Guest]

This is an idea I have thought could possibly work. Instead of the wheels driving generators to recharge the battery pack, why couldn't a small single or even two cylinder engine (not a two stroke lawn type engine) turn a generator to charge the battery pack? I know that would kill the total electric deal. But, IMO, I would rather have a vehicle with better range and have to still buy a small amount of gasoline than to have something with a short range and totally dependent on electric that takes six hours to recharge. I've never heard any hard numbers concerning the cost of the electric to recharge these battery packs either. Last time I looked at my electric bill, it certainly wasn't free.

Edited May 10, 2013 by plowboy

[Ace-Garageguy]

This is an idea I have thought could possibly work. Instead of the wheels driving generators to recharge the battery pack, why couldn't a small single or even two cylinder engine (not a two stroke lawn type engine) turn a generator to charge the battery pack? I know that would kill the total electric deal. But, IMO, I would rather have a vehicle with better range and have to still buy a small amount of gasoline than to have something with a short range and totally dependent on electric that takes six hours to recharge. I've never heard any hard numbers concerning the cost of the electric to recharge these battery packs either. Last time I looked at my electric bill, it certainly wasn't free.

That's a very good idea, and it's exactly how some hybrids already work. See post #39.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Rob Hall]

CR even drifted the Tesla while testing..

http://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-will-it-drift-498690581

Edited May 10, 2013 by Rob Hall

[935k3]

I will take this one

[JM485]

I don't really understand the whole electric car craze that has everyone going nuts right now. I think if my truck made no sound when it was driving I would lose my mind, not to mention you can't shift them. But speaking of that, what if you were to rig up a manual transmission behind one of the electric motors, then you could shift into higher gears in order to save electricity, similar to short-shifting to save gas? Just an idea I have been throwing around. The only real new motor technology I like is the ones that run on compressed air. It may be a bid far off right now, but you still get the sound of the engine like a gas motor and who knows, they might eventually get them to make a decent amount of power. Just some food for thought.

[Modelbuilder Mark]

Unless I overlooked it and missed the comment, no one has asked the simple question, Could consumer reports have been influenced by the seemingly never ending financial struggles that Tesla has faced. IE: Payola, spin the story etc etc.

Honestly, the last day and a half is the most mention in the press that Tesla has had in a long time that was something OTHER than a talk about their finances.

Purely conjecture and speculation mind you, but a thought I had about it.

[Harry P.]

I read that Tesla has recently shown a profit. So things look they're turning around for them.

[Ace-Garageguy]

...But speaking of that, what if you were to rig up a manual transmission behind one of the electric motors, then you could shift into higher gears in order to save electricity, similar to short-shifting to save gas? Just an idea I have been throwing around.

...The only real new motor technology I like is the ones that run on compressed air.

Electric propulsion is different from internal combustion propulsion in many respects. One important thing to remember is that unlike IC engines, electric motors make PEAK TORQUE at stall, naturally. Torque is highest when the vehicle accelerates from a dead stop, and gradually falls off as speed increases. The power required of ANY propulsion system is much less to MAINTAIN cruising speed than what's required to ACCELERATE to cruising speed, and electric motors deal with this quite effectively by nature. When they're spinning faster under reduced cruising load, they're automatically using less energy than during acceleration. And they don't suffer from pumping losses like IC engines do when operated at part throttle.

Early home-grown electric conversions and experimentals often used manual transmissions from the converted car's original driveline. It works fine, but considering the mechanical friction losses associated with shafts, bearings and gears spinning in lubricant, the inherent torque characteristics of electric motors, and the VASTLY more efficient electrical delivery management afforded by computer controlled throttle-interfaces (compared to the simple variable resistors of the early ones) the extra complication, weight and cost of a geared, torque-multiplying transmission has been deemed un-necessary in the current crop of (relatively) quick-to-market electrics.

BUT (and this is a big but) specifically because of the electric motors flatter torque curve, a torque multiplying transmission COULD be employed to allow a vehicle to use a SMALLER MOTOR by being able to keep it in its peak efficiency range for more of the time. Several manufacturers are already developing specific geared transmission systems for EVs, to boost efficiency overall.

The optimum solution would be an infinitely-variable or continuously-variable, un-stepped transmission similar to what's already in the Prius, Scion IQ, Nissan Altima, etc. As with all facets of mechanical design, there are multiple interlocking requirements and overlapping constraints that have to be integrated into the optimum compromise solution. It's complicated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as electric motor development goes, there was a big leap with the introduction of rare-earth magnets in the '80s, replacing ferrite and Alnico. Current brushless motors are also more efficient than their brushed ancestors. Magnet R&D is continuing, as is the efficiency of energy delivery to the motor via computerized controllers. Other advances like close-to-room-temperature superconducting materials show promise for boosting the EVs practicality and range.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The compressed air motors are interesting, but it still requires energy to COMPRESS the air. Right now, most of that energy, like the energy to recharge electric cars, comes from burning fossil fuels. And it's good to remember that every time there is a CHANGE OF FORM of energy, there is also a LOSS OF ENERGY. Again, there's no free lunch.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[sjordan2]

I read that Tesla has recently shown a profit. So things look they're turning around for them.

And, as mentioned above, they have partnered with Mercedes to introduce a new electric minicar, so they have a few irons in the fire.

[vypurr59]

I have been in the Radio Controlled car industry, for over 25 years. We started with Nickel Cadium batteries, then came Nickel Metal Hydride "NiMH", which was a considerable advantage over the "NiCads", but were prone to explosions, and heat due to rapid discharge rates our cars were pulling. Then LiPo's became the standard. They had longer discharge times, where the voltage stayed at a constant for a longer period of time. At the same time that battery technology was improving, so was the electronics. The speed controller in the beginning was basically an on/off type switch, you either had full throttle or none, then as the electronics progressed, they included a circuit, that was designed to "recharge" the battery when braking. A generator is nothing more than a motor, spinning in reverse. Take a small slot car motor, put it in a drill, turn the motor in reverse, and connect a small 1.5 v light to the motor leads, and the light will shine. This technology exists, and used by Mercedes in their electric car program. Most of the problem with electric cars, is the weight of the battery, and the torque limits of an electric motor. The initial push of the accelerator pedal, causes a amp draw, that is much higher, than if one was to roll a hill then add pedal. Certainly the weight of a gas powered vehicle is usually higher than that of an electric car. But it really all for me comes down to the costs associated with maintenance.

[Ace-Garageguy]

...............they included a circuit, that was designed to "recharge" the battery when braking. A generator is nothing more than a motor, spinning in reverse. Take a small slot car motor, put it in a drill, turn the motor in reverse, and connect a small 1.5 v light to the motor leads, and the light will shine. This technology exists, and used by Mercedes in their electric car program.......

This is called "regenerative braking" and is common in EVs and hybrids.

[Ace-Garageguy]

...................... Certainly the weight of a gas powered vehicle is usually higher than that of an electric car.

Actually, EVs used to be considerably heavier than IC powered cars when they relied on lead-acid batteries. While the battery weight has come down and energy density has gone up, batteries are STILL heavier than IC power.

The Lotus Elise, on which the Tesla Roadster is largely based, shows a curb weight of between 1900 and 2000 lb. The all-electric Tesla Roadster comes in at 2723 lb.

The Tesla S has been able to achieve a reduction in the weight penalty associated with EVs, apparently, by using the battery pack as part of the structure, rather than as a separate add-on.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[JM485]

Thanks for the response Ace, you put that out there in a way that was surprisingly understandable for us mortal builders. I do think people miss the point when they talk of "saving the planet" by driving an electric car, because like you said, it takes lots of fossil fuel to make the electricity anyway. I guess people just don't think of these things, kind of like when they tell us we can't ride our dirtbikes where we used to because of, wait for it, "soil erosion" Somehow a tire with nobbies less than an inch long is now the greatest enemy to our planet, give me a break.

[Ace-Garageguy]

For anyone really interested, Tesla is very forthcoming with technical information on their vehicles. This, for instance, is a link to an article on the battery packs in the Roadster on the Tesla site.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/battery

[Harry P.]

The point of driving an electric car, as far as "saving the planet," is this:

Yes, to make the parts and manufacture an all-electric car, it takes energy (most likely from fossil fuel) to power the factories involved in the process, same as it does t build a conventional IC car.

So up until the cars arrive in the showrooms, the "cost" (in energy used) to produce the all-electric car and the IC car is roughly the same, nothing saved as far as energy usage.

But... once the electric car is bought, it adds no more pollutants to the air, while the IC car will continue to add pollutants (albeit with today's technology, not all that much) throughout its life. And the electricity that powers it, while most likely having been produced via the use of fossil fuels, would have been there anyway, whether that electric car existed or not. So there's no "extra" fossil fuel being used to produce the "extra" electricity that electric cars use.

Yeah, an electric car doesn't earn any "save the earth" brownie points until it's put into use. So in fact, the people who drive electric cars because they think they are making a difference are correct. They are making a difference. Maybe in the overall scheme of things, a small difference, but a difference nonetheless. And as electric cars continue to grow in popularity, the net difference will become greater.

[Ace-Garageguy]

But... once the electric car is bought, it adds no more pollutants to the air, while the IC car will continue to add pollutants (albeit with today's technology, not all that much) throughout its life.

And THAT, sir Harry, is the big mis-conception. Currently 70% of the electricity generated to recharge electric cars comes from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, coal and natural gas, at electric generating plants. Though it's theoretically easier to clean up the exhaust from a centrally located generating plant than several thousand individual cars, SO FAR there's no effective way to keep the carbon dioxide resulting from burning coal and natural gas, in generating plants, from spewing into the atmosphere. Rather than focusing on developing the technology to actually remove and sequester CO2 from generating plant effluent, most of them resort to meaningless "carbon-credit-trading".

And the electricity wouldn't "have been there anyway". Electrical generation is a function of DEMAND. When 50,000 folks plug in their EVs in LA at 5:30 in the afternoon, much MORE fossil fuel has to be burned to make more steam to turn the turbines that turn the generators that make the electricity. Again, there's no free lunch. The electricity isn't just waiting there to be used.

A good illustration of this is the rolling brownouts some sections of the country have experienced in the past summers. Increased DEMAND for electricity, caused by everyone turning on their home and office AC at the same time, simply overpowered a generating system that couldn't keep up. Imaging adding hundreds of thousands of EVs to that peak, hot afternoon demand.

Until hydrocarbon-burning electricity generation is cleaned up, and until non-polluting sources like wind and solar power are fully online, the save-the-planet pollution reductions of the feel-good EV marketing are largely imaginary.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

And THAT, sir Harry, is the big mis-conception. Currently 70% of the electricity generated to recharge electric cars comes from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, coal and natural gas, at electric generating plants. Though it's theoretically easier to clean up the exhaust from a centrally located generating plant than several thousand individual cars, SO FAR there's no effective way to keep the carbon dioxide resulting from burning coal and natural gas, in generating plants, from spewing into the atmosphere. Rather than focusing on developing the technology to actually remove and sequester CO2 from generating plant effluent, most of them resort to meaningless "carbon-credit-trading".

Until hydrocarbon-burning electricity generation is cleaned up, and until non-polluting sources liike wind and solar power are fully online, the pollution reductions of the feel-good marketing are largely imaginary.

I have to disagree.

The electric car doesn't directly add any pollutants into the air, the way an IC car does.

Like I said, the electricity that electric cars run on is generated largely by plants that run on fossil fuel, true... but that electricity would be being produced anyway, even if there were no electric cars at all! It's not like we had to put a bunch of new coal-burning plants on line to feed the demand for electricity that electric cars created. What I'm saying is, whether we had electric cars or not, the overall amount of electricity being generated by fossil fuel-powered plants (and the overall number of those plants) would probably be pretty much the same.

[Harry P.]

And remember... the overall amount of energy consumed in the process of refining oil into gas (the drilling rigs, the transportation, distribution, etc.) is far greater than the energy consumed to produce electricity.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I have to disagree.

The electric car doesn't directly add any pollutants into the air, the way an IC car does.

Like I said, the electricity that electric cars run on is generated largely by plants that run on fossil fuel, true... but that electricity would be being produced anyway, even if there were no electric cars at all! It's not like we had to put a bunch of new coal-burning plants on line to feed the demand for electricity that electric cars created. What I'm saying is, whether we had electric cars or not, the overall amount of electricity being generated by fossil fuel-powered plants (and the overall number of those plants) would probably be pretty much the same.

Sorry Harry...that's just wrong. The electricity ISN'T "there anyway". Read my edited post 69. This actually IS one of my areas of in depth knowledge. And a LARGE number of PEAK-DEMAND natural-gas burning plants HAVE BEEN ADDED in the past few years.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Look at it this way:

IC car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the gas the car needs. Plus the car itself adds pollutants into the air throughout its life.

Electric car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the electricity the car needs, but the car itself adds no pollutants.

So in the overall "cradle to grave" sequence, the use of electric cars would cause less pollution overall.

[vypurr59]

Actually, EVs used to be considerably heavier than IC powered cars when they relied on lead-acid batteries. While the battery weight has come down and energy density has gone up, batteries are STILL heavier than IC power.

The Lotus Elise, on which the Tesla Roadster is largely based, shows a curb weight of between 1900 and 2000 lb. The all-electric Tesla Roadster comes in at 2723 lb.

The Tesla S has been able to achieve a reduction in the weight penalty associated with EVs, apparently, by using the battery pack as part of the structure, rather than as a separate add-on.

The 700 lbs of added curb weight, is more likely the battery weight, keep in mind, that they removed a gas engine, fuel system and tank, which 1 gallon of gas, weighs approx 5.8 to 6.5 lbs and the fuel tank in the Elise held 11.5 gallons only weighed in at the upper extreme of 75 lbs. and added all the electronics.

I think as soon as they can reduce the weight of the batteries needed, these cars will become more economical then they already are.

Also Ace, thanks for the "regenerative Braking" term, it had eluded me till you refreshed my memory.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Look at it this way:

IC car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the gas the car needs. Plus the car itself adds pollutants into the air throughout its life.

Electric car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the electricity the car needs, but the car itself adds no pollutants.

So in the overall "cradle to grave" sequence, the use of electric cars would cause less pollution overall.

No, sorry, the actual numbers and the reality do NOT agree with your opinion, to which you're entitled.

Your premise that the electricity is "there anyway" is entirely incorrect, and an incorrect premise will not support a correct conclusion.

And it's this misunderstanding on the part of the consuming public and government that is why we're getting nowhere fast.

One more time :

Until hydrocarbon-burning electricity generation is cleaned up, and until non-polluting sources like wind and solar power are fully online, the save-the-planet pollution reductions of the feel-good EV marketing are largely imaginary.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy