When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Rigorous testing of a 50Ah prototype of the new battery has confirmed that it retains the long life cycle,
50 ampere hours is the same size battery you have to start your gas powered car.
You'll need a battery or batteries rated in KHW to go any distance at all. I'm sure it's coming. The problem right now is: how do you transfer say, 50 KWH in 6 minutes?
I'm sure the engineers will work it out. But, I think we're a little ways away form perfecting this technology.
Meanwhile, I think I'll keep my mid-year. Is that raw gas I smell? Ambrosia.
I hear a lot of talk of the future, battery technology will get better despite the fact it took 30yrs to get here with the state of the art Lithium technology we have today. I say show me, Panasonic and Tesla spent billions building the Gigafactory, did they focus on Lithium because there is something better just on the horizon? I have been hearing this kind of bullshit for decades. Physics dictates battery technology, those laws just don't magically change. Marginal improvement in Lithium is what we have, get used to it.
Fact is sales are down in the EV market in the U.S, sales are poor around the world, a fraction of a fraction of the auto market, in the big picture sales are a pittance, consumers have not flocked to the market. Trilliions, yes trillions in infrastructure supports the IC engined world, on the EV side not much. You want to travel outside a city, best get your route map out, make a plan, good thing there aren't many EV's because if there were you would be waiting in line to charge them. Need to drive in bad weather, or hot weather or mountains, adjust your plan. With an IC engined vehicle, turn on the NAV and go, no need to think is there a service station ahead, will there be lineups at the charger, can I fold my lunch hour into the period while I wait for it to charge.
The IC vehicle took over from horses and buggies because it was a better product, faster , more comfortable , traveled further with much less hassle. The EV by comparison, not so much.
Are consumers standing in line to buy them? GM introduces the Chevy Bolt which claims to have better distance than the Tesla Model 3 and it does a face plant, shutting down the plant for an extended period 9 months in. This despite huge subsidies , losses being taken by the manufacturers , rebates to the buyers. That's a fact.
Yet what we hear on this forum it is old people who just won't accept change, they don't get it, seems like most of society is saying no thanks and doesn't get it. If they like it sales would fly, they haven't. The folks here created change, we brought about space travel and made it routine, computers, the internet, who do you think build out the infrastructure and technology that you take for granted. That iPhone you treasure a baby boomer invented that as well as the chips in your laptop, your car, wireless technology etc. etc... We invented this **** and put it into motion. Change is normal for baby boomers , were used to it.
Easy to fall back on some people won't accept change but the sales numbers spell out that society just isn't ready. Drop the subsidies and sales drop like a rock, that is the facts on the ground, it has happened in U.S. states, it has happened in China when they reduce subsidies. Meanwhile pickups and SUVS sell like hotcakes without rebates , without subsidies. Sales in 2016 for these vehicles set all time records around the world , EV sales were flat to down. Facts matter.
EV's are a niche market, no amount of hoping and wishing will change that, less than a million full EV's on the road in a market of 1.2 billion vehicles. Do the math, the IC engine is not going away for a very long time. High growth rates on a very small number doesn't mean much at all. People avoid the question why put a EV on a grid for instance like China that uses coal for 70% of their power generation, how does that help?
I agree in time , higher gas prices, better technology that might change, mean time no one here has any facts to stand on, the market is abysmal for EV's. Hoping and wishing, your too old to accept change, that's the counter argument but there are no facts to support booming sales anytime in the future. The EV is more expensive, can't travel as far , try getting service or parts for one or a mechanic that knows them, it is a hassle to own one. Sure they go fast down a 1/4 mile, most don't care. It is an inferior product with a higher price tag, that is where the EV market is today. Maybe that will change, don't hold your breath, we have been here, done this in the past with a lot of products including EV's.
Last edited by C7DriverOnt; Oct 6, 2017 at 09:39 AM.
This will probably get moved, but yes, the 'Lectric Vette is inevitable. It will happen because it must. And it will be damned fast, too.
Definitely fast. I had the chance to ride in a friends Tesla. Wow! The acceleration is all there. It pushed me into the seat and made my stomach twirl around. It was awesome. Put that in a corvette and lighten the car up more .... YES!
Easy to fall back on some people won't accept change but the sales numbers spell out that society just isn't ready. Drop the subsidies and sales drop like a rock, that is the facts on the ground, it has happened in U.S. states, it has happened in China when they reduce subsidies. Meanwhile pickups and SUVS sell like hotcakes without rebates , without subsidies. Sales in 2016 for these vehicles set all time records around the world , EV sales were flat to down. Facts matter.
Also don't forget on top of the EV having incentives there are taxes and regulations in place (Gas Tax, CAFE, and Guzzler Tax) as disincentives to IC.
Market forces would likely force the change to electric at some point in the future but proper policy implemented early could make for a smooth transition instead of an abrupt crisis. But usually policies are more reflective of what is desired by a specific company or industry rather than what is needed to smooth the evolution transition path and that is what we have now with the various array of incentives and disincentives.
I have three vehicles now (a Z06, Cadillac ATS, and GMC Sierra diesel powered pickup) but all three are pleasure vehicles since I retired at 55 nearly 2 years ago. If I was still working one of the three would probably be a plug-in electric like the Bolt because that would be the perfect work commuter vehicle as part of a multi-vehicle mix. If I owned only one vehicle and work commute was a major concern the Volt makes a lot of sense since it can be used all electric most of the time but it is still a "real" car for easy cross country trips. There is no way I would own a plug-in electric as a sole vehicle because I tend to drive long distances at a time when traveling (600-900 miles per day) and I have zero desire to fit long recharge periods into that schedule.
A few years ago many groups including Michael Powell (the son Colin Powell) who at that time was the lead FCC commissioner were pushing BPL (broadband over power lines) as the future of internet connectivity. They tried to conveniently ignore basic physics and state of infrastructure because neither the noise environment nor the propagation characteristics of the powerlines are suitable for high speed data transmission but not before huge amounts of money were invested in this boondoggle. Hopefully early in this proposed transition from fossil fuel to electric powered transportation cooler and wiser heads prevail in studying limitations, requirements, and changes necessary to support this sort of radical shift in consumption. The U.S. electrical power system is pathetically under equipped to support any rapid shift of vehicles from petroleum to electricity.
Your right , taxes , layers of them disincent IC vehicles, yet sales this year at all time highs around the world. Oil demand is up more in the last 3 yrs than it was ever in a 3 yr period. The world will use 100m barrels a day this quarter. As an active investor I watch the market closely, hell if EV's were a runaway success I would be in. Tesla looks like the '99 tech wreck, way overvalued. A market cap higher than GM, yet GM sells 10m cars annually makes big profits, has a world wide footprint and can reverse engineer anything Tesla can come out with in a week. Nothing Tesla has is proprietary. Tesla sells into a high end niche market, they recognized that , good for them. But they have one plant , sell 84k cars a year and live on subsidies as they are unprofitable. Who can't make money selling $100k cars? Tesla.
Here is what I see time and time again, take away the incentives and folks stay away from EV's... big tell in the market....it has happened in a number of countries and states recently, China included. In the large cities of China you wait in line to get a license for a new vehicle if it is IC, up to 18 months. If you buy an EV those folks go right to the front of the line, yet IC vehicles outsell EV's 50-1 in Beijing. Something to think about , the penetration rate of autos in the U.S is 75% , 3/4's of a vehicle per capita, in China 14%. Yet since 1999 they went from buying 1m cars a year to 28m cars last year. The IC engine market is growing leaps and bounds in China. They will force EV's on people, micro cars mostly in the big cities. Until they cut coal consumption ( expected to grow until at least 2030) it seems pointless.
Definitely fast. I had the chance to ride in a friends Tesla. Wow! The acceleration is all there. It pushed me into the seat and made my stomach twirl around. It was awesome. Put that in a corvette and lighten the car up more .... YES!
The tesla is nothing but a 0-60 one trick point. The reason for the weight is the batteries. Add those to the corvette and it will be just as heavy.
A Lamborghini Huracan will do the quarter mile just as fast and will keep pulling up to 200 mph. The Z06 will do a quarter mile just a little slower at 10.95 at a fraction of the cost and go up to 195 mph. Slap a super charger on the Vette and you win every time except 0-60. If you want a better 0-60 on the vette change the gear ratios.
The tesla is nothing but a 0-60 one trick point. The reason for the weight is the batteries. Add those to the corvette and it will be just as heavy.
A Lamborghini Huracan will do the quarter mile just as fast and will keep pulling up to 200 mph. The Z06 will do a quarter mile just a little slower at 10.95 at a fraction of the cost and go up to 195 mph. Slap a super charger on the Vette and you win every time except 0-60. If you want a better 0-60 on the vette change the gear ratios.
Funny how every one of the EV fan bois always go on and on about how the Tesla will do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds.
Only the ultra expansive Tesla Ludicrous will do that quick 0-60. If every one of Tesla's customers were only buying the $135,000 model, Tesla wouldn't be also selling the $80,000 Model 75D or the $35,000 Model 3, and neither one will do a sub 4 second 0-60, much less a sub 3 second 0-60. A base $60,000 StingRay will do a 0-60 in under 4 seconds(3.8 seconds).
A Lexus LS460 will do a 0-60 just as quick as a Tesla model 75D or a Model 3, and is a way better car all around.
Hell, a $72,000 Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio 4 door sedan has 505 HP, will hit 191 MPH. do a 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and has run the Ring in 7:32. Has any $72,000 Tesla done ALL that?
Why should I buy a Tesla or a EV Corvette when my present ICE Z06 will do a quicker 0-60(3.2 seconds) than any Tesla other than the Ludicrous. But, beyond that 0-60, I can out perform the Tesla Ludicrous in all other aspects of performance driving(braking, cornering, top speed, passing acceleration, driving range) at 60% of the cost of the Ludicrous.
There is plenty of life beyond a 2.5 seconds 0-60 that will cost you over $135,000 for a Tesla. Tally up all the hours of driving a normal person drives each year and then tally up the number of minutes the normal person does a standing start zero to sixty miles per hour acceleration event. A 0-60 gives us a good example of a cars performance ability , but there is life beyond 0-60. Like you said, and I have said, the Tesla a one trick pony and over 17,400,000 people last year that purchased a new vehicle in the US said that Tesla's 0-60 didn't mean **** to them when it came down to signing the dotted line.
[/I]Given the Corvette sales for last month, which is about 1500 or so, it's kind of funny to hear the Corvette forum proclaim that EV's will never work.
Corvettes are just one example of a sports car, whereas the EV's you touted as an example encompasses all forms of EV's(BOTH battery powered and hybrids)
Why don't you give us the sales number of ALL sports cars, and not just one example(the Corvette).
Or even better, since Tesla only builds 4 door sedans and SUV's; how about the number of ICE 4 door sedans and SUV's that were sold last month, and then compare that sales number to the EV sales
BUT, if you insist on comparing one example of a sports car(Corvette) then let's also compare it to one example of the EV(Tesla).
Since 2012(first year of the Tesla Model S), Tesla has sold 135,054 in the US and Canada. That includes 4 door sedans and a SUV(more mainstream America market).
Since 2012, the Corvette has sold 146,971 in the US and Canada. That is only for a sports car(small automotive niche market).
Corvette WINS!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and the latest model Tesla....Out of the hustler's prediction that Tesla would build 1,500 Model 3's by the end of September, he built 260.
50 ampere hours is the same size battery you have to start your gas powered car.
You'll need a battery or batteries rated in KHW to go any distance at all. I'm sure it's coming. The problem right now is: how do you transfer say, 50 KWH in 6 minutes?
I'm sure the engineers will work it out. But, I think we're a little ways away form perfecting this technology.
Meanwhile, I think I'll keep my mid-year. Is that raw gas I smell? Ambrosia.
I wonder what the 0-60 would be with that battery in a mid year instead of the ICE. I bet my 300 horse '64 would trounce it, and my 340 mile range on the highway would really make it look anemic.
Probably work pretty good to power my 42" lawn tractor(17.5 HP). I probably spend $25-$30 a season for gas in my mower. I wonder how long it would take to pay off(ROI) the conversion the make my mower an EV?
It's funny how the old guys are yelling that ev's will never happen as if simply saying it loud will send them away.
Don't be like John Henry, guys. Go with the changes or get passed by. This isn't the 80's, it's a post internet world where things are changing incredibly fast and will probably change faster.
You think Ev's are the devil, wait until you need to deal with AI taking all your jerbs!
It's funny how the old guys are yelling that ev's will never happen as if simply saying it loud will send them away.
Don't be like John Henry, guys. Go with the changes or get passed by. This isn't the 80's, it's a post internet world where things are changing incredibly fast and will probably change faster.
You think Ev's are the devil, wait until you need to deal with AI taking all your jerbs!
By far, most of the opposing opinions to the EV love in this thread has NOT been "old guys" yelling "it'll never happen!", but rather that there are significant problems with infrastructure and costs that stand in the way of the claim that a flash-over from ICE to EV en masse is imminent.
There *are* issues, and the solutions to the physics problems and economies of scale are not yet in place for EV adoption by the majority of US drivers.
*Will* things change? Absolutely. That we *all* can agree upon. *Could* it all change quickly?Some of it *could*, but some of it (such as the infrastructure issues and the afformentioned problem of how to handle the huge number of drivers who have to park on-street or in a public lot) will take considerably longer for a large % of drivers. The implementation of those kinds of changes lags considerably behind the discovery of technical solutions.
As far as AI goes -- I'm familiar... and am not worried yet about my career. AI is probably a bigger threat to those who refer to their chosen careers as "jerbs"
Link to said bear? I would like to make a purchase
They can be found at any store that caters to immature young adults that think they have witnessed ALL the changes in technology during their short lives here on earth, and no one else has. We old farts have seen what you have seen plus another 40-50 years of change. We have SEEN real changes in technology since the end of WWII. You kids accuse us of not willing to accept change. Hell, son; I've been changing for the past 75 years.
Hell, 50+ years ago I was playing with nuclear armed ICBM's. I bet you have never hugged one, as I have. The best you have done is to hug your phone, and believe it was invented since you were born.
While you young kids hug your teddy bears, I was hugging ICBM's at your age. While you are spilling your fruit juice on your arm, I spilled unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine on mine.
...
Since the early 1970s, the govt. has wanted the U.S. to be energy independent instead of bowing down to Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters...stupid govt. dudes.
No, the govt has SAID they wanted the U.S. to be energy independent, but instead did everything possible to make sure that did NOT happen.
Examples:
Obama opposed both the Dakota and Keystone Pipelines
In 2016 Obama withdraws hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore oil and gas drilling.
Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972, which provided for the establishment of National Marine Sanctuaries, in which certain activities, including oil and gas drilling, are prohibited. To date, 13 sanctuaries with a combined area of 150,000 square miles (390,000 km2) have been so designated.
In 1982, the US Congress directed that no federal funds be used to lease federal tracts off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, or central and northern California. Over the years Congress added other areas until the prohibited area included all the east and west coasts, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Congress repeated the effective ban on offshore drilling in these areas every year until September 2008, when an appropriations bill passed the House and Senate without the ban.
In 1990, Congress passed the North Carolina Outer Banks Protection Act, prohibiting leasing and drilling on federal seabed offshore from North Carolina.
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued an executive moratorium restricting federal offshore leasing to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska. The moratorium banned federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In July 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded the executive order.
In 2002, Congress imposed a moratorium on drilling on or directionally beneath the Great Lakes. The ban was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Part of the central and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico was declared off-limits to oil and gas leasing until 2022 by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
Not to mention government efforts to restrict fracking and close federal lands to oil exploration.
We could already be energy independent if not for U.S. Government interference.
