Electric Corvette?
10-14-2017, 02:01 PM
#161
Le Mans Master
It's almost a weekly occurrence. This week Toshba is showing battery technology that will TRIPLE the range. So much for all you guys who keep bitching about the lack of range: RANGE IS NOT AN ISSUE! https://newatlas.com/toshiba-scib-ba...e-range/51667/
Fact is, range REMAINS AN ISSUE for mass-adoption of EVs until such time that these 'super range' batteries are commercially viable and available in mass-market EVs.
Even a battery with a 1,000-mile range wouldn't help private EV adoption if it costs $100,000+ per battery to produce.
Last edited by Kent1999; 10-14-2017 at 02:52 PM.
10-19-2017, 05:49 PM
#162
Melting Slicks
The Acura NSX also has electric direct drive at each of the wheels in combination with the IC motor. If Chevy does it, the price can't help but be in i8 / NSX territory.
I previously posted how I'd like to see GM tackle getting a hybrid system in a sports car that works, handling / agility taken into consideration. The inference is that it would be a tough, if not impossible, balancing feat. It appears it's been done already :
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/auto/2017-bmw-i8/review/
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/auto/2017-bmw-i8/review/
10-20-2017, 08:19 AM
#163
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
They have the ability. They just need to implement.
10-21-2017, 11:06 AM
#164
Le Mans Master
Let's challenge an assumption that has been thrown around a lot in this thread: "The future is electric cars". Really? Why MUST that be so? How is that assumed to be an irrefutable fact? There is a HUGE difference between "I think it is very likely" and "this is indisputable fact that you are a fool not to accept".
Three possibilities for a mass-migration to EV:
1) "Gov't Mandate". (by far, the most likely). If this is the case, why rush towards that? Why spend even a moment trying to convince others that, if they don't immediately embrace govt mandates, then they are 'dinosaurs', 'old guys', or whatever insult you care to use? A long line of precedent exists in this country to resist ill-conceived government laws. Tea anyone?
2) "EVs capabilities far outweigh their shortcomings for almost all drivers' needs and wants". This clearly isn't the case right now, and no one knows when (or indeed if) that it WILL be the case. Anyone who says that they "know all major EV shortcomings will be solved in a year or two" or even 5-10 years, is lying to befit their agenda. Yes, LYING. If you have the 'proof' of that timeline, then present it. Here's a hint: "proof" isn't created by someone really really wanting it to be so, or that "well, we now have the interwebs and Google, so we can do anything in any timeframe we want", or even "a majority of scientists believe it, so it MUST ABSOLUTELY be fact". If the day comes that commercially-viable EVs are indeed better than gas in all aspects that most people care about, you won't need to "convince" them -- they'll move to it all on their own. As it stands today, there are LOTS of EV shortcomings (high costs, long charge times, and missing widespread infrastructure being the most notable), and most of this pro-EV talk is just the EV-proponents trying to convince us that we really don't care about those shortcomings, or if you DO care about them, you're just a silly old fool for not jumping on the EV bandwagon right-damn-now. I guess if you're going to be part of the EV "religion" (a belief system based on something other than demonstrable fact), you have to have faith.
3) "We need to go to EVs to save the planet". This one seems pretty self-explanatory as to why it should be ignored, as anyone who spouts it immediately self-identifies as one who values emotional pleas over facts. If you are one of these people, what study have you done (or rely upon) to show that EV production, including all the specialized and sometimes toxic materials needed to produce them, *how* all the electrical power to fuel them in any significant population is produced (often from *gasp* coal) -- how all that is soooo much better than gasoline cars as far as the planet is concerned? If your argument is "well, that will all be solved any day now by our smarter-than-old-guy scientists" -- well, we're back to point #2, aren't we?
I'm guessing fact-based rebuttal is not forthcoming, so feel free to now resume your name-calling and age-shaming tactics towards anyone whose opinion differs from your opinion. That's the enlightened modern way, apparently.
An interesting thing to remember is that when powered flight was invented in 1903, it was VERY widely believed, by scientist and layman alike, that in the future, it would be common for everyone to get around using their own private aircraft. That was still the vision even just 50 years ago -- that a plane in every garage was just around the corner. Here it is, well over 110 years later, and while we've made absolutely fantastic advances in space, commercial and military flight, we're nowhere near that 'certainty' proclaimed for the common man. The lesson here is that not ALL problems are solved in the timelines envisioned, or in the outcomes envisioned, especially when it comes to solutions that require adoption for large populations.
Three possibilities for a mass-migration to EV:
1) "Gov't Mandate". (by far, the most likely). If this is the case, why rush towards that? Why spend even a moment trying to convince others that, if they don't immediately embrace govt mandates, then they are 'dinosaurs', 'old guys', or whatever insult you care to use? A long line of precedent exists in this country to resist ill-conceived government laws. Tea anyone?
2) "EVs capabilities far outweigh their shortcomings for almost all drivers' needs and wants". This clearly isn't the case right now, and no one knows when (or indeed if) that it WILL be the case. Anyone who says that they "know all major EV shortcomings will be solved in a year or two" or even 5-10 years, is lying to befit their agenda. Yes, LYING. If you have the 'proof' of that timeline, then present it. Here's a hint: "proof" isn't created by someone really really wanting it to be so, or that "well, we now have the interwebs and Google, so we can do anything in any timeframe we want", or even "a majority of scientists believe it, so it MUST ABSOLUTELY be fact". If the day comes that commercially-viable EVs are indeed better than gas in all aspects that most people care about, you won't need to "convince" them -- they'll move to it all on their own. As it stands today, there are LOTS of EV shortcomings (high costs, long charge times, and missing widespread infrastructure being the most notable), and most of this pro-EV talk is just the EV-proponents trying to convince us that we really don't care about those shortcomings, or if you DO care about them, you're just a silly old fool for not jumping on the EV bandwagon right-damn-now. I guess if you're going to be part of the EV "religion" (a belief system based on something other than demonstrable fact), you have to have faith.
3) "We need to go to EVs to save the planet". This one seems pretty self-explanatory as to why it should be ignored, as anyone who spouts it immediately self-identifies as one who values emotional pleas over facts. If you are one of these people, what study have you done (or rely upon) to show that EV production, including all the specialized and sometimes toxic materials needed to produce them, *how* all the electrical power to fuel them in any significant population is produced (often from *gasp* coal) -- how all that is soooo much better than gasoline cars as far as the planet is concerned? If your argument is "well, that will all be solved any day now by our smarter-than-old-guy scientists" -- well, we're back to point #2, aren't we?
I'm guessing fact-based rebuttal is not forthcoming, so feel free to now resume your name-calling and age-shaming tactics towards anyone whose opinion differs from your opinion. That's the enlightened modern way, apparently.
An interesting thing to remember is that when powered flight was invented in 1903, it was VERY widely believed, by scientist and layman alike, that in the future, it would be common for everyone to get around using their own private aircraft. That was still the vision even just 50 years ago -- that a plane in every garage was just around the corner. Here it is, well over 110 years later, and while we've made absolutely fantastic advances in space, commercial and military flight, we're nowhere near that 'certainty' proclaimed for the common man. The lesson here is that not ALL problems are solved in the timelines envisioned, or in the outcomes envisioned, especially when it comes to solutions that require adoption for large populations.
10-21-2017, 06:24 PM
#165
Le Mans Master
You forget something. People are tired about getting screwed over by their dealers for constant maintenance charges especially when the vehicle is past warranty. There is no denying that an electric vehicle has a lot less to go wrong with it and maintenance is next to nothing. The dealers are not going to like it but the future will be electric. I don't know why some of you guys hang on to the notion that gas powered cars will always be here. They will be relics if anything.
Really, today's cars don't need much mechanical maintenance before 100,000 miles, especially GM's offerings in the sedan/commuter segment. Just tires and oil changes, both of which can be easily had at *any* discount house.
Which commuter/standard cars are you referring to that have such high annual maintenance that people are pining away for EV's??
And again, how do you know *for a fact* that gas engined cars won't be around for quite a few years yet, and share production numbers with EV's? Newspaper opinion pieces? Tweets? Personal desire? Some sort of crystal ball? Rich people saying it?
10-21-2017, 07:22 PM
#166
I've heard a lot of reasons why people might want an EV, but "to avoid the gasoline-engined maintenance charges" (which are typically $80/year for a couple oil changes) has NOT been one of them.
Really, today's cars don't need much mechanical maintenance before 100,000 miles, especially GM's offerings in the sedan/commuter segment. Just tires and oil changes, both of which can be easily had at *any* discount house.
Which commuter/standard cars are you referring to that have such high annual maintenance that people are pining away for EV's??
And again, how do you know *for a fact* that gas engined cars won't be around for quite a few years yet, and share production numbers with EV's? Newspaper opinion pieces? Tweets? Personal desire? Some sort of crystal ball? Rich people saying it?
Really, today's cars don't need much mechanical maintenance before 100,000 miles, especially GM's offerings in the sedan/commuter segment. Just tires and oil changes, both of which can be easily had at *any* discount house.
Which commuter/standard cars are you referring to that have such high annual maintenance that people are pining away for EV's??
And again, how do you know *for a fact* that gas engined cars won't be around for quite a few years yet, and share production numbers with EV's? Newspaper opinion pieces? Tweets? Personal desire? Some sort of crystal ball? Rich people saying it?
10-22-2017, 06:14 AM
#168
10-22-2017, 01:21 PM
#169
10-22-2017, 01:25 PM
#170
Le Mans Master
You guys are making this into EV vs Corvette, and that's silly.
I would love a torquey EV as my daily driver. I have no interest in an electric Corvette, however. It's possible to respect and admire the attributes and benefits of an electric vehicle while still craving the sound and visceral experience of side-stepping second gear at full wail.
I'd take a supplemental front axle motor though if it was light enough that it didn't upset the car...
I would love a torquey EV as my daily driver. I have no interest in an electric Corvette, however. It's possible to respect and admire the attributes and benefits of an electric vehicle while still craving the sound and visceral experience of side-stepping second gear at full wail.
I'd take a supplemental front axle motor though if it was light enough that it didn't upset the car...
Last edited by davepl; 10-22-2017 at 01:25 PM.