Posted on 06/23/2012 4:39:20 PM PDT by grundle
Of all the new cars unveiled this year, none will be as hotly anticipated as the Model S from Tesla Motors, a luxury sedan doubling as a brash, billion-dollar bet that the era of the electric car has arrived. As the first journalist to test-drive one, I can report the Tesla Model S successfully challenges a century of assumptions about what a great car can be.
Unlike gas engines, electric cars generate their maximum power at start -- and no electric car has ever had as much power as the Model S, whose Performance edition is good for 417 hp. The zero-to-60 mph run ticks by in an impressive 4.4 seconds (5.9 seconds for the 362 hp edition)
the Model S can even do long drives — up to 285 miles in the edition launching today
The revelation of what Tesla has accomplished sunk in when I returned to a gas-powered vehicle. Other luxury cars will keep pace with the Tesla, but after driving the Model S, suddenly you notice the lag between accelerator and power, the exhaust noise, all the energy necessary to keep those parts hurtling forward. It makes a fossil fuel-powered car seem to be working so much harder than necessary. Which is the point.
(Excerpt) Read more at autos.yahoo.com ...
Problem is the loss sending that power to your house, which is no where near 100% efficient.
Actually there is a lot of video on you tube of electric dragsters spanking internal combustion vehicles off the line. Check our the video of the Tesla beating the Porsche etc.
Justin, you idiot, electric cars do NOT generate their maximum power at start. If you’ve got zero RPMs, you’ve got zero power. But they DO have maximum torque at start. But you’re probably a political journalist and maybe took science back in fourth grade, so we forgive you. But you should look for a new career if you are an automotive journalist.
Model S starts at $55k.
The feds subsidize far worse crap like E85.
Yes, the working poor/lower middle class pay payroll taxes but not income taxes..
The wealthy pay income taxes.
To burn gasoline, you consume energy already stored by nature. To run electricity, you have to burn fuel to store and convert to electricity probably at the same efficients as the gas burners. I can't see electricity as more efficient. Add the efficiency losses to store the energy to that lost by converting stored electricty to kenetic energy, and I see electricty as more inefficient.
gasoline has yet to be bested.
That is precisely why I think the entire concept of EVs has lived WAY beyond its prime. In the beginning, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, internal combustion engines were much dirtier than they are today and it may have made sense to generate and transmit electric power at night to charge EV batteries, thus relocating the emissions to some far-away place. But today ICE are much cleaner, eliminating that need. Plus you’ve got the highly evolved infrastructure to deliver liquid hydrocarbon fuels and it only take you a few minutes to pump 20 gallons into your tank. With EVs, you can drive maybe 50 minutes at freeway speed and then need to spend the next hour charging your battery. Try that on a long family trip.
The only logical justification in this century is to stop importing oil from middle east tyrants. But we could easily accomplish the same goal by opening up our own domestic resources.
On top of that, the green kooks are shutting down every conventional source of power and now they are even going after natural gas. There simply won’t be enough economical electricity available to charge your EVs.
Lastly, you’ve got the huge environmental problem of EV batteries loaded with toxic compounds and elements. This needs to be included with the emissions from power generation for a complete environmental analysis of EVs. What becomes of the mountains and mountains of these if EVs ever really take off? I don’t know that anybody has addressed that looming problem.
On balance, from a systems perspective, it’s hard to beat liquid hydrocarbons for speed, convenience, high energy density, low overall emissions, and simple manufacturing.
True, but power line transmission loss is still less than the loss of energy required to extract, refine and transport fuel. Those drill rigs, tankers, refineries and trucks etc, all use energy to get the fuel to from the ground to your tank.
All true, but since the electricity has to come from a stationary power plant, you have to include the efficiency of that plant, and the transmission losse getting the electricity to your home. I just read where when you add in those losses to obtain the “real” efficiency of an electric car, they are on a par, but not better than, a gasoline-engined vehicle. Plus, given the sorry state of our power grid here today, we don’t have the generating capacity to “fuel” much more than a few extra golf carts. Lastly, unlike hybrids, when an electric car is out of juice, it takes hours to recharge. It’s not like you can pull into a charging station and be on your way with a fresh charge in the time it would take you to fill up your tank.
The car needs to be $20k or below without government subsidies and recharge need to be MUCH QUICKER than 8+ hrs (1-3hrs) before I would ever consider buying such a car
Well did some research into using a fuel cell(the Russians developed for space) which converted jet fuel directly into electricity, with water and CO exhaust. Using a ceramic electric motor were able to achieve around 50% efficiency. Wanted to make an electric airplane.
Problem the fuel cells were good for about 50 HP, and cost about $100,000, and the capillaries would clog after about 200 hours. Also took about 20 minutes to get the system going.
Just don’t plan on taking any long distance trips.
also - knowing electric motors and electrical storage systems, I know that when you step on the accelerator at first you will most likely get a great (quick) response.
As you drive, that response continues to drop off on in the last 50 or so miles it is going to be VERY sluggish indeed.
THAT is what is known about the limiting facts and the physics of electric transportation - and until you find a way to quickly recharge said batteries, you are going to experience first (very fast responses) and gradually degenerate to (very sluggish performance).
Not quite. The will be priced between $54,700 up to $105,400.
Mercedes-Benz S550? (Well, that’s cheaper than the Tesla by a few grand.) BMW 760? (A bit higher, but still within range.)
Actually, they start around 55k.
BTW,
“Tesla’s customers — more than 10,000 of whom have already paid $5,000 deposits...
The quiet ride, fast acceleration, immense power, and relatively extended range, are all well and good, but at some cost.
I wonder how it performs in cold temperatures when battery performance drops significantly, when electric power requirements increase substantially just to stay warm. In inclement weather when you have your defroster and windshield wipers on, what happens to the range? What happens to the range when you are using your air conditioner?
I wonder what kind of safety hazards exist with 7,000 lithium ion batteries? What about the time it takes to charge the batteries? What does it cost to replace the battery pack? Can you go to Walmart and purchase 7,000 AA batteries in an emergency?
Are there extraordinary electrical fire hazards in a crash? Much momentum would be created by the sheer weight of 7,000 batteries.
Mercedes-Benz S550?
I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.