Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
MythBusters Hack Go-Karts in Electric vs. Gas Vehicle Test
popularmechanics.com — To test the advantages of gas versus electric propulsion, the MythBusters tear apart a perfectly good gasoline-powered go-kart and transform it into a tire-smoking machine that's fast —and clean. Check out behind-the-scenes action and test results
MrBabyMan- 370 diggs
- digg it
- jedisushi, on 05/20/2008, -8/+16The Mythbusters are heroes.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2MrBabyMan dangles on the douches of insanity.
- ZiggyPlayedG, on 05/20/2008, -8/+54This is a dupe of an article currently on the front page
http://digg.com/environment/MythBuster_Why_Electri ...- MrBabyMan, on 05/20/2008, -34/+7No, it's not. It's a completely different, yet related article from the same site. You would know this if you clicked through the links and not just scanned the titles.
- mediaphile, on 05/20/2008, -2/+16Honestly, this article is better, but it doesn't really matter because it's the same story as the front paged one. Reading the article once is plenty.
- Mononuclear, on 05/20/2008, -4/+13Didn't you say you were going to stop submitting stories to digg? Why are you still submitting crap?
- mywhitenoise, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10MrBabyMan to Digg "I wish I could quit you!"
- cawpin, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Digg to MrBabyMan "Please do."
- themastersb, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9Yea, but this one is from MrBabyMan so it's special.
- xdeliriumx, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2This article was submitted around the same the other one was(about 24 hours ago) but the other made it to the FP first. He can't delete it. Relax.
- badqat, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Yes, it took him a little over an hour to dupe the original submission, which made the front page first...he shouldn't have submitted it but did so anyway, because he likes submitting duplicates over and over and over and over.
Here's a hint...don't continually submit dupes, and you don't have to explain inability to delete them.
- badqat, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Yes, it took him a little over an hour to dupe the original submission, which made the front page first...he shouldn't have submitted it but did so anyway, because he likes submitting duplicates over and over and over and over.
- mattnyc99, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2NOT A DUPE. This is the story from the magazine by both MBs just about go-kart hacking/modding--other one was Web-only by Jamie, about the show's results and tests on five vehicles...
- MrBabyMan, on 05/20/2008, -34/+7No, it's not. It's a completely different, yet related article from the same site. You would know this if you clicked through the links and not just scanned the titles.
- ryanlive, on 05/20/2008, -15/+9Very cool. Electric vehicles themselves do not generate emissions. However, generating the electricity used to power the vehicle caused pollution (unless the power was hydroelectric or wind generated.) It is important to consider what type of pollution we are willing to accept, "zero" emission vehicles may appear to be clean but use very hazardous materials in the batteries which eventually end up in landfills as another form of pollution.
- blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6And this isn't better than today, how? The current vehicles are dirtier, with just as many bad components, and much more harm to the environment.
There is NO WAY the super expensive batteries will not be mined for their lithium. Nearly everything on the electric cars will be recycled, as opposed to now.
The only thing your post does is say NO PROGRESS! We don't want anything to change unless the new solution is PERFECT. - linagee, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Most people consume more electricity with all the TVs in their house than that thing consumed charging it's batteries.
- BeatPunchbeef, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6Another thing to consider is that the emissions created for electricity is largely centralized and potentially manageable whereas vehicle emissions are nearly impossible to manage as soon as it leaves the tailpipe. Being responsible with battery recycling and pushing for cleaner energy is a better solution than the status quo. With the latest technology, I think nuclear might make a dramatic comeback. What we can develop now is a far cry from the mid-century reactors running today.
- norman619, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1No *****. The new reactors will never melt down due to the fact that the reaction is tied directly into the cooling system. No coolant and we have no reaction. The idiots who are against nuclear power love to point to Chernobyl but if you ask them why it melted down and it's health prior to the melt down you will get blank looks. Even if you went by 1960's standards for nuclear reactor construction it was still a poorly designed reactor.
- Diggalicious3, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1One positive thing about the soviets nuclear reactors-they were all the same. That way, when one thing failed on one of them, it was fixed on all of them. Not a bad idea. Sometimes people like to point out three mile island, but I believe the radiation released there was equivalent to an x ray or two.
- norman619, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1No *****. The new reactors will never melt down due to the fact that the reaction is tied directly into the cooling system. No coolant and we have no reaction. The idiots who are against nuclear power love to point to Chernobyl but if you ask them why it melted down and it's health prior to the melt down you will get blank looks. Even if you went by 1960's standards for nuclear reactor construction it was still a poorly designed reactor.
- UTKEngineer, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Even if the batteries do end up in a landfill, they become a very localized pollution. The batteries could at least conceivably be cleaned later for whatever reason.
What comes out of the tail pipe of an ICE car is quickly carried up into the atmosphere and disperses. There is no hope of cleaning it up not to mention the fact that you're breathing all that pollution day in and day out.
Also, as has been said, the batteries have an existing infrastructure for some kind of recycling. Moreover, given their expense, there will undoubtedly spring up more commercial (read profitable) routes and methods of recycling them as they gain popularity. - jpowlus, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Why is this being dugg down? He didn't say anything that isn't true. He didn't say this isn't a *better* choice over using an internal combustion engine, he just said that it isn't "emission free."
I'm so tired of seeing people driving in electric cars (on the internet, not in person) saying "this is so great, I'm having zero-impact on the environment" ... don't kid yourself, you are having *less* of an impact on the environment.
...and it isn't just the batteries ending up in landfills, it is the manufacturing process to create the batteries. Have you ever seen a battery factory? I have... huge huge polluter.
electric cars = big improvement
electric cars are not anywhere near zero-environmental-impact- Mononuclear, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Do the people who use "zero impact" mean it literally? I figured it was just a term meaning low impact. I can't imagine too many people stupid enough to believe they have zero impact on the environment since the simple fact of being born and being alive has an impact on the environment. Zero impact doesn't exist and never will exist but we can try to get close.
Zero emissions is a different thing. It means the car doesn't put out any harmful emissions. That doesn't count any emissions by power plants or factories or anything, it simply means the car itself has no emissions.
- Mononuclear, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Do the people who use "zero impact" mean it literally? I figured it was just a term meaning low impact. I can't imagine too many people stupid enough to believe they have zero impact on the environment since the simple fact of being born and being alive has an impact on the environment. Zero impact doesn't exist and never will exist but we can try to get close.
- rcarroll215, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Electricity is much easier and safer to generate and TRANSPORT than gasoline or diesel are. I'd much rather see better transmission lines than more tanker trucks barreling down the highway.
- blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6And this isn't better than today, how? The current vehicles are dirtier, with just as many bad components, and much more harm to the environment.
- SHv2, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4Special. MythBusters Young Scientists Special
First aired: 4/26/2008
Writer:
Director:
Guest star: Scottie Chapman (Mythbuilder) , Alyssa Chan (Self), Brandon Shih (Self), Erik Gustafson (Self), Catherine Haber (Self)
A Science Channel Special: Four finalists head to San Francisco to conduct experiments with the cast of ``MythBusters.''
Was a pretty damn good episode. It was the science fair winners episode where the kids got to work side by side with Jamie and Adam on different myths. They tackled this electric vs gas powered car myth there. - swordedge, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2The results are about what I expected. Unlike gas motors, electric motors have all their rated power at all RPM's... Except for 0 where the power is basically what the battery pack can put out. When plugged into the wall, they can draw 5 or more times the rated power (and have 5 or more times the HP and Torque).
- dodgejon, on 05/20/2008, -9/+21Buried for being exactly like yesterdays popular post...
http://digg.com/environment/MythBuster_Why_Electri ...- UTKEngineer, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3It ISN'T EXACTLY like yesterday's. This article goes more in depth on the go cart and ignores the ATV's and cars. It also has pictures that I didn't see in yesterday's article. Basically it's a follow-up. Get your panties out of a wad.
- dodgejon, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1Loser.
- hydroplane, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3Since they are breaking out the go karts what about a banana peel spinout myth-bust.
- shadowspawn, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1You should see the episode, there's a special one that is not shown in the article. It runs off of mustaches.
- leerayIG88, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2Makes me wanna grow a big ass mustache.
- imbatman05, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1I already have an arse moustache, would you like to see?
- leerayIG88, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1First, you need to braid it into a colorful butterfly.
- imbatman05, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1I already have an arse moustache, would you like to see?
- spitsnaugle, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3must we always use the term hack?
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Well, the classic definition from the late 80's and early 90's was "to use or modify something in a way that was not originally intended". I'm pretty sure that the designers of the go-karts didn't intend that the power plant be replaced with an electric one, so I think the word fits in some sense.
- Diggalicious3, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2You're technically correct, the best kind of correct. It is frustrating reading the headlines and seeing, "Hack your sleep habits", "Hack your eating disorder", and other articles. The use of the word is technically correct, but socially hack is usually used to refer to technology.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Well, the classic definition from the late 80's and early 90's was "to use or modify something in a way that was not originally intended". I'm pretty sure that the designers of the go-karts didn't intend that the power plant be replaced with an electric one, so I think the word fits in some sense.
- sigafoo, on 05/20/2008, -6/+11dupe dupe dupe
how do you like it, how do you like it - KiSA, on 05/20/2008, -7/+16and now MrBabyMan steals directly from digg itself
- chanop, on 05/20/2008, -5/+13Mythbusters should try and debunk the reason MrBabyman articles always get front paged, even when it's a blatant dupe
- Balks, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1Dugg for truthiness
- davidwasman, on 05/20/2008, -5/+11good god, man...this was on the front page yesterday
and don't anybody give me that 'I've never seen it before so it is new to me' crap either. Digg has more than one page, you know. - specialbuddy1, on 05/20/2008, -3/+13Digg must be running out of content because this was on here yesterday.
- Minivolt, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1I am glad it came back, I didn't catch it yesterday.
- blackbeltbones, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11http://digg.com/environment/MythBuster_Why_Electri ...
- femurfist, on 05/20/2008, -4/+21Another dupe for MrBabyMan.
- Princeamor, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2Why dont they have this on video?
- 4abtrlife, on 05/20/2008, -8/+0I have respect for Mythbusters' work. But I think they got http://mythbustersresults.com/episode53 completely wrong, check out Ebo.blue's comments.
- Mononuclear, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2"The treatment and cures for ALL “diseases” have been known for over 40 years, but if no one was sick or terminal, hospitals would not make any money."
Crazy much? There is a lot of independent research with huge pockets that have nothing to do with drug and oil companies. Why would they be wasting all their money researching cures for diseases that have already been cured? Why would so many scientists be pretending to not know of these cures? What about other countries that basically pirate drugs from pharma companies and do not rely on them for anything. Why don't they out the discoveries? You have to be a complete loon to think there is this large global coverup/payoffs to keep people sick and keep renewable energy and more energy efficient things from happening. - Diggalicious3, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Ebo.blue is a physicist? He must have failed chemistry. The only widely available source of hydrogen is water. There is the basic chemical principle that whatever energy goes in to breaking the bonds of a molecule is the same that it takes to form that molecule. When you burn hydrogen, the product is water. Therefore, assuming we can manufacture hydrogen with zero energy loss, we have a net gain of 0 Joules. Hydrogen cannot be used to as a fuel source, however, it can be used as sort of a battery to store energy.
- Mononuclear, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2"The treatment and cures for ALL “diseases” have been known for over 40 years, but if no one was sick or terminal, hospitals would not make any money."
- walkertexas69, on 05/20/2008, -8/+6Not the same article as yesterday. This is more detailed and focused on the Go-Kart. I like the additional info.
- plhofmei, on 05/20/2008, -3/+13Buried for being a Dupe. I wish I could bury it doubly for being a MrBabyMan dupe.
- Halokhan, on 05/20/2008, -7/+6This is a companion article to yesterdays.
- dodgejon, on 05/20/2008, -7/+6Who the hell is a Mr. Baby Man? Sounds like a pedophile....
- Mr.Gone, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10Jesus Christ! Dupe article and f**ing stupid use of the word "hack". Man the internet is going downhill.
- drmangrum, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1I don't think anyone has doubted that an electric power train can do the job. The problem isn't the power, it's making it economical with an unlimited range that's tough. The biggest hurdle to overcome is how do you recharge the batteries? If you're on a long trip and the batteries die after 250 miles, what do you do? Electric vehicles won't be practical until we can figure out what mechanism to use to recharge the batteries on the fly or what power source to use while the batteries are charging.
Personally, I would like to see an electric vehicle with a small engine that is used to run the AC and recharge the batteries with imbedded solar panels to recharge while the vehicle isn't in use. - TubaTechno, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10Congratulations MrBabyMan, yet another duplicate story submitted and made front page AGAIN. Do you even see the "duplicate story" warning!?
- Laminarcissus, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2All these articles about "fast" and "powerful" and "at the track' for electric vehicles is like a fat guy trying to wear vertical stripes to look thin. If you use enough batteries and a strong enough motor anything will be fast and powerful. Most suburban locomotives are all-electric for chrissake, and there's no power problem there.
The problem with electrics is range, range, and range. When Mythbusters builds a car that can go from 0 - 60 in under 10 seconds, maintain 70mph, *and* go from New York to Boston without stopping, and then re-charge in under two minutes, that's a show I would watch. - xdeliriumx, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6LISTEN UP. Yes it is similar to yesterday's FP article but this article was submitted around the same the other one was(about 24 hours ago) but the other flew to the FP first. He can't delete it. Everyone needs to relax.
- dodgejon, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2I just voted you off the island.
- badqat, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3I'm guessing "around the same time as the other one was" means over a full hour after the other one was, which demonstrates he knew full well it was a dupe, right?
- MrBabyMan, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2FOR THOSE REQUIRING A EYE TEST:
TEXT OF ARTICLE #1, FRONT PAGED YESTERDAY
I'm really big on electric vehicles because the total amount of fuel consumption involved is much less than what gas vehicles consume thanks to the efficiencies involved in a power generating plant. But there's a lot of talk out there that electric vehicles just don't perform as well as their gas counterparts—and, because we want to keep the planet intact, it sounded like a good myth to bust. So we decided to put gas and electric models of compact cars, ATVs, motorcycles and go-karts head-to-head on the track and the road to figure out if electric could hold its own.
We started by pitting two average compact cars—one with a standard gas engine and an electric that had been converted from gas in someone’s garage—against each other on a country road. The gas car did what every gas car does: It was peppy and got me where I wanted to go. The home-built electric eventually got up to highway speeds on the flat or downhill, but I had to stop on a medium steep hill to allow cameras to reset for my arrival, and the car just didn’t have the power to get up the hill without a running start. Kudos to the builder, though, who used lead acid batteries and other components that were easy to find. He made a car that would get you to the store or down the highway, but the range was limited and you’d pretty much be the slowest thing on the road.
Then things picked up a bit. A little over a year ago I was approached by a company called Barefoot Motors to help develop an electric ATV. My first reaction was that this was a recreational vehicle and, while worth doing, it wouldn’t make a big impact if some kids were using electric instead of gas ATVs to fool around in the backyard.
Then Barefoot showed me the numbers. There are millions of ATVs out there, and a major portion are used for agriculture and forestry. Every hour that a gas ATV is running, it’s putting out as many pollutants as four modern cars because the engines don’t have the same pollution restrictions. An electric ATV could be charged on the grid at a fraction of the pollution and cost associated with gas ATVs, and it would be much quieter, too. So we took a week and built one using a pre-existing, heavy-duty ATV. We removed all the engine-related stuff and mounted a 45-hp AC induction motor right to the torque converter. AC motors can be very efficient, but may not have as much bottom-end torque as a DC motor, so the torque converter was just the ticket. We paired it with an Alltrax speed controller already made to accommodate regenerative braking. We used Thundersky lithium-iron phosphate batteries to power the ATV, and that, combined with a very efficient motor and speed controller system, allowed us to cut down from the 600-pound weight of the gas version to 500 pounds on the electric one—same make and model chassis, same horsepower.
Then we took the electric Model One ATV and a traditional gas ATV out to a motocross track to see how our electric performed—and it won by a hair, mainly due to the motor’s high bottom-end torque and the easier maneuverability due to the lighter weight. (I suspect the gas one would win in a drag race, but that’s not what ATVs are used for, is it?)
We also managed to get access to some very fast electric and gas motorcycles, which we tested at Infineon Raceway in Sonoma, Calif. The gas motorcycle, a modified Harley Dragster, went against an electric Killacycle on a quarter-mile dragstrip. The Killacycle also used A123 Systems batteries; interestingly, the bike had the same Advanced Direct Current (DC) 75-volt motor that I used on the go-karts—only there were two of them. I thought I was pushing it by pumping 125 volts through the motor, but these guys were running them at over 500 volts. Those motors aren’t made for that, and it caused problems: There were a couple runs that were right about the same as the gas bike, and the Killacycle welded the motorcycle’s commutator into one solid lump. The builder seems happy with the battery system, though, and intends to use an AC induction motor as soon as he finds the right one. There are no brushes to wear out, and they can get efficiencies of up to 95 percent.
Finally, we got to the cars—not homebuilt ones, either. We pulled in an electric car named the X1 made by Ian Wright of Wrightspeed, Inc., from Silicon Valley, Calif. The car does 0 to 60 in 3.07 seconds. It’s a two-seater with an open cockpit—more of a race car than something you would commute with, but Ian drove it to the track on the highway, and every last thing about it was refined and all business. We raced it against a Ferrari on the quarter-mile; it cleanly and quietly crossed the finish line first. The X1 currently has a range of 100 miles of average highway driving and uses lithium polymer batteries, which are another variation of the lithium approach, and a good one—except that a battery change runs you about $40,000. The X1 in production is expected to cost about $200,000 when it comes out, and if it’s anything like Ian’s first one, it will be a car to keep your eye on.
Our tests convinced me that if you can go electric, you should. Taking off across the country might not be practical, but if you’re commuting, you can plug in the car, get in, go to work and then plug it in again. The two- and four-cycle gas engines used on ATVs and go-karts are extremely polluting. With electric vehicles, you’re dealing with a very small fraction of the fuel consumption and pollution because you’re using the power grid.
Besides almost zero emissions, electric vehicles also have some very distinct advantages: An electric ATV is quiet, healthier to have around crops, and you don’t need it to go 300 miles on a charge. Barefoot’s prototype is running 2.5 hours of average use on a charge and is back to 80 percent charge over a lunch break, which is more than adequate run time on a farm or vineyard. Our highways and neighborhoods will be quieter and cleaner with electric cars and motorcycles on them.
Building an electric go-kart or ATV is not any more difficult than making a radio-control electric car. Sure, we’re using welders instead of pre-made plastic parts, but you’ve got an electric motor, a bank of batteries and a speed controller. Look at your racing RC toys—it’s the same thing. The home-built electric car we tested had serious limitations, but I think I could build one that doesn’t have those problems. I fully intend to make a full-size electric car; I figure it’d take about $28,000 worth of components for a plus-300-mile range. It should take me about a week or two to build—tops.
TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE, FRONTPAGED TODAY:
On our show, we like extreme tech. And, as far as we're concerned, racing go-karts at 90 mph with your butt half an inch off the ground certainly qualifies as extreme. With scary acceleration and speed, high-performance karts are as exhilarating as it gets in racing circles. But these track-only rides use two-stroke engines, which are notoriously dirty—one kart can spew as many pollutants as 100 cars.
We care about the environment and want to do our part, but still have a little fun. So we wondered: Could we create an electric kart that would outperform its noisy, gas-powered twin—and be just as thrilling?
Starting with two Tony Kart gas models, we converted one to electric in 12 hours flat. (We even amazed ourselves.) We used a 25-hp brushed DC (direct current) electric motor and an industrial controller from a golf cart, and then focused on four details that can trip up electric vehicles—torque curves, weight, batteries and cost. Cameras in tow, we headed out to Infineon Raceway in Sonoma, Calif. Race tracks, loud noises and burning rubber: just an average day on a MythBusters shoot.
Adam: I had to create a link between the throttle pedal and the potentiometer, which is a mechanical device that tells the speed controller how much pressure is on the throttle pedal. The speed controller translates that signal to regulate how much amperage is sent to the motor—and that determines how fast the kart will go. Here, we're testing the linkage.
Jamie: Most manufacturers plan on using lithium-ion batteries in future hybrids and electric cars, but some current types can suffer from thermal runaway, or overheating, and catch fire. We avoided this by using lithium-iron-phosphate batteries from Thunder-Sky. They aren't as sensitive to temperature, but they do need to be kept under pressure. This bracket is part of a vice I'm building for the batteries. As they heat up, they can swell and crack the casing if they're not squeezed together. We used 28 batteries with a total of 110 volts. The kart can be charged to 80 percent in an hour and 100 percent overnight.
Adam: I'm using an oxyacetylene torch to cut a motor mount, which has slots—not holes—so that the tension the motor puts on whatever it's driving can be adjusted. You learn this the very first time you don't do it and wreck a motor. Everyone I know has ruined a motor this way.
Adam: As soon as our kart was charged, we went out to the track in Sonoma, Calif., and got ready to race. I'd never driven a go-kart. I had a ton of spinouts learning how it's done, but it was a good opportunity to smoke the tires. (Until they get warmed up and kind of soft, you don't have any traction.) The roar of the gas motor is something that's carnally interesting—like the first time I rode a motorcycle—so the absence of that noise in the electric was disconcerting, but it was easily outweighed by how fast the kart got off the line. Jamie: Our electric flattened your ears coming out of a curve. But once the gas kart hit its butter zone at 15,000 rpm, it was almost too hot to handle.
"My lap time for both karts was under a minute, but the track record was 13 seconds faster," says rookie racer Savage, shown here conferring with the beret-wearing Hyneman. "It's like watching Tiger Woods play golf—I have no idea how you'd shave 13 seconds off what I was doing."
Jamie: In the end, the karts' lap times were within 1 second of each other, even though the electric was significantly heavier. The electric's off-the-line acceleration was much higher than the gas's, but the top-end acceleration of the gas kart was greater than that of the electric, so it balanced out.
Adam: If we'd had more than a day on the build, we would have goosed the electric's performance by adjusting the linkage between the throttle and potentiometer.
Adam: So what did our tests tell us? Electric vehicles are here to stay. Although the electric kart weighed almost twice as much as the gas version, it performed about as well. That means there's a lot of power in those batteries and a lot of potential in electric vehicles. Jamie: With electrics, you generate a fraction of the pollution per mile that you do with gas vehicles—without any sacrifice to those of us in a hurry.
THESE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARTICLES, THIS SUBMISSION IS *NOT* A DUPLICATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE DIGG ME DOWN IF YOUR EYES ARE LYING TO YOU.- Encablossa, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Don't go running out the door or you'll calcify like a vampire.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by