What is Digg?179 Comments
- hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54by deesine: No matter how cool it is, a sports car is not going to save the planet.
you _obviously_ never watched Speed Racer! - bu11et, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52Its projected cost is $100,000. Its range is 100 miles. There's no way that most people could pay 6 figures for a commuter car. What's the point of being able to beat a Porsche and a Ferrari? I want an electric car for a decent price. A range of 100 - 150 miles wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it will be a commuter car and should be priced accordingly.
- deesine, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43
No matter how cool it is, a sports car is not going to save the planet. - r3z0nate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I think the acceleration time is to prove the debate of electric motors has having poor acceleration rate. His car proves that electric motors can also be "sports cars" and will appeal to more people. It is a step in the right direction. The title isn't exactly fitting.
Current combustion engines are not efficient, I read an article not too long about about the Honda F-1 engine owning the competition because it was the most efficient on the circuit, something like 40%. Has anything come close to production vehicles? - JShope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20The revolutionary thing here is the technology. 100 years ago, gas powered vehicles were more expensive and didn't have the range you could get with a horse and buggy. The exciting part is the people outside the gas-powered vehicle industry are looking at moving the masses. With so many innovators working on it, it won't take much longer to get to a point where range is increased and weight and price are decreased.
Please try to look beyond your own garage, people. Watch the automotive industry now, and you will be seeing history in the making. The dinosaurs are dying and the more lithe and responsive breeds are taking over. - gxti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18However, concentrating the energy generation into one place is far more effecient and subject to government regulation. Have you ever looked at how ineffecient car engines are? Now compare to a natural gas plant...
- asoap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It is an ariel atom, it just has an electric motor.
In england you can get them with Honda engines from a civic, and with a jackson racing supercharger.
In the states you can get them with Saturn EcoTec motors.
This guy is just putting an electric motor in it. Pretty simple.
The Atom is an amaizing car, and if I had an extra 20,000k I would have boughten one. Check out the review from top gear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k20jZVM1HzU&search=ariel%20atom - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Ok. This is nice, and it's needed. I hope that the concept can be moved into a working product.
However, I must point out again, that electric cars won't "save the planet".
Electricity must be generated somewhere in order to charge the batteries. So to power the car, we must either burn coal, dam a river, or boil water with a nuke plant. We also have to use energy to dispose of the batteries. Pollution is merely moved from a tailpipe to a smokestack.
Electric cars are a good idea. But please remember that they're not some environmental panacea. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21> However, I must point out again, that electric cars won't "save the planet".
> Electricity must be generated somewhere in order to charge the batteries.
Look... I'm really tired of hearing this ***** argument.
The fact of the matter is that electric cars *ARE* about 5 times more efficient than internal combustion engine powered car and because the electricity is typically generated in one place, it is far easier to scrub the exhaust to meet clean air standards.
So... Yes, electric cars will save the planet.
The only important question remains is "will we be able to build enough of them?" (critical materials required for the batteries and high-power electric motors are in short supply and generally controlled by a single country, China).
What the world needs *NOW* is a gasoline powered fuel cell that operates in the 80% to 90% efficiency range. - Tochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Tone this down to about the level of the average commuter car (say 300-400 miles per battery cycle, acceleration typical to the 100-200hp cars) and get the price down to about 16-20k and you've got something that could change the way the world thinks. Then provide an easy way for consumers to charge the car (not everyone has a garage to park in and plug the car in) and you will then save the planet.
In the mean time this is good proof of concept. Now, just needs to be brought down to the normal consumer level instead of the millionaire car guru level.
Digg - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Clean electricity? Like the wind farm that is trying to be built off of Nantucket but certain politicians are against it because it might 'obscure their view' ???
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The article does say that he used off-the-shelf parts. Maybe there was one of those lying on a really beefy shelf.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is an almost exact clone of the Ariel Atom. I dare you to google that and not see the resemblance. Of course, the Atom costs $30,000 because it uses a standard engine...but did they just take the body design and put in an electric engine?
http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/4865
They're not telling us everything... - Nick42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@delong
It's still far better then what we have now: Step 1: Drill for oil. Step 2: Refine the oil into gasoline. Step 3: Transport that gasoline in trucks to the various gas stations all over the world. Step 4: Burn the gasoline in hundreds of millions of highly inefficient engines.
As it turns out, EVs are around twice as efficient. Do some searching around for real data on the facts next time before you just assume that what makes sense to you is true. - Leebert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10delong,
It's about adding an abstraction layer. It's also about gains in efficiency from central production of energy. My understanding is that EVs are STILL more efficient than fossil fuel vehicles even taking all of the inefficiencies you mention into account. - NoMoreNicksLeft, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15@gxti
Even better, once it's concentrated in one place, it's simple to replace that power plant with fusion, should we ever figure it out. I can't be the only one that wished Chimpy had spent $300 billion on a crash fusion program instead of an unwinnable war, can I? - stupidclese, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You're not much safer with Ted driving either though.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Earth has gone through several mass extinctions, and kept did just fine. You could theorectically save humanity, but the Earth really doesn't need our help.
- rigg419, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8But you're totally ignoring the fact that the car itself no longer produces pollution. If electric cars were everywhere, the Nuke plant that provides the electricity may have to increase production to meet the increased demand, but I'm willing to bet that a modern American Nuclear Power Plant is more efficient and much cleaner than a bunch of internal combustion engines
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7But my question is, why does the article never mention the Atom? Or even Ariel, the manufacturer?
- fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9especially the ones who think that the Mercator projection is racist...
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12No car will save the planet if Patrick Kennedy is allowed to drive it.
- Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6delong:
True but it's generally considered easier to control polution from a single source rather than thousands of sources - EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@delong:
You're also forgetting the fact that an ICE uses the rapid expansion of gas due to to combustion, *not* heat. Heat in an ICE is a waste product, hence the deplorable efficency frequently associated with our lovable cars.
Steam turbines are *way* more efficent simply because much more of the energy of combusion is released as heat rather than as kinetic energy; even after the phase change of water into steam. Also, a power plant doesn't have to move anywhere, so there is *zero* restriction on how you scale the process - you can make your turbines as big as you need to in order to match your target efficency.
So yes, even after *all* of the energy losses in this chain (fuel -> phase-change, kinetic energy, generated AC, HVAC trasmission lines, substations, local transformers, AC/DC conversion, battery recharge, battery discharge, kinetic energy -> make car go), you *still* have a net reduction in pollution simply because of the sheer scale of the operation and the efficency electricity can be generated and moved about. Your average ICE really is that wasteful.
Plus there's the added upside of being able to control the air pollution at its source, in a few discrete locations. - pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6
The great thing about electric cars is you can get electricity from a wide range sources...many of which are clean. Further, having an electric-based transportation economy means that anytime a new, cleaner methods of producing electricity comes along, you already have the infrastructure in place to easily take advantage of it.
Finally, demand often drives innovation as much as innovation drives demand. With cars running on electricity, car companies would push the limits on developing technology to make cars more electricity-efficient (less wind-resistance, lighter and stronger materials, lighter batters that hold more of a charge, etc). Comparitively, there is not much incentive to push these technologies to market right now.
As others have said, this is a nice car and all. But if you really want to save the world...make it cost less than $30k, let me hit 75 m.p.h., and give me 100-150 miles on a charge. I don't mind the charge time. I'd buy one and drive it every day. - brdsofprey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I dont' hear this argument very much. The problem is that most people don't understand that there have been at least 3 MAJOR Mass extinctions. I'm not worried about "killing" or destroying the Earth. Eventually 99% of the species that are around us will be extinct whether we help out or not.
- SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The only car that can save the world is K.I.T.T.
- Nick42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yes, obviously EVs don't eliminate pollution and inefficiency alltogether. They are however, much much MUCH better than gasoline cars.
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml - JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6if the batteries can power the X1 as fast as a porsche GT for 100 miles, it can power the X1 for much MORE miles with less speed
- shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5this guy is trying to take credit for the whole car... it's an atom with a motor swap, nothing more. No diggs. innacurate article. LAME.
intellectual thievery! - cifer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you google "wrightspeed x1" you'll find the X1's site. The FAQ states you can charge the car via solar power (with a little extra effort in terms of energy storage" but it can be done. Next time digg a little deeper.
- dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Did you just say I dare you....?
- scsikool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>> a quarter ton of batteries included
Millions of cars driving around with a QUARTER TON of batteries?? And that's going to save the planet?? I'd like to see an in depth study of the energy costs to build electric vehicles and the cost of recycling or disposing of the batteries and the cost to build electrical generating plants to fuel these vehicles. I often think this is just a zero sum game. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Did they make the same claims with the Segway? Look how that turned out.
- mechengr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Electric motors do not need transmissions, they output constant torque. It's just a huge motor.
- crythias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How long are these batteries supposed to last? What do we do with a quarter ton of dead batteries per car?
- KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, but running an EV gives you more options on what GENERATES that electricy, as a previous poster pointed out.
- mechengr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's hard to limit driving in a country that is more than 3,000 miles across and 2,000 tall. Public transportation would be step in the right direction, but there is still a great need to get from L.A. to New York.
- mrirwin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8r3z0nate:
Have you even watched F1? Honda can't seem to buy an engine to last the whole race; to top it off they were caught cheating with a trick fuel tank a while back. - r3z0nate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Honda won 6 consecutive Formula One championships from 1986-1991 with the engine I am talking about.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part4/section-1.html
There is the article that describes the engine, and how it dominated in the late 80's - early 90's. I was wrong about the percentage.
"No other F1 racing engine has ever come close to converting 32% of the fuel energy into work" - MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, like Tucker. Oh, wait... nevermind.
- delong, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Yep - this vehicle suffers from the same shortcomings as every other electric vehicle - short range and long recharge times.
In America's big cities, you can drive 100 miles easily by early afternoon. When I lived in Houston, I drove 100 miles by early morning some days. And it is just that - a commuter car. Worthless for anything but in-town driving.
Give me an electric vehicle that can compare to a gasoline vehicle's range and quick refueling, and you'll have a killer app. I don't see that in the pipe. - slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3technology, schmechnology, gimme a 4-door sedan or family-sized mini-van that'll get the same horsepower / fuel efficiency / power consumption at a competitive price and we'll bite . . . otherwise no one cares if clooney is driving a gas sipping one-seater that'll do 0 to 60 in 2 seconds.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"There's no way that most people could pay 6 figures for a commuter car."
Uh...it's not a commuter car. It's a sports car. - KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Don't get me wrong; I think it's great that I can buy a sedan with 43 airbags that can protect me in an impact, but why does EVERY car I buy have to have all the safety stuff on it?"
Talk to the manufactuerers. Airbags aren't mandated by law here in the US (and if you not from the US, and your laws require them, I apologize for jumping to conclusions). - tcaduto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a car like this needs to be combined with a fuel cell to provide the electricity
If the US govt was not controlled by big oil we would already have converted the 160,000 gas stations to spit out hydrogen as well as gas. The infrastructure needs to be in place, and I think the billions we have spent on Iraq could have done the trick. It was on the news the US is spending only 150 million dollars for alternative fuel sources.
What we need is a fuel cell Manhattan project!!!!! - bury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's what I was thinking. The service stations would handle it like propane tanks. You give them the empty one, they give you a full one. A service tech comes out, swaps the batteries and you're good to go.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can anyone else see that video, I'm not paying money to watch the archives for that little video...
- mechengr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're absolutely right, earth will whatever it damn well pleases wether we are here or not. We humans are but a drop in a bucket compared to the big picture.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Electric Motors have a higher torque output than Gasoline Engines so this is not a big surprise. There is a reason that Diesel locomotives are actually generators and the power is delivered to the wheels via an electric motor.
Also remember that a Corvette and out accelerate an F-16 but that does not mean the Corvette is more powerful than the F-16. Humans can outrun horses in short distances like a 60 yard dash, but no way humans are faster than horses.
The car is impressive, but far from what the article tries to make the reader believe. -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is