How Not To Save Detroit

In article >,
krp > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
et...

>> Yes. It's called disgreement. Happens often. Deal. The idea that
>> GM is killing it or even has the power to kill it is ridiculous. They
>> killed their own EV-1, of course, but they aren't the only car company
>
> Small progress, you finally ADMIT that GM is fighting the electric car
>tooth and nail.

I admit only that they killed the EV-1.

>> True, but you have to quantify these things. If an electric motor is
>> 3.5 times as efficient as an internal combustion engine, but batteries
>> have 1/10th the energy per unit weight (in fact, it's far worse than
>> that, see below), gasoline still has an advantage.
>
>The POINT is that the L-ion battery is a leap forward. It meets the standard
>for energy production.

Your second statement doesn't even make sense. The lithium ion
battery is a significant improvement over nickel metal hydride. It
has been around for quite a while now. However, it still does not
even approach the energy density of gasoline. Furthermore, lithium
ion batteries have significant problems for automotive use.

>But there is a NEW battery that will exceed it. WATCH the documentary.

Provide me specifics about this battery that don't require watching a
propaganda piece. The only Chinese electric car battery I can find is
from the BYD battery company; they're using a LiFePO4 battery
(probably without paying the American company which developed that
technology any royalties), which, while it lacks some of the drawbacks
of lithium-cobalt-oxide or lithium-manganese-oxide cells, in fact has
a lower energy density than those technologies.

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

In article >,
krp > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>> Yeah, the electric car being "ready except for the battery thing" is
>> right up there with Mary Todd Lincoln's "Well, the play was all right,
>> except for the unpleasantness with my husband".
>
>Except the L-Ion battery is working well. But improvements already exist but
>need manufacturing. Even the L-Ion battery is not being made in production
>quantities because of the OPPOSITION to it.

Anyone with the money can order as many lithium ion or lithium polymer
batteries as they can afford. They've been in production for years.
Most portable computers and cell phones use them. Nobody opposes
them, except in your own feverish imagination.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

In article >,
HLS > wrote:

>http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=216401108
>
>For $50k, the Tesla is pretty darn competitive, offers a 300 mile range, and
>45 minute
>recharge.

And is pure vaporware. They've already raised the price on the
Roadster -- AFTER taking people's deposits.

>GM and Honda both found that if you dont overcharge the battery pack, and
>that if you dont run it below 30% charge, they can last a long time.
That's with NiMH chemistries, not lithium-ion. Lithium ion cannot
tolerate any overcharge, is also relatively intolerant of undercharge,
and degrades both by time and charge cycle.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

In article >,
krp > wrote:
>
> Mitsubishi has a new all electric car on sale in Japan.

With a price of $27,500, a top speed of 80mph, and a range (presumably
not at top speed) of 70-100 miles (depending on which press release
you believe). With a 14-hour charge time. Real practical.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

"krp" wrote:

GM made a FEW electric cars, refused to sell them, then
DESTROYED them when the people who used them LOVED
the cars.

When a GOOD battery that gave vastly more performance was
announced, EXXON bought the company, CLOSED IT and GM
shredded the cars.
__________________________________________________ ________________

At LAST! I've been WEARING this uncomfortable tinfoil hat for
YEARS hoping you would make CONTACT.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YEARS AGO, this same EXXON
(read big OIL) bought up all the PATENTS on the 100-mpg
CARBURETOR and kept it OFF the market, FORCING us to GO
THROUGH decades of POOR gas MILEAGE.

Keep UP the good WORK.

Rodan. <-- happily ADJUSTING antenna
__________________________________________________ ____________________

> And is pure vaporware. They've already raised the price on the
> Roadster -- AFTER taking people's deposits.

The Tesla is available at about $100K. This new one is still in the works
but appears to be on the road to sales reality.

I believe they have gotten a grant of considerable money, in fact.

On Jun 28, 6:46*pm, "HLS" > wrote:
> > And is pure vaporware. *They've already raised the price on the
> > Roadster -- AFTER taking people's deposits.
>
> The Tesla is available at about $100K. *This new one is still in the works
> but appears to be on the road to sales reality.
>
> I believe they have gotten a grant of considerable money, in fact.

Just saw on a local Porsche-fan bb that there are, in fact at least
two Teslas on the road in this area. Well, technically one, because
one report of a Tesla sighting was that a guy that the poster knew
helped load one on a truck to ship it back to CA for some warranty
work.

But while it isn't completely vaporware, it certainly doesn't compete
directly with gasoline powered cars. There are limitations to what it
can do that gasoline cars don't have, but at least the Tesla people
seem to be pretty honest about what you can expect from it. It *is* a
step towards a practical electric car, and if energy density and
recharge time were improved, they might sell enough, economies of
scale would start to kick in, we might see something like the Model T
where improvements keep being made but the price keeps dropping
because they're selling more of them.

nate

On Jun 28, 4:35*pm, "krp" > wrote:
> "HLS" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Forget GM for the moment.
>
> * * So MANY people have that they are bankrupt ans still sinking in red ink.
>
> >http://www.informationweek.com/news/...rticleID=21640....
> > For $50k, the Tesla is pretty darn competitive, offers a 300 mile range,
> > and 45 minute recharge. * Closer than anything GM has done, if you can
> > believe the hype.
>
> * * Don't bother our resident loons. You can't confuse them with FACTS.
> Their minds are made up that it is "TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE." At least for now..
>
> > GM and Honda both found that if you dont overcharge the battery pack, and
> > that if you
> > dont run it below 30% charge, they can last a long time.
>
> * * The new batteries in development are even better.
>
> > My son and his wife each have hybrids...one an Insight and the other a
> > Civic. *They are now 6 years old and neither has needed new batteries..
> > The claims that you have to rebattery them *every couple of years is just
> > BS. *The Insight gets up to about 60mpg+ and the Civic gets 44-48.
>
> * * Mitsubishi has a new all electric car on sale in Japan. *I just get so
> fed up with the BULL**** being posted by some people here putting down the
> electric cars. I guess the must be hurting to know that an electric car
> WIPED a Porsche in a drag race AND on top end. If I could afford an Ellica
> I'd BUY one.

If I could afford a Tesla, and could ensure that I wouldn't ever run
out of juice while driving it, I'd buy one too.

And if a frog had a glass ass, he could only jump once.

nate

"krp" > wrote:
>"N8N" > wrote:
>On Jun 28, 12:00 pm, "krp" > wrote:
>> "N8N" > wrote:

>> N>If you'd said "the electric car is ready except for the battery thing"
>> N> you'd be right. "ready" with no qualifiers... not so much. Arguing
>> N> on Usenet with someone for 2 months - when you're ****ing WRONG -
>> N> that's like the ****ing Ironman of Special Olympics right there, that
>> is.
>>
>> But I am NOT wrong! I have offered support for my statements.

>N>I'm NOT wrong! I'm NOT wrong! (stamps feet, pouts)

> Clever. I offered proof and you - - - NOISE and chest pounging.

>> None of you NAY-SAYERS have offered diddly squat for your claim
>> that the electric car is "IMPOSSIBLE."

>N> Ummmm... energy density of batteries, and the second law of
>thermodynamics?

>PROVE IT don't just beat your chest and grunt like a Gorilla.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica

Total vapourware. The energy requirements for such vehicles cannot
be met by any existing battery storage system. Batteries haven't
kept pace with wishfull thinking. Nothing has happened with the
car(s) since the hype.

The motive energy requirements for electric vehicles are the same as
for "conventional" vehicles. If a Veyron requires 750kW to do 400
km/h (safely), then the 480kW in Eliica are clearly insufficient for
the same speed at similar levels of safety.

The Eliica is longer and heavier (by more than half a ton) than
the Veyron. This would indicate larger motive power requirements if
all other functional parameters remain the same.

Furthermore, putting electric motors into the wheels is *stupid* in
terms of vehicle dynamics and mechanical life. Increasing the
unsprung mass means that both handling and ride suffer. The motors
in the wheel are exposed to almost the whole dynamic vibration
spectrum of the car on a road. Most roads are not as smooth as Nardo
test track. Heat from braking will impose a high thermal load on the
motors.

[Regenerative braking isn't useful for anything more than about 0.1g
as the charge cannot be stored in the batteries.]

The motor-in-wheel design is to maximise drivetrain efficiency; but
it compromises handling, ride and durability.

<http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~mr5t-okb/story-e.html>

The article compared a 2CV (designed in the 1930's) with an electric
research vehicle.

Final paragraph:

Car needs energy

Ordinary car's power consumption is 5.5ps/hour(=4kWh). How
much electricity does your family use? In my house,
consumption of electricity is limitted up to 40A by breaker.
In Japan, voltage of electricity is 100V, The maximal power
I can use in my house is 4kW. Car always uses the energy
which is equal to my house's maximal power consumption.

In the acceleration mode, my EV's ammeter indicates
100-200A. It's unbelievable. My EV has the small moter that
generates 15kW continuous. But 15kW is more than four times
of my house's maximal power consumption. Even the my small
EV uses huge energy to drive. If the car has more power,
it's terrible.

We cannot realize the power consumption of petrol engine
car. The voltage of the batteries installed on EV is similar
to the electricity supplied to our houses. It's easy to
compare the power consumption. If the car uses any fuel, the
car which has same weight and performance uses same energy.
The EV is not a panacea for the problems of pollution. We
have to consider the state of the car.

The most-hyped production electric vehicle, the Tesla also doesn't
actually deliver what it promises; unless you believe that a car
that looks like a sports car shouldn't be driven like a sports car.
When it is driven like one, the range is reduced from the claimed
200 miles, to less than 60 miles. This is not unexpected; for those
who understand the underlying engineering issues.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The growth of knowledge depends
X against HTML mail | entirely on disagreement.
/ \ and postings | -- Karl Popper

On 2009-06-28, krp > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I am fukkking TIRED of going over the same ground again and again and
>>> being told "Don't confuse me with the FACTS my fukking mind is MADE UP!"
>>> So
>>> I just reply that I agree the electric car IS totally impossible. It will
>>> NEVER work. Just because I am tired of the ****.
>
>> You haven't produced any facts. You've spewed urban myth and political
>> propoganda.
>
> The Eliicar is NOT a fukking "URBAN MYTH." There are several websites I
> have cited, PLUS I have suggested that you guys WATCH the documentary on the
> car ruinning NOW on HD-Net, but myou guys say that you "REFUSE TO WATCH
> POROPAGANDA." YOU are the little boys with your fingers in your ears
> humming loudly, NOT ME.

You've put forth one conspiracy theory after another, just because they
are in a film is irrelevant.

>> But let's say the electric car is ready.

> That it IS is a proven FACT!

Then build it and sell it.

>> Let's say it's been ready since the days of Nikola Tesla. Why hasn't it
>> taken over?

> First of all it didn't take over because it wasn't sufficiently
> developed. There wedre no INVESTORS willing to create the industry.

LOL. There are investors for anything that can show a profit.

> Also GM
> in specific, but all the CAR companies were doing their level best to
> DESTROY the electric car.

Why? That's the thing lacking in these 'GM killed it' conspiracy
theories. GM doesn't give a **** what powers a car. They care about
selling cars. Selling what people will buy. Well that is before they
became a UAW welfate state.

> Face one FACT - the CLOWNS running the car
> companies have NOT been the sharpest pensils in the drawer. hey are Harvard
> MBAs and focused on the BOTTOM LINE. Then add BIG OIL... I have bad news for
> you, markets move slowly. Henry Ford did NOT start out selling 20 million
> cars a year. It took a while for the consumer to make the switch, and for
> the sales pitch to convince people to get a car.

So build electric cars and put them under. That's how a free market
works.

>> It can't be GM and the oil companies, they don't have the power.

> Okay IF you say so. If YOU say that General Bullmoose CANNOT do it, iot
> MUIST be a FACT that nobody can arfgue with.

In a free country with a free market GM could do no such thing.

>> So tell me, what's stopping you from getting some investors together and
>> licensing all this wonderful technology and building some cars? I'm sure
>> GM and oil companies don't even make the list.

> Do you think that people with money are STUPID? How many of them would
> put their money in a venture KNOWING that they would have to face the
> opposition of GM, even in its present disarray, and BIG OIL? Exxon alone
> could spend more than you could raise just from ONE MONTH'S profits to bury
> you. I used to work for Texaco. What amazed me about Texaco, although didn't
> surprise me KNOWING the people at the helm personally, is how they could
> take that company given the literally fantastic amount of revenue it
> generated and BANKRUPT it. Amazing what an MBA can do. I am not sure exactly
> HOW they do it, but if you want any enterprise IN THE TOILET within a year
> or so, hire an MBA to run the company. That's why they can't allow MBA'S
> into heaven. Let one in and within a year all the Angels will be on WELFARE!

Again, exactly how can any corporation bury your electric car company?
They can't, but with one exception, and that exception is government
burying your electric car company for them. So your problem isn't with
GM, but the government. That's where their spending counts.

But, you still haven't pointed out why GM just doesn't build these
wonderful electric cars themselves. The electric utilities are giant
companies too, like big oil. Neither big oil nor GM have any conspiracy
going on between them. If GM and big oil were really together why did
big oil constrict the flow of gasoline to retail sale and drive the
price up to over $4/gal?? If GM had this 'finished' electric car,
shouldn't they have, at this betrayal by big oil said 'f' you too' and
released it for sale?

Nahh... you don't let the limits of current engineering bother your
views so why let the logic of profit and loss and business relations?