Competition for the Tesla

Frankly, I don't think too many people want electric sports cars. Some, sure. But not very many.

What would be nice would be an electric family-sized car with a minimum 300-mile range, six-hour or less recharge time, and air conditioning. I'm not sure that's possible given existing technology.

Another thing that might sell well would be a small pickup with at least a 200-mile range. That would suit me just fine. I commonly drive more than 100 miles in a day, but rarely over 200.

-Rich
 
Porsche has been testing a couple of electric Boxsters, with two wheel drive and four wheel drive. Their public indications are that they are not intended for production and are just technology test beds, but after the last time my Boxster was at the dealer, I got a survey from Porsche asking about where I parked day and night, whether the location had electric outlets, how far I drove per day etc. Sounds like more than technology testing to me.

My favorite feature about the e-Boxster is the "driver feedback system" -- speakers that make it sound like a sports car instead of a sewing machine.
 
RJM62 said:
Frankly, I don't think too many people want electric sports cars. Some, sure. But not very many.

What would be nice would be an electric family-sized car with a minimum 300-mile range, six-hour or less recharge time, and air conditioning. I'm not sure that's possible given existing technology.

Another thing that might sell well would be a small pickup with at least a 200-mile range. That would suit me just fine. I commonly drive more than 100 miles in a day, but rarely over 200.

-Rich
Click to expand...

The Tesla is the only one I'd be remotely interested in. Seen one, it was nice.
We just don't have the infrastructure to support it. We need a place every so many miles that we can swap battery packs as fast as we can fill a tank. When we have that, we'll have electric cars in every neighborhood.
 
I just don't understand why you would want one. What's wrong with gas. With all we know about Batteries. Enlighten me how is it better than a gas electric hybrid or gas alone.
 
willywildes said:
I just don't understand why you would want one. What's wrong with gas. With all we know about Batteries. Enlighten me how is it better than a gas electric hybrid or gas alone.
Click to expand...

The guy that had the one I saw, had never bothered to get his drivers license, he was anti-fossil fuel, a poster child for tree huggin' (was one of those ultra-runners that ran for 24 hours solid). He sold his software company and bought the Tesla, I didn't get to drive it but a friend did. As far as driving it, he said that the instant response and quiet operating were awesome.

As far as economic/political motive? To lessen our dependence on oil.
 
Lessen our dependance on oil funny, without oil electric cars can't be made or charged.
 
So we burn coal right. 100k for a 2 seat car. That's a small market. It just has to come down to a political statement. With all the facts it just doesn't make sense,you're just not saving fossil fuels. Feeling it's all about feelings. It has to be.
 
Other than the top speed the performance is very nearly that of a 100k roadster
 
willywildes said:
So we burn coal right. 100k for a 2 seat car. That's a small market. It just has to come down to a political statement. With all the facts it just doesn't make sense,you're just not saving fossil fuels. Feeling it's all about feelings. It has to be.
Click to expand...

Nuclear, coal, gas, water, wind, solar, cold fusion, hamster wheels. Not saying how practical it is, but a car going 200 miles on energy generated by a wind farm in Washington is a car not operating on oil. How important that is :dunno:
 
bartmc said:
The Tesla is the only one I'd be remotely interested in. Seen one, it was nice.
We just don't have the infrastructure to support it. We need a place every so many miles that we can swap battery packs as fast as we can fill a tank. When we have that, we'll have electric cars in every neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure they're great. But there's only a niche market for them. If I were a young man with money to burn (or maybe even an old man with money to burn), then I might be interested in a sporty toy like that. But even men who drove hot rods in their 20's often wind up driving mini-vans for a few decades afterwards.

-Rich
 
I really want a Tesla those electric cars are really cool i drove the Volt which has a horrible range. However the pickup and speed were great so I could imagine the Tesla must be great to drive.
 
How much energy was used to manufacture the windmill The infrastructure for the windmill. Transportation. Solar panels we put them in all the schools in Ca Subsidized by the Feds trying to keep the defunct Solyndra afloat. Placed over the parking lots The energy used to produce the steel to make the framework Is more than the panels could ever produce.in Their theoretical twenty-year life span. Plus the energy used to manufacture the cement, For the installation. No free lunch.all oil, coal,or nuke fired. Then the people that own a Tesla or Fisker usually have two or three homes 5k to 20 k Square feet like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or Al Gore.. Flying around in corporate jets. Symbolism over substance. Feelings that's got to be it.
 
willywildes said:
How much energy was used to manufacture the windmill The infrastructure for the windmill. Transportation. Solar panels we put them in all the schools in Ca Subsidized by the Feds trying to keep the defunct Solyndra afloat. Placed over the parking lots The energy used to produce the steel to make the framework Is more than the panels could ever produce.in Their theoretical twenty-year life span. Plus the energy used to manufacture the cement, For the installation. No free lunch.all oil, coal,or nuke fired. Then the people that own a Tesla or Fisker usually have two or three homes 5k to 20 k Square feet like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or Al Gore.. Flying around in corporate jets. Symbolism over substance. Feelings that's got to be it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people spending money to make them feel good, I spend 90% of my money on just that, the rest I waste.
 
Right but all those solar and wind installations are done with our money to make someone else feel good. And someone politically connected richer.
 
I tried to buy a Nissan Leaf for my daughter. She commutes from the island to Texas A&M in Corpus Christi daily, about 55 miles, round trip. PERFECT for an electric car.

It quickly became clear that no one at any dealership was interested in selling Leafs. (Leaves?). The demos they had were almost two years old, they were trying to sell it for the same price as new, and no one knew anything about them.

I tried for months to get info about installing a charging station at our hotel. Ultimately, after many phone calls, I was told they were "unavailable in your area."

Finally, I tried to call Nissan North America, to see if there was any interest in my using a Leaf as a courtesy car for our pilot guests -- supposedly their target market. Their indifference was staggering.

Finally I realized that Nissan had made this car for one reason: Because California demanded it. The last thing they wanted to do was actually sell any of them.

Too bad. I still think an electric car would work great down here in the no-winter South. I bought my daughter a Toyota Matrix instead.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Right but all those solar and wind installations are done with our money to make someone else feel good. And someone politically connected richer.
Click to expand...

I would toss out a guess, and speculate that the power charging most Tesla's isn't solar or wind.
 
willywildes said:
So we burn coal right. 100k for a 2 seat car. That's a small market. It just has to come down to a political statement. With all the facts it just doesn't make sense,you're just not saving fossil fuels. Feeling it's all about feelings. It has to be.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
Solar and wind doesn't produce anything more then feelings I was pointing out that they are subsidized the people getting the good feelings are not the ones paying for them. Most teslas probably run on dirty coal.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I tried to buy a Nissan Leaf for my daughter. She commutes from the island to Texas A&M in Corpus Christi daily, about 55 miles, round trip. PERFECT for an electric car.

It quickly became clear that no one at any dealership was interested in selling Leafs. (Leaves?). The demos they had were almost two years old, they were trying to sell it for the same price as new, and no one knew anything about them.

I tried for months to get info about installing a charging station at our hotel. Ultimately, after many phone calls, I was told they were "unavailable in your area."

Finally, I tried to call Nissan North America, to see if there was any interest in my using a Leaf as a courtesy car for our pilot guests -- supposedly their target market. Their indifference was staggering.

Finally I realized that Nissan had made this car for one reason: Because California demanded it. The last thing they wanted to do was actually sell any of them.

Too bad. I still think an electric car would work great down here in the no-winter South. I bought my daughter a Toyota Matrix instead.
Click to expand...

The Matrix is a very good, fuel-efficient car.

Agree that the Leaf is mostly for CA, for now. Hopefully that will change.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Solar and wind doesn't produce anything more then feelings I was pointing out that they are subsidized the people getting the good feelings are not the ones paying for them. Most teslas probably run on dirty coal.
Click to expand...

You simply are ignoring the facts. Yes, it takes an initial energy investment to build the materials of solar panels or wind turbines. After that, however, they produce energy without coal or oil.

Granted, one or the other is more appropriate depending on your location in the U.S., but the energy required to build these things is far less than the energy they ultimately produce for years thereafter.

Finally, these proven, decades-long tested energy systems, reduce our reliance on foreign oil--something desired by most persons who think about the societal and political destabilization of the nations of the world.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Solar and wind doesn't produce anything more then feelings I was pointing out that they are subsidized the people getting the good feelings are not the ones paying for them. Most teslas probably run on dirty coal.
Click to expand...
I dunno about wind and solar or what it has to do with an Electric car.

Hey, dirty coal dug out of Wyoming or Oil off a boat from Saudi Arabia? Political factors as well as practical are at play for wanting to drive a Tesla, and from what I understand, they're super fun to drive. I'm not a car person, but I'd like to take one for a spin and I couldn't care less if it was burning arsenic from north Korea.
 
I have a friend who has one and he loves it. It is certainly a snazzy looking car, and rides nice. My problem is I will forget to plug it in. I know myself. I do that with my cellphones all the time, but I can charge them in my car and office if they die. If I forget to fuel my car, there is always a gas station around the corner. Forget to plug in my car and it dies overnight, gotta wait for the recharge.
 
They never recoup energy in their lifespan. Let me know when they can make panels or windmills in factories powered by the same stuff. It is impossible.
 
spiderweb said:
You simply are ignoring the facts. Yes, it takes an initial energy investment to build the materials of solar panels or wind turbines. After that, however, they produce energy without coal or oil.

Granted, one or the other is more appropriate depending on your location in the U.S., but the energy required to build these things is far less than the energy they ultimately produce for years thereafter.

Finally, these proven, decades-long tested energy systems, reduce our reliance on foreign oil--something desired by most persons who think about the societal and political destabilization of the nations of the world.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
Dirty coal?

Coal and natural gas power plants are highly efficient and quite clean.
 
willywildes said:
Incorrect.
Click to expand...

http://www.insidescience.org/content/studies-show-wind-powers-massive-potential/782

and

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1683.html

" . . . their simulations suggest that at least 400 terawatts -- or 400 trillion watts of power -- could be generated from surface winds, and more than 1,800 terawatts could be extracted from winds throughout the atmosphere. In comparison, people globally currently use about 18 terawatts of power."

______________________________

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_ad.html

"A cumulative total of 7,600 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2030, and more than 15,000 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2050.

Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 8% or 4 trillion gallons from 2007 through 2030.

Significantly reduce natural gas demand and reduce natural gas prices by 12%, saving consumers approximately $130 billion.

To produce enough turbines and components for the 20% wind scenario, the industry would require more than 30,000 direct manufacturing jobs across the nation (assuming that 30% – 80% of major turbine components would be manufactured domestically by 2030).

Lease payments for wind turbines would generate well over $600 million for landowners in rural areas and generate additional local tax revenues exceeding $1.5 billion annually by 2030. From 2007 through 2030, cumulative economic activity would exceed $1 trillion or more than $440 billion in net present value terms." [all emphases mine]

So, in sum:
  • reduction of CO2
  • more jobs
  • lowered demand for and price of natural gas
  • reduced water consumption
  • increase economic activity of at least $1,000,000,000,000

I suspect your refusal to accept the science and economic reality of just this one example of what is now called "green" energy is due either to an emotional or political factor, or both of those factors.

I suspect the way you feel about this is very similar to the way many people in the 1800s feared the introduction of new technologies.
 
spiderweb said:
http://www.insidescience.org/content/studies-show-wind-powers-massive-potential/782

and

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1683.html

" . . . their simulations suggest that at least 400 terawatts -- or 400 trillion watts of power -- could be generated from surface winds, and more than 1,800 terawatts could be extracted from winds throughout the atmosphere. In comparison, people globally currently use about 18 terawatts of power."

______________________________

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_ad.html

"A cumulative total of 7,600 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2030, and more than 15,000 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2050.

Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 8% or 4 trillion gallons from 2007 through 2030.

Significantly reduce natural gas demand and reduce natural gas prices by 12%, saving consumers approximately $130 billion.

To produce enough turbines and components for the 20% wind scenario, the industry would require more than 30,000 direct manufacturing jobs across the nation (assuming that 30% – 80% of major turbine components would be manufactured domestically by 2030).

Lease payments for wind turbines would generate well over $600 million for landowners in rural areas and generate additional local tax revenues exceeding $1.5 billion annually by 2030. From 2007 through 2030, cumulative economic activity would exceed $1 trillion or more than $440 billion in net present value terms." [all emphases mine]

So, in sum:
  • reduction of CO2
  • more jobs
  • lowered demand for and price of natural gas
  • reduced water consumption
  • increase economic activity of at least $1,000,000,000,000

I suspect your refusal to accept the science and economic reality of just this one example of what is now called "green" energy is due either to an emotional or political factor, or both of those factors.

I suspect the way you feel about this is very similar to the way many people in the 1800s feared the introduction of new technologies.
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Obama administration facts. Next you'll be citing East Anglia University. Buy Kool-Aid stock.
 
Windmills and panels are just the modern version of buying indulgences, if it makes you feel better after flying around atomizing lead over children go for it, but they are net energy losses.
 
I totally want an electric sports car. I also want an electric ski boat, and electric jet ski and finally, an electric airplane! The sooner we relegate the internal combustion engine to the museum, the better. Sadly, we are still waiting for someone, somewhere, to have that ah ha! moment and come up with a workable electric storage and/or generation device to change the way we transport ourselves. The Li Ion battery ain't it. Still, I'd love something like the Tesla roadster and it would work out for me.
 
The Antares electricmotorglider is brilliant. I havenothing against electric power just false claims of greennness and efficiency. I'd love an electric car with a seperate drive motor on all 4 wheels, think of the burnouts and silly parking tricks you could do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top