Good to see something on the road. I'm looking forward to seeing if this is disruptive technology.
I inhabit some car blogs from time to time. I can't believe the amount of vitriol directed at Tesla. The first all new American manufacturer in years, working on new tech, constructing within the country, and they get blasted for it. It genuinely baffles me.
I don't understand it either, people seem to have an irrational hatred towards them. The company has been doing really cool things and the roadster is an awesome car (I know somebody who has one). It's quite possible that Tesla influenced the Nissan Leaf or Chevy volt, but even if they didn't they're doing the right thing. Pushing technology forward in an area where it's been stagnant for a while, getting attention and attempting to change things. I would've thought this type of thing would be embraced rather than discarded.
There's no doubt the Roadster changed things, probably forever, even if they disappear within a few years (or get swallowed up into something bigger).
Within 12 months of the Roadster actually being sold, both Audi and Mercedes showed all-electric sports car concepts. Neither had ever mentioned such a thing beforehand. A few manufacturers were dabbling with hybrid tech in some of their cars, but an all-electric sports car was not on the radar at all. Now every motor show has a major manufacturer either displaying an all-electric or hybrid-drive system. The gas turbine hybrid Jag was an awesome concept car. It's just great to see new thinking, and I give Tesla the credit for kicking the baggage of electric cars to the kerb. Building a sports car first was inspired just for the PR value.
BMW and Mercedes are scrambling to catch up with their electric tech. Being the engineering giants that both companies are, they will arrive later to the party, but what they produce will be properly good. I've read up on some of the tech BMW is researching for electric vehicles, and it's very promising. I believe the first models will be out in 2013, albeit in a small car format rather than a sports car. I guess we'll find out.
Maybe car enthusiasts are more concerned with the testosterone of cars than the tech (all the techy sounding talk comparing component performance is really just a red herring). If the tech can make the engine louder and the car faster, that's hot. Tesla is not offering that exactly.
I understand your argument, and it might be true for a certain type who saw the pipes off their Camaro just to make it noisier, but in general, most car people are genuinely interested in new tech. Besides, the only non-testosterone thing about the Tesla is the lack of engine noise.
From this, I would argue that the noise is a pavlovian response - the noise accompanies the acceleration and so eventually the noise excites us, even if we're not in the car. Given time, the right sound of electric car noise will tingle the bones of the enthusiast.
My basis for this is the response initially given to Rotary engines - purists thought they were too buzzy. However, after anyone has lived with a powerful Rotary engine for a while, the sound of a tuned Rotary immediately pricks the ears. Noise is going to be one of the by-products of a powerful electric engine - witness electric trains like the TGV for that - so I can see the high-powered whine becoming the mark of a high-powered electric, and young enthusiasts will come up with kits to increase the sound, just as they have with V8's, Rotaries, Turbos and every other type of engine tech.
I think it's more to do with vapourware-wariness. Any company which comes out promising to revolutionise the way we do everything will (and should) always encounter a bunch of skepticism.
They have, after all, been promising big things for many years now, and so far delivered nothing other than an overpriced sports car for the rich and impractical.
They've also been soaking up a lot of government subsidies at all levels to produce their rich-bastard sports car, which ought to bother folks.
Good point with the vapourware-wariness, but as far as government subsidies go electric vehicles is where some money should be going. Especially when compared to the billions given to companies like GM who were either unable or unwilling to adapt even when facing bankruptcy
The argument against electric cars that bothers me the most is this "Try driving across the country with it."
Try driving an internal combustion engine car across the country without an infrastructure to support it. See how far you get. Hell, even with gas stations everywhere today you don't want to be caught on I-80 in Utah with a low tank. There are some stretches of road where the next station isn't for 100 miles.
Indeed - try filling a modern 90 litre tank using a turn-of-the-century hand cranked pump and see how long it takes.
The range problem will always be there in some respect, but for many people it won't be an issue if the car is a 2nd car. And the infrastructure will get rolled out eventually. The beauty of it is that independent quick-charge stations could literally spring up anywhere the power is already on. And for the retailers, consumers stuck for 20 or 30 minutes while their car is recharged probably sounds like a dream come true. For a long time, the profit in fuel retailing has come from the overpriced convenience stores attached to the fuel pumps.
FWIW, the longest stretch of interstate without services is I-70 in Utah, at 106 miles. I don't think I-80 has any >100 mile stretches without gas, but possibly 80 mile stretches.
Off interstates though, the west can get pretty empty. This is near the Nevada/Oregon border:
What's your point? There is an infrastructure to support internal combustion engines.
There isn't one to support cross-country trips in electric cars, and building one would be very hard to impossible... at least unless someone makes one powered by ultracapacitors.
First, I should be clear in saying that it bothers me when people brush off electric cars completely with that one argument.
My questions for you: Why is it "impossible" to develop a new infrastructure? Can you provide any data to support that? I'm always interested to know why people think "because it doesn't exist, it can't exist".
And to answer your question, here are my points:
1) When automobiles were first adopted it was unlikely that people were taking long trips. The infrastructure developed over time. Give these people some time to develop the new infrastructure.
2) That common argument neglects to recognize I can charge an electric car in my garage every night. I don't need charging/battery swapping stations everywhere. (Though, I concede, people in apartments would)
3) The above point is particularly significant when you realize that the commute for millions of people everyday is only a few miles.
Are electric cars going to solve everyone's problems today? No. Are they poised to solve the problems for many people soon? Absolutely.
I'm always interested to know why people think "because it doesn't exist, it can't exist".
Because batteries take hours to charge, rather than minutes, it makes long trips awfully impractical. That's just plain ol' chemistry getting in the way, absent some huge advance in technology. Some have suggested hot-swappable battery packs, but bearing in mind that battery packs weigh hundreds of kilos and degrade over time (meaning you can never be sure you're not going to get a shitty one) then it makes life tricky.
Personally I think the Chevy Volt has the right idea: combine fully-electric behaviour for short trips with the capability to do long trips by burning fuel. I'd definitely consider buying something with that kind of tech once it becomes available in a wider variety of cars.
You've grown accustom to putting a nozzle into a fuel tank to replenish your car's energy store. That works best for internal combustion engines, but it's completely arbitrary to force electric cars to fit into that model. Battery swapping stations are the answer, at least for now. Heavy things are lifted and moved all the time with machinery like forklifts. Because a human can't lift them is not a reason to say it's impossible.
That may be a sign that it is disruptive technology. If it weren't, there wouldn't be that level of vitriol. The only times you see it aimed at other manufacturers is if they do something genuinely awful, or sometimes in better humour if there's a significant rivalry (Subaru/Mitsi, Holden/Ford etc).
I guess that shows that IT doesn't have a monopoly on morons with OS fanboys :)
My prediction: An entire industry of downloadable, DRM'd car sounds spurred on by regulation requiring cars to emit a constant sound above a certain volume.
Luckily, I plan to be the one to license the Jetson's sound and sell it for millions!
Nissan are showcasing the Leaf and installing a network of charging stations are being installed in my part of town (Lisbon, Portugal). The cars are quieter than others but not close to silent since the tyres still generate the same amount of frictional noise from the road as a regular car.
Amusing, but I really don't like when people make this complaint seriously. Reducing outdoor noise pollution is one of the best things about electric cars.
Wonder if there will be solutions to us appartmenters. Like an easy to access/pop out battery that can be charged and carried back into the car (oh yea the battery is gigantic) maybe some local fuel stations with the tech some dudes developed to charge the battery in 10 minutes? I mean 100 miles range can probably run me a week using the car but I gotta charge.
I inhabit some car blogs from time to time. I can't believe the amount of vitriol directed at Tesla. The first all new American manufacturer in years, working on new tech, constructing within the country, and they get blasted for it. It genuinely baffles me.