We use Gasoline for a reason, it hold way more kilowatt-hours per kilogram than Lithium Ion.
Don’t get me wrong, I love electric motors, they have a lot of torque, the Teslas beat a lot of tweaked muscle cars on the race track. Pretty good for a car in the BMW Class that isn’t even sold as a race car.
I find this argument stupid. Of course it has much more ‘Energy’ in it, chemical bonds. This part is what im referring to…
Because at the end of the day it comes down to How much waste you put into the environment. and how far your car when at 100% of a tank or 100% charge can go.
@SheepInACart shows that diesil has 51x the energy density of lithium ion. Why why don’t diesel powered vehicles travel 51x further than current electric cars? The energy is in chemically, and the way we utilize that energy to push our fat asses across the face of the earth is REALLY inefficient. I’m mostly referring to the wasted energy in heat, engine friction, gears, exhaust… At the end of the day the electric car still burns fossil fuels from the power plant down the road, but the power plant burns things more efficiently than a normal car it’s over more green. That’s without getting into the argument that the grid is slowly going green with solar/wind…
Yes battery technology is really heavy, but we’ve reached a point in current battery technology when it’s more efficient and greener to make your car electric when the technology is implemented correctly.
If the power plant uses coal, it can still be a net loss, I did the numbers for Australian Coal (which is pretty bad) but US coal stations aren’t that much better (although being phased out). Diesel fuel in a modern engine being >40% efficient gives a much lower carbon footprint per vehicle kilometer than coal (similar to gas thermal), and while its distribution of waste gas is closer to populated areas (which is bad) it doesn’t provide the sorts of heavy metal output of coal… more radioactive waste comes out of coal power-stations exhaust stacks each year than every nuclear accident in history combined, and they are only part of the heavy metals emissions. I moved to Australia originally to set up exhaust purification and thermal co-generation on coal coke fired steel mills, but then the GFC happened so the never got built, the numbers I have on the raw healthcare cost of coal still shock me though, its by all metrics bar cost some of the worst power on the planet.
However I’m a big detractor of rooftop solar and tiny battery based personal solutions to grid power as well. Not only do they have a higher human cost (see below) but they are inefficient as its impossible to incentivize the correct behaviors without direct control of the storage. Larger central solar power installations (PV or thermal) and critically wind with pumped hydro I see as the future for the worlds power, although sadly the main thing that rules nuclear plants out is stupidity and fear ( Even Fukishma was the same era plant as Cherynobel and a known hazard, they had been putting off maintenance or additional safety works because it was end of life, yet never actually shutting it down).
My meaning was just what you said, only in a different way. Public opinion would be affected if performance suffered. By public opinion, I mean those who rent/own said equipment and would be in a position of repeat business.
You are aware that most new cars are drive by wire like a Tesla.
My Nissan Leaf is pretty good compared to other econo boxes.
I’ve always driven manuals, so I was worried that this car was going to be extremely boring, but the whole regenerative braking thing was actually pretty entertaining.
I am limited to 80 miles of driving on a single charge, but there are a few free chargers I can use while I’m in town.
Now people always say “drive slow to save power”, but I’ve found that 65 MPH isn’t that big of a differences in power usage from 80 MPH when your running the A/C or heater, because you’ll have to run them longer the slower you drive.
BTW these are governed at 94 MPH, but it hits that governor pretty hard (it would do well over 100 with out it).
If anyone is interested I’ve made a fairly complete EV list. If you know of one that’s not there let me know.
I have a lot of specs too like range, 0-60 time, HP, torque, and curb weights.
Everytime I scroll pass this thread “What is after Gasoline cars?” I keep thinking “A Giant nuclear powered T-Rex with chainsaws for teeth!”.
GMO horses that fart non greenhouse gas’s and can use toilets 
It hits the limiter hard because the motor isn’t constrained by back EMF much, the limiter is to prevent over RPM and thus mechanically flying apart… you could certainly nudge that limiter a little to get 100 miles an hour if you wanted, but long term your better not to tweak things so you get the same known problems as everybody else.
@sycpuppy those gas cars better drive faster then, wouldn’t want it to catch you!
Here’s a tesla that has hit 300000 miles already
I’ve heard Nissan limited the torque because of torque steer. If that’s the case then they could have geared it up which would of put less torque to the wheels, and given it more speed. Probably wouldn’t be as efficient though.
The motor only spins up to 10k RPM which is nothing compared to the CNC machines at work. If I had to guess this is for reliability reasons (higher RPM = less bearing life), I kinda doubt it would fly apart, if so that would be poor/cheep construction/materials.
That was a really good read, but the comments were even more informational.
Am I the only one wondering how all these Teslas are dealing with the flooding in the US?
Like all car warranties in the land of bald eagles, flooding is considered an “act of god” (along with other things, ironically in the Tesla’s case industrial fallout… lol). The warranty also explicitly says “immersing the battery in fluid”, so depending on suspension settings you get 6.0" - 7.3", although users report no issues before water reaches the contacts on top of the battery (~10-11"). In other words if you hit a foot of water, your hoping for luck, while the Nissan leaf can handle about 1.5 feet… although likewise isn’t warrantied for anything above the door sills.
Surprised they’re not sealed off…
Its not actually an easy problem, since the battery is quick disconnectable rather than connected by a cable you can’t elevate the connection point or employ standard IP68 rated connectors, your on designing a custom attachment method that you’ll need to trust with a lethal electric shock hazard or shorting a car sized pack. Chances are there is some sort of weather seal present, but they are not rating it for anything, which in my mind is fair enough in the Model S since its hardly an offroad truck… it would have been nice is the Model X had a little more, but even down to its tires its clearly not designed to leave the pavement either, so I guess they won’t be loosing any sales based on that.
Also worth noting the connector would need to be MORE than IP68 water rated, as the “8” only represents submersion of less than 1.5m, which would not represent the pressure of a vehicle at speed fording water (its only 2.14psi)… although a IP69k (steam cleanable) rating is probably unneeded.
Why are they quick disconnect able? No need for it, really
The concept was for quick battery swap, instead of supercharging. However being able to drop the battery without disassembling the car is pretty sensible from a recalls and maintenance perspective, especially because you can purchase a bigger battery as a upgrade for an existing car, although it could have been achieved with a disconnectable cable if not for the first requirement of automatic rapid changeover.
Grease sealed connectors? I mean, on the new models, they could easily revise it for a sealed connection