Pretty damn quick electric car - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Media Got any pics or vids to share?

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-15-2009, 03:16 AM   #1
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,199
Total Cats: 2,584
Default Pretty damn quick electric car

18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:33 AM   #2
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (16)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: where most people are Utarded
Posts: 1,323
Total Cats: 0
Default

Holy freaking fast!!
zoomin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 07:58 AM   #3
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 5,703
Total Cats: 237
Default

wow.. sweet.
Fireindc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 08:25 AM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Longs, SC
Posts: 2,583
Total Cats: 13
Default

I love how there are dozens of guys that have done this in their garage, but the car companies just cant seem to figure it out.
icantthink4155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 08:47 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 267
Total Cats: 0
Default

They can figure it out, they just know there is a very limited market for a 30-yr-old chasis electric dragster.


It's very fast, and looks great though.
fahrvergnugen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 09:54 AM   #6
Elite Member
iTrader: (24)
 
kotomile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 7,578
Total Cats: 40
Default

They have the capability, have for some years now. GM (the one who fucked up the most, in my book) made the EV1 and then scrapped it (literally) after big oil bought a big stake in the company. Then they introduced the "Hummer" line. Hmmm. One of the reasons I have absolutely no sympathy for GM being bankrupt.

Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" (YouTube). There is/was a market, but GM went out of their way to "prove" to CARB that there isn't one.
kotomile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 10:25 AM   #7
Elite Member
iTrader: (30)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Va Beach
Posts: 7,282
Total Cats: 0
Default

Wow that's awesome. What I don't like is his claim that it dosen't run on foreign oil. What natural resource is being burned to create the electricity to charge his car. I'm all for the development of electric cars but could you imagine what it would do yo your electric bill if you had to charge your car every night.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
levnubhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 10:55 AM   #8
Elite Member
iTrader: (24)
 
kotomile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 7,578
Total Cats: 40
Default

It varies from area to area. Coal, wind, hydroelectricity, solar, etc. are all possibilities. Better than a internal combustion engine, which runs on fossil fuel 100% of the time.
kotomile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 12:46 PM   #9
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kotomile View Post
It varies from area to area. Coal, wind, hydroelectricity, solar, etc. are all possibilities.
Here's the breakdown for electrical production in the US by source as of 2006:


(source: Electric Power Annual - Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer)


So, there are a couple of ways to interpret this data. From a standpoint of economic independence, it's actually good news.

The US is the world's largest producer of coal, harboring 27.1% of the known global reserves. (Russia is #2 at 17.3%.) We are, in fact, a net exporter of coal. When the oil wells run dry, we'll be the new Saudi Arabia!

We are the second largest producer of Natural Gas, at 546 billion m per year, representing 18% of the world's natural gas production. (Russia is #1, at 654 billion m/year.)


Now, both of these energy sources are of course finite and polluting. When will we run out of coal and natural gas? Who knows. Quoting proven reserves is a pretty fickle thing, given that exploration continues unabated.

The matter of pollution is a somewhat trickier thing. Our biggest gripe lately seems to be carbon, which is emitted primarily in the form of CO and CO2.

With NatGas, it's possible using current technology to remove CO2 prior to use, so the amount of carbon-based products emitted during combustion decrease. And with either technology, it's possible to remove the byproducts of combustion, both by catalytically reforming them and by trapping and sequestering them.


Surprisingly, we're pretty far down the list of producers of fissile uranium (2.5% of 2005 global production), though of course we haven't been looking very hard of late, what with the fact that nuclear energy has sort of stalled out, politically.


As to the rest? Well, somebody's always going to complain about something.

Hydroelectric power is awesome, except for the folks who bitch that dams alter the landscape, hamper fish migrations, etc.

Wind power is pretty neat, except that it's highly intermittent, doesn't work in a lot of places, has a very low per-unit output (low ROI) and requires large numbers of ugly things to be erected.

Solar would rock if it weren't for that pesky atmosphere that we have hanging over us, filtering out so much of the sun's radiation. And of course, large number of ugly things. And low per-unit output. And periodic replacement costs.





Ultimately, we're all just going to have to revert back to cave-dweller status, roasting our gluten-free organic meals over an open fire. Except we won't be allowed to make fire, as that requires cutting down trees, and of course, emits CO2.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:21 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 267
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Wind power is pretty neat, except that it's highly intermittent, doesn't work in a lot of places, has a very low per-unit output (low ROI) and requires large numbers of ugly things to be erected.

Wind is not too intermittent here in OK... In fact, there is a big swath of land from Mexico to Canada that has pretty consistent winds. Lots of ugly things out in Weatherford, I think they have like 45 of them in that town alone, and apparently another 90 in Woodward.
fahrvergnugen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 03:20 PM   #11
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,967
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahrvergnugen View Post
Wind is not too intermittent here in OK
I went to basic training at fort sill Jan-March...I can attest to this with no problem. That being said, **** Oklahoma, lol.
KPLAFIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:46 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 267
Total Cats: 0
Default

Keep in mind, Ft. Sill is in OK, but it is -not- OK, OK? I've been to Lawton, didn't enjoy it. I lived in Killeen for nearly two years, didn't like that either. Military towns are teh suk.
fahrvergnugen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:10 PM   #13
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

That kind of technology right now could absolutely NOT happen on a mass scale. Electricity grid could not handle it, we don't have the output capacity from all power plants to pick up that extra load, then you are still in most cases burning fossil fuels in power plants DURING THE OFF HOURS at night, which is also very bad. Then you have **** tons of lead to deal with, unless you want to spend $50,000 for other batteries.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:57 PM   #14
Elite Member
iTrader: (24)
 
kotomile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 7,578
Total Cats: 40
Default

Sure, if everyone in America (or any country) switched from gasoline to electric cars overnight it would be a non-sustainable shock to the system. But I think the switch would be much, much more gradual than that...
kotomile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:42 PM   #15
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,687
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
The matter of pollution is a somewhat trickier thing. Our biggest gripe lately seems to be carbon, which is emitted primarily in the form of CO and CO2.
I fart carbon.


Carbon dioxide makes plants grow and without as much of it plants would not grow as well and people would starve. It just happens to be the "mal du jour" of the anti-deodorant and shaving crowd. Anti-capitalists tried to make up a story that something that exists universally in copious amounts is both harmful and made worse by improvements in our lives. Nothing will please them short of hemp underwear and mud huts. No leather allowed.

I love hydro and nuclear. Electric cars around here mean more orange-brown smoke bellowing out of the old coal power plant on the waterfront south of town.

How much better is that car's 800# of sulfuric acid and lead when it ends up in the water supply. Stupid hippies. Logic escapes them as emotion overcomes them.
sixshooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:47 PM   #16
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kotomile View Post
Sure, if everyone in America (or any country) switched from gasoline to electric cars overnight it would be a non-sustainable shock to the system. But I think the switch would be much, much more gradual than that...
Well of course, but still you are going to have a MASSIVE increase if even 1/10 cars were electric and were charged from the grid. That would take huge amounts of money and would cause just that much more pollution from power plants. Only way this would be OK is if solar technology was more efficient and affordable and every car came with a panel to mount on the roof of your house to charge it. Otherwise its a bad idea. Unless we go all nuclear/solar/wind/hydro and do away with fossil fuels all together. Its no use getting rid of fossil fuels from cars if we are still going to use them for power.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:57 PM   #17
meatbag
iTrader: (50)
 
gospeed81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,357
Total Cats: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
would cause just that much more pollution from power plants.
Except for a few small things:

1. Power generation is much more efficient on a large scale...as done at power plants.
2. Conversion back into mechanical work in a vehicle is 95% effecient...compared to ~30% with gasoline.
3. Electric motor characteristics and power draw are much better suited to our driving styles than internal combustion.

For the last point...imagine a generator as opposed to a car motor. The generator runs at MBT all day long, generating the most possibly power the most efficiently from the chemical energy of the fuel.

A car motor idles at stoplights, puts around in and out of it's powerband, and has to be designed to have more power on tap than is normally called for, making it run at less than maximum efficiency 99% of the time.

The only time a car motor is making the most work for fuel consumption is at the race track (considering you point is to travel, and you are expending fuel). Racing keeps the motor at high volumetric efficiency, and in it's powerband.


It's all about efficiency, or the old "sought over bought." You pay for fuel...you want to get somewhere. Right now you only get $0.30 back on every dollar you put into the tank energy-wise...and that's when you're going down the highway.


I consider our long term energy solutions less about fuel type, and more about an infrastructure format that focuses on MOST EFFICIENTLY extracting the energy from the fuel source, and delivering it to the point of work.

If I didn't have an exam in an hour I would have been able to expound on this a little more..but this is one of my favorite topics and I'll check back tomorrow.
gospeed81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 08:39 PM   #18
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gospeed81 View Post
Except for a few small things:

1. Power generation is much more efficient on a large scale...as done at power plants.
2. Conversion back into mechanical work in a vehicle is 95% effecient...compared to ~30% with gasoline.
3. Electric motor characteristics and power draw are much better suited to our driving styles than internal combustion.

For the last point...imagine a generator as opposed to a car motor. The generator runs at MBT all day long, generating the most possibly power the most efficiently from the chemical energy of the fuel.

A car motor idles at stoplights, puts around in and out of it's powerband, and has to be designed to have more power on tap than is normally called for, making it run at less than maximum efficiency 99% of the time.

The only time a car motor is making the most work for fuel consumption is at the race track (considering you point is to travel, and you are expending fuel). Racing keeps the motor at high volumetric efficiency, and in it's powerband.


It's all about efficiency, or the old "sought over bought." You pay for fuel...you want to get somewhere. Right now you only get $0.30 back on every dollar you put into the tank energy-wise...and that's when you're going down the highway.


I consider our long term energy solutions less about fuel type, and more about an infrastructure format that focuses on MOST EFFICIENTLY extracting the energy from the fuel source, and delivering it to the point of work.

If I didn't have an exam in an hour I would have been able to expound on this a little more..but this is one of my favorite topics and I'll check back tomorrow.
Still not gonna work. Trade pollution for pollution. I guess that is a step in the right direction, but its still not a very big one. Plus again you are talking about huge money to update the infrastructure, which wouldn't be a bad thing anyway. Still though, I don't see it being a very good thing. You will have power plants running at full capacity all day and night with no off hours. There are better options on the horizon than this. Maybe when they make more efficient non lead batteries affordable I will be less against it, but for now I say its ****.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 09:19 PM   #19
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixshooter View Post
Carbon dioxide makes plants grow and without as much of it plants would not grow as well and people would starve. It just happens to be the "mal du jour" of the anti-deodorant and shaving crowd.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still whole companies that do nothing more than sell "carbon offset credits."

Heck, I booked a plane ticket online yesterday, and I had to actively tell the website that yes, I am a heartless bastard and do not wish to pay extra money to plant a tree somewhere to offset the carbon emissions that will be caused by my flying home for a few days. (Despite the fact that for the past month I have only ridden in a motor vehicle once, and that was when I took a cab from King St to 39th at 3:30 am when I didn't feel like walking to the subway station in the rain. Of course, the 600 VDC that powers the subway is probably generated by burning whale oil in an open pit.)


Quote:
How much better is that car's 800# of sulfuric acid and lead when it ends up in the water supply.
I'm sure that the EPA will figure out a way to make us pay for the batteries to be recycled in a facility built entirely out of discarded tampons and those things that hold a six-pack together. Same as how we currently pay an up-front disposal fee when we buy a tire, and in CA, you pay an electronic waste tax when you buy a new TV, laptop, etc. (Anything with an LCD > 4", a plasma screen, or a CRT.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
That would take huge amounts of money and would cause just that much more pollution from power plants. Only way this would be OK is if solar technology was more efficient and affordable and every car came with a panel to mount on the roof of your house to charge it
Workable if you live in Las Vegas. Not so much if you live in Baltimore. Useless if you live in Seattle.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gospeed81 View Post
Except for a few small things:

1. Power generation is much more efficient on a large scale...as done at power plants.
2. Conversion back into mechanical work in a vehicle is 95% effecient...compared to ~30% with gasoline.
3. Electric motor characteristics and power draw are much better suited to our driving styles than internal combustion.
Thank you.

#1 and #2 in particular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
Still not gonna work. Trade pollution for pollution.
As a matter of practicality, it is far easier to capture and sequester emissions produced by a single power station than those produced by a hundred thousand cars. Not only is there a certain economy of scale, but it's much simpler from a regulatory standpoint as well.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 09:53 PM   #20
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
As a matter of practicality, it is far easier to capture and sequester emissions produced by a single power station than those produced by a hundred thousand cars. Not only is there a certain economy of scale, but it's much simpler from a regulatory standpoint as well.
Understood, but again, the output of existing power plants will have to go way up and probably need to be upgraded, and no doubt a lot more would need to be built. It's still just a band-aid on a problem.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[CT] 1999 Mazda Miata 10th Anniversary Edition - $5800 Jike Spingleton Cars for sale/trade 3 09-20-2016 05:33 PM
Prepping my '95 for track asmasm Build Threads 82 05-26-2016 05:37 PM
FS/FT: 03.5 Mazdaspeed Protege leatherface24 Cars for sale/trade 15 10-16-2015 12:35 PM
Twitchy car (tail happy problem) bigben Race Prep 16 09-11-2015 04:41 PM
Annoying little leaks AlwaysBroken Engine Performance 5 09-06-2015 01:53 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 PM.