KD in CA Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's a great system for those worried about range. For most people's driving habits, that's not much gasoline usage. Anyway, despite all the "insurmountable" obstacles that have been pointed out in this thread, the technology will improve and most of you will likely own an electric car someday. Taking an anti-electric car stance based on the technology being endorsed by hippies is !@#$ing childish. Not surprising, but certainly !@#$ing childish. Who in this thread is talking about insurmountable obstacles or taking an anti-electric car stance? Half of this thread has been you making typically idiotic comments that you think are humorous and relevant to what others are saying (but are neither). I'd be pretty happy to not spend $80 at the pump every week, but the real issues of unit cost and availability of supporting infrastructure aren't going to be solved with more sweetheart deals for GM and their unions. As others have said, at this stage they are still just a toy for people with a lot of disposable income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's a great system for those worried about range. For most people's driving habits, that's not much gasoline usage. It really is. I'm just countering the silly "But what about winter!" argument. They'll still work...battery power may be reduced, but the cars will still run, and fairly efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) It really is. I'm just countering the silly "But what about winter!" argument. They'll still work...battery power may be reduced, but the cars will still run, and fairly efficiently. I never said it wouldn't run, but some reports have up to a 20-30% decrease in battery life in winter conditions. The great range of 100 miles/charge doesn't seem so great when it's only 70 or 80 in the winter. And that's assuming you have all the extra heaters needed to get it to charge well. I have no problems with an electric car, but you're crazy if you think they'll be a major player in the automobile scene anytime soon. It's cool technology and innovation, it just has a long way to go. Edited August 4, 2011 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 and then there's 0-60 in 3.1 secs! the idea of a nearly silent engine knocking my head into the headrest while accelerating from a stop sign is the best reason for moving ahead on this. When you go from 0-60 in 3 seconds, how would you not want to hear the roar of the engine and feel the power of the engine? Please turn in your man card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The SF Bay area was where a lot of Prisuses appeared. I have seen one Volt, and that was at a repair shop. The only way I knew it was a Volt was that it had a decal on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 When you go from 0-60 in 3 seconds, how would you not want to hear the roar of the engine and feel the power of the engine? Please turn in your man card ever heard of a paradigm shift? and once again, why would i ever look to you bozo's for a definition of manhood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 2 months ago the GM CEO called for $1 increase in gas tax. Coincidence? So after everyone goes green and drives a Volt, what will offset all the "revenue" from the gas tax? The Electric Car Fee Gas taxes are too low for the necessary infrastructure improvements. But I'm not going to trust the autocrats to actually funnel the taxes to where they need to go. If there is a serious desire to develop alternative fuels, then having a high gasoline price would be the best incentive to come up with the new system. Yet, when one rationally recognizes that Euro gasoline prices have been double those of US for generations, and yet no one has come up with a better mouse trap than the internal combustion fossil fuel variant, then perhaps more energy should be spent on perfecting the internal combustion engine and not chasing methane from rainbow farting unicorns as fuel. It's doubly ridiculous to subsidize corn growers to produce inefficient ethanol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 ever heard of a paradigm shift? and once again, why would i ever look to you bozo's for a definition of manhood? Of course, if you're driving a Volt, you have a continuously variable transmission and never feel the paradigm shift. It's doubly ridiculous to subsidize corn growers to produce inefficient ethanol. In fairness, it ain't the ethanol that's inefficient. It's the goddamn corn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I never said it wouldn't run, but some reports have up to a 20-30% decrease in battery life in winter conditions. The great range of 100 miles/charge doesn't seem so great when it's only 70 or 80 in the winter. And that's assuming you have all the extra heaters needed to get it to charge well. I have no problems with an electric car, but you're crazy if you think they'll be a major player in the automobile scene anytime soon. It's cool technology and innovation, it just has a long way to go. Tesla laughs at your extreme weather efficiency alarmism with heated/cooled battery packs! It was all in the article. The SF Bay area was where a lot of Prisuses appeared. I have seen one Volt, and that was at a repair shop. The only way I knew it was a Volt was that it had a decal on the side. Hardly anyone I knew had a DVD player in the late 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 In fairness, it ain't the ethanol that's inefficient. It's the goddamn corn. Yeah, of course now that the morons lifted the tarriff on Brazilian sugar ethanol, Brazilians don't want to sell it because they get better prices for selling sugar as food. Yeah, food inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Tesla laughs at your extreme weather efficiency alarmism with heated/cooled battery packs! It was all in the article. Hardly anyone I knew had a DVD player in the late 90s. No it wasn't, but why would I expect you to be smart enough to understand either what im talking about or what the article was talking about. Also, I believe this topic is on the Chevy Volt, but keep bringing up Tesla because that's a realistic option for most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Also, I believe this topic is on the Chevy Volt, but keep bringing up Tesla because that's a realistic option for most people. because tesla is the leader and its roadster is what can be accomplished now. at $110000 for a supercar it's really not outrageously priced. if chevy made it rather than a boutique company it might approach the cost of a corvette eventually. tesla is salient to any discussion of the volt and gm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 because tesla is the leader and its roadster is what can be accomplished now. at $110000 for a supercar it's really not outrageously priced. if chevy made it rather than a boutique company it might approach the cost of a corvette eventually. tesla is salient to any discussion of the volt and gm. Just like Ruth's Chris is salient to any discussion of the Whopper vs. the Big Mac. And that after you advocate taxing the **** out of people with the discretionary income to BUY a Tesla to begin with. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Just like Ruth's Chris is salient to any discussion of the Whopper vs. the Big Mac. And that after you advocate taxing the **** out of people with the discretionary income to BUY a Tesla to begin with. You're an idiot. ruths chris is overrated. there would still be plenty of people able to buy a tesla (or even a rolls, bentley, masserati, ferrarai... with what i proposed or even a VAT or punitive luxury tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Hardly anyone I knew had a DVD player in the late 90s. The government was not subsidizing and propping up companies that made DVD players in the 90s either I have no problem with electric cars. I think they are the future. My problem is the government interceding to pick winners. Let the free market play out I've noticed the Tesla name thrown about a few times in this thread. A bit of background info for those who don't know, the electric car company is named after a very brilliant inventor of the late 19th and 20th century. Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Tesla invented just about everything else. Edison was pushing his own inventions, including Direct Current. Tesla came up with another idea called Alternating Current. What if the government had intervened and picked a winner? They most likely would have picked Edison and the electrification of America would have taken a very different route *Edit - Re-read my post and realized I left out an important not in the first sentence. my bad Edited August 5, 2011 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 To be clear, it has a gas engine that drives a generator. All-electric drive train, though. Same basic idea they use in diesel submarines. Gas engine generating electricity = energy loss. Electricity to mechanical motion = energy loss. Oh and we need some watts to run the heater. Sounds like a winner to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Gas engine generating electricity = energy loss. Electricity to mechanical motion = energy loss. Oh and we need some watts to run the heater. Sounds like a winner to me. Gas engine to mechanical motion = greater energy loss than the sum of the above two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Ideal systems only exist on college professors' blackboards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 No it wasn't, but why would I expect you to be smart enough to understand either what im talking about or what the article was talking about. Also, I believe this topic is on the Chevy Volt, but keep bringing up Tesla because that's a realistic option for most people. Tesla's advancing battery technology, just like Chevy. In fact lots of companies are working on this. Tesla happens to be making breakthroughs which make your argument go the way of the Laser Disc, but keep on working under the assumption that technology is static if it supports your position. The government was not subsidizing and propping up companies that made DVD players in the 90s either I have no problem with electric cars. I think they are the future. My problem is the government interceding to pick winners. Let the free market play out I've noticed the Tesla name thrown about a few times in this thread. A bit of background info for those who don't know, the electric car company is named after a very brilliant inventor of the late 19th and 20th century. Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Tesla invented just about everything else. Edison was pushing his own inventions, including Direct Current. Tesla came up with another idea called Alternating Current. What if the government had intervened and picked a winner? They most likely would have picked Edison and the electrification of America would have taken a very different route *Edit - Re-read my post and realized I left out an important not in the first sentence. my bad DVD players were not vital to national security. Electric cars reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is in our country's interest. Gas engine generating electricity = energy loss. Electricity to mechanical motion = energy loss. Oh and we need some watts to run the heater. Sounds like a winner to me. Every !@#$ing system you or anyone else can think of has energy loss. That's how it works and your argument has no merit whatsoever. The gas engine is nothing more than a backup system that takes over when you've exceeded your battery's range. WTF is your point here? Ideal systems only exist on college professors' blackboards, To borrow from Tom, you are an idiot. Any form of modern energy production started on a blackboard somewhere. Those evil professors!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 To borrow from Tom, you are an idiot. Any form of modern energy production started on a blackboard somewhere. Those evil professors!!! Usually as ideal approximations, thus made practical by engineers. There was a HUGE amount of work it took to make Einstein's blackboard into an atomic bomb. And you're all idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts