|
|
|
|
 |
DrWhiner
 |
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Elon Musk made over $100 million dollars from starting PayPal.
|
Dig a little deeper. He was NOT amongst those who co-founded paypal, though he may want everyone to believe otherwise.
When will such "supercharger" network ready? Who is going to fund it? Tesla? I think not. The government? Isn't it another form of subsidy?
Seats seven? Two on laps of others?
What's the usable range after a few 0-60mph runs?
As much cvargo room as SUV? Let's be specific: what SUV you are talking about?
What the time to recharge the 85 kWh batt. using a 220V charger(the most likely scenario at your home)?
|
DrWhiner
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
No surprise that the badly designed Mitsubishi barely sells, while Tesla has a 10,000 customer waiting list.
|
According to Tesla, cancellations rose in the third quarter as it asked the first several thousand customers on the reservations list to configure their cars for delivery ...
Leaf also got overwhelming reservations, not that long ago.
According to MT, | all of our testing, including a few dragstrip runs just for photography, had consumed 13 miles. And the car's computer was predicting that at the abusive rate we were going, our Model S was only good for another...40 miles. |
Start to endpoint, it looked to be about 240 miles. Even with the A/C off (but with ventilation on), cruise control set at 65 mph, and the body lowered on its air suspension, the car's range prediction quickly went sour. Out came the iPad and iPhone maps to nervously ponder shortcuts to the I-5 prior to San Diego.[...] But there's also something that's underappreciated by these laboratory tests: the impact of ordinary driving chaos, even in moderate traffic. [...]
"My leg is starting to hurt," Benson suddenly said, and I was simultaneously thinking that I wouldn't want to drive much more than 265 miles in these seats anyway. They're beautiful, but the seat bottoms are too thin and firm. |
Well, if I pay over 100k for this, I sure want to be able to enjoy the drive!
The model S may be a techno achievement, but the hype has gone too far.....
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
RolledaNsx wrote:
First the US Gov pulled the second half of the loan(500 mil USD)
because the model(4 door sedan) promised isn't ready.That was the only model in the original sales pitch to investors that would make the company profitably.The sports car was just a image for the technology and it is failing daily!!!!!!
Every other day a fire here a fire there!!!!!
Then the one that Consumers Reports buys breaks down the very first day(need a new battery) and they do like the technology,the look of it but don't recommend people to spend their money on it! |
You are confused. The company that is having these problems is Fisker, which builds the Karma plug-in hybrid, NOT Tesla.
Fisker Karma recalled because of fire hazard: http://www.insideline.com/fisker/karma/2012/2012-fisker-karma-recalled-following-california-fire.html
Fisker Karma breaks down at Consumer Reports test center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivhp-i6i3vE
This is a DIFFERENT company than Tesla. If you are going to weigh in on this debate, maybe you better get your facts straight, because you screwed up big time here.
I guess you don't read Insideline or other automotive sites.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
You reported in another thread that Honda employees told you that an FCX Clarity costs $1.2 Million just to build.
|
Really? Show me his post.
|
http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1090955 @ 09-03-2012 22:50
HONDA AFVM wrote:
xAbSoLuTexZeRo wrote:
I header the FCX cost like $1 million USD to produce, so maybe that answers your question haha...but maybe it was exaggeration.
HONDA AFVM, you are one lucky dude. I hope to be as 'exclusive' as you someday. May I ask how you have your association with Honda? :)
|
Actually $1.2 million dollars per unit......My association with Honda is from many years of aggressive interest in Alt Fuels. I have built relationships with many, visible and not visible (source/s)...... These two kind men have been friends of mine for 8 years and 15 years......... |
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Elon Musk made over $100 million dollars from starting PayPal.
|
Dig a little deeper. He was NOT amongst those who co-founded paypal, though he may want everyone to believe otherwise. |
Elon's company merged with another company, and the combined company became paypal as we know it today.
According to SEC filings, Mr. Musk was the biggest shareholder of Paypal at one point, and owned 11.7% of outstanding shares: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103415/000091205702009834/a2073071z10-k405.htm
However, this was tangential to my point. My point was that Mr. Musk bet virtually ALL the money he made in Internet ventures on Tesla and SpaceX. Mr. Musk may be slightly crazy, but he put his time and money where is mouth is.
| When will such "supercharger" network ready? Who is going to fund it? Tesla? I think not. The government? Isn't it another form of subsidy? |
6 supercharger stations are already deployed in California:
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
Tesla plans to have all of California covered soon (early 2013, and a nationwide Supercharger network by the end of 2014. Deployment is in conjunction with SolarCity, which makes money by feeding power back into the electric grid.
You can spread all the FUD you want about "government" and "subsidy", but keep in mind that the petroleum industry and companies that build conventional automobiles have had plenty of government subsidies.
| Seats seven? Two on laps of others? |
There are 2 rear-facing jump seats that are available as an option. It's similar to what you might find in an old Volvo station wagon:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/interior
This is meant for small children, but it still adds flexibility to the Model S.
| What's the usable range after a few 0-60mph runs? |
It depends on how many 0-60 runs the driver did, how hard they hammered the throttle, and how efficiently they drive afterwards.
Exactly the same answer I would give if someone asked me the same question about a gasoline automobile.
A gasoline car will also expend a lot of fuel after hard 0-60 runs.
Top Gear hammered the shit out of a Prius, reducing its fuel economy to 17.2 MPG: http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f10/how-get-17-mpg-top-gear-36-a-20530/
| As much cvargo room as SUV? Let's be specific: what SUV you are talking about? |
Ok, definitely not as much room as a Pilot, but at 31.6 cubic feet (hatch+frunk), that's within spitting distance of the small Mazda CX-5. The sloping rear hatch of the Model S is most similar to the Crosstour, and the rear cargo volume is similar too. 25.7 ft3 for the Crosstour, 26.3 ft3 for the Model S. With seats folded down, the Model S has 58.1 ft3, while the Crosstour has 51.3 ft3, and the CR-V 70.9.
So yes, I exaggerate, but the cargo capacity of the Model S is still quite good. An Accord sedan (non-hybrid), by comparison, only has 15.8 ft3 cargo space, half that of the Model S.
What the time to recharge the 85 kWh batt. using a 220V charger(the most likely scenario at your home)?
|
With just a normal 220V, Tesla says "overnight", which I am guessing means 8-10 hours:
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/models/faq
The Home Charging station they sell has higher capacity:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/charging#/highpower
| A High Power Wall Connector is installed on a 240 volt circuit and can be supplied with up to twice the amperage as an outlet. At maximum amperage it supplies two times more power than the Single Charger can process. This is where Twin Chargers come into play, doubling the charging capacity to 20 kW to match the output of the High Power Wall Connector. |
62 miles of range per hour of charging.
This does require some mindset adjustment on the part of the driver. The car becomes like a smartphone. Plug it in at night, and it is ready to go in the morning.
On the flip side, will also save the driver time later on, because there will never be a need to go to a petrol station. People will only have to use the Supercharging stations during long road trips, which probably won't be all that often.
The average American driving 15k/year is putting 41 miles/day on their car. Even someone putting 30k/year on their car is only driving an average of 82 miles/day. The 265 mile range of the Tesla is enough that range should not be a concern for most customers.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
According to Tesla, cancellations rose in the third quarter as it asked the first several thousand customers on the reservations list to configure their cars for delivery ...
Leaf also got overwhelming reservations, not that long ago. |
Cancellations rose, but you don't say how many, or what percentage of customers this represents.
Also, some of those cancellations were people who decided they didn't want a Model S because they saw the Model X crossover prototype (estimated 2014 production) and wanted to hold out for the bigger CUV.
According to MT, | all of our testing, including a few dragstrip runs just for photography, had consumed 13 miles. And the car's computer was predicting that at the abusive rate we were going, our Model S was only good for another...40 miles. |
| Start to endpoint, it looked to be about 240 miles. Even with the A/C off (but with ventilation on), cruise control set at 65 mph, and the body lowered on its air suspension, the car's range prediction quickly went sour. |
|
As I stated previously, ANY car that is severely pushed will return terrible fuel economy and suffer range penalty. This is true for electric or gasoline powertrains. A Prius that is run ragged gets less than 20 MPG, from Top Gear's test.
Insideline got 265 miles. I think 240-265 miles is plenty for most people. Even if one drives an average of 100 miles/day, which is quite a lot, a ~250 mile range leaves plenty of buffer.
| "My leg is starting to hurt," Benson suddenly said, and I was simultaneously thinking that I wouldn't want to drive much more than 265 miles in these seats anyway. They're beautiful, but the seat bottoms are too thin and firm. |
Well, if I pay over 100k for this, I sure want to be able to enjoy the drive!
The model S may be a techno achievement, but the hype has gone too far..... |
Tesla won't get things 100% right. The Model S is only their second product, so it's almost a given that there will be some things that they get wrong.
I know, for example, that rear headroom in the model S is tight for tall people. There initially weren't any small storage compartments either, although Tesla did add a small shelf to the center console for sunglasses after reading customer feedback.
I acknowledge that there are also a lot of unknowns with electric powertrains. We know that the NiMH packs in the Prius hold up very well over time, but only time will tell if the LiIon batteries in EVs will hold up as well. Tesla has yet to develop a track record for reliability. However, the same also applies to fuel cell vehicles. How well will the fuel cell stack hold up after 3, 5 and 10 years of use? How durable will the pressurized hydrogen tank be? The FCX Clarity also uses a LiIon pack for regenerative brakes. Again, only time will tell. However, from a design and technology standpoint, I think Tesla has done a great job, and they've outline a vision and a path to get there. I don't see the same push from Honda with the FCX Clarity and FCEVs. They have said next to nothing about future fuel cell products and where the price curve is going. I see nothing about infrastructure. This is what I mean about Honda being distracted and losing time and mindshare against competitors.
|
RolledaNsx
|
|
atomiclightbulb
oops!!! too much blueberry last night :)~
I got those too confuse!
At this moment EV only works as a second car(work commute or live inner city) but that is ok!
In the 80's my father drove 200 miles everyday to work round trip so he bought a bottom of the line Chevy Sprint(I3 5 sd manuel 60 mpg).Today he couldn't buy a EV to be a work drive car because the EV costs to much and the range,hopefully find a recharge center to get home!
So only the upper middle class and rich will be able to afford them at the moment.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
RolledaNsx wrote:
atomiclightbulb
oops!!! too much blueberry last night :)~
I got those too confuse!
At this moment EV only works as a second car(work commute or live inner city) but that is ok!
In the 80's my father drove 200 miles everyday to work round trip so he bought a bottom of the line Chevy Sprint(I3 5 sd manuel 60 mpg).Today he couldn't buy a EV to be a work drive car because the EV costs to much and the range,hopefully find a recharge center to get home!
So only the upper middle class and rich will be able to afford them at the moment.
|
Hey, no problem. Being confused after having a bit to drink is understandable.
Yes, right now EVs like Tesla are priced such that only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford them. Hopefully, as the technology expands in volume, prices will go down due to economies of scale. Personal computers and mobile phones were also once easily available only to those with lots of money. Today, PCs and mobile phones are big volume products that average people can purchase. If EVs work out, I think that prices will become affordable to most carbuyers.
|
DCR
|
|
The biggest problem the EV vehicle has is that the gas vehicle is still around, and there are millions of them ranging in prices available to all. With increased reliability from nearly every major manufacturer, along with increased technology in ICE development, the EV just simply has too many drawbacks for the normal mainstream buyer in comparison. Also, I do not think EV's have consumer confidence in any way, and I think some good marketing could help that. The car has to make sense for people to buy it in volume.
Second, the gas vehicle has an answer for any advantage the EV presents, and because of that, it is very easy to advertise against, and hard to advertise for. I am sure many of us have discussed EV's with people at one time or another, and what almost always comes out is the range anxiety, lack of charging options away from home and cost.
|
TonyEX
|
|
I think the business case for the Fit EV is as a real world experiment where a fuel cell can be loaded and tested in a cheap car. The Clarity is one hell of an expensive car just by itself.
I dare say that when the Clarity project finally gets canceled, we'll see a Fit Fuel Cell (Fit FCX) replacement -based on the Fit EV.
As in other recent threads in TOV... the portfolio of alternative fuels at HMC/AHM points out towards series hybrids.
Electric motors powering the wheels and some type of an electricity generator: battery, fuel cell, gas engine, NG engine, Fred Flinstone like foot power, rabid hamsters on amphetamines running on a wheel... you name it.
The next gen single motor IMA2 is an example of this. It could easily be powered by NG and it's obviously a step towards a non ICE car.
And yes, batteries are just too poor. Actually, to me, a series hybrid -IMA2- with a NG ICE running a generator makes the most sense for the next 20 years.
+++
Toyota pulling out.... well it seems to me that Toyota's hybrid model is too inflexible, it does not lend itself to series hybrids and thus it makes no sense for them to spend the money on the portfolio of technologies that would yield experience and value from an EV. After all, Synergy is based upon the planetary transmission... with the ICE and electric motor both inputting torque into the transmission.... IMA, OTOH, was born as a serial system... which actually makes it far more flexible.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
atomic
Thank you for your comments.
Regrettably, other priorities prevented earlier reply.
Varied comments in no particular order after reading all your posts on this thread and reading your Tesla S URL.
Firstly, Beautifully styled car. Gorgeous.
Plus some innovative thinking. It seems they're serious about the car business.
Secondly, I need to acknowledge that the figures you cite on the Tesla are impressive.
Concurrently I hope you can see the inherent problem in the figures. Weight.
Weight means inefficiency.
| And it rings up good numbers at our test track: 66.8 mph through the slalom and 0.86 g on the skid pad are not bad for a machine that weighs 400 pounds more than a Panamera GTS despite riding on rubber that's skinnier by 10mm in front and 30mm out back. |
Recharging time is impressively better than expected. Although spending 30 minutes every 150 miles would make a cross-country trip frustrating. That's hardly a performance car, is it?
Expensive. Yet no more than a loaded luxury IC.
That will though make it difficult to produce and sell small cars, won't it?
Admittedly, in some ways this is a new field technologically.
Yet batteries have developed rapidly in recent years. Despite that it remains the Achilles heal.
Given the amount of development in recent years it's difficult to see a solution emerging.
I accept your point about economies of scale. That's well proven empirically.
Yet batteries are not new.
Electric motors and drive train are highly reliable and powerful and simple. All strong positives.
Yet range remains the killer.
Drive it vigorously and range plummets. Simple physics explains the reason.
Re my comment about your smoking. I acknowledge your hurt and annoyance. No harm was intended. It was a crude and poor attempt at humour. NO, it was not an attempt to imply you're a druggie. I regret my comment.
Is my previously negative comment on Tesla based on its earlier model and the delays in that car's release and poor reliability? Or am I wrong and confused with another luxury EV manufacturer?
Commenting on unreliability is not being disingenuous. It's fact. Very few if any Honda's were inherently unreliable.
You imply that you won't respond to indirect comments. That's your choice. I'm not going to spell out the obvious significance of my comment about Toyota's ownership of Tesla yet Toyota sees limited future in EV's. :) If you want to avoid that, fine.
One concern is that you somehow think that people who differ with your views have a responsibility to respond to your posts. You say, quoteI await responses from yourself,
HONDA AFVM,
and Jeff. |
I honestly thought I'd be replying much earlier than I have. Other priorities.
Hammering an IC car reduces its range. Hammering a battery car though almost kills its range. There's a significant difference here. It cannot be glossed over.
You say, quote:62 miles of range per hour of charging.
This does require some mindset adjustment on the part of the driver. |
Other comments:
Waldo makes sense to meSo you are willing to buy a $37,000 Accord that has an 8 cu. ft. trunk to save 30% on your gas bill? If that 10-15 mile range will do that for you, it means you don't drive very much, and it makes the equation even less logical. A Civic or Fit will also save you 30%, hold more stuff, and cost half the price.
Anyway, my main point is the the Toyota announcement has hit the news all over, and Toyota has most of the "green cred" in the auto business. Their announcement has effectively killed plug-in cars as a viable choice. The politicians will also heed this announcement, and back away from forcing this on an unresponsive public. |
Jeff makes sense too, in my opinion, quote:that $1.2M figure is bogus. I was told that the very first prototypes that the media drove were probably around that price, but I have been told told that the "production" FCX's arriving in lessee's driveways are much, much cheaper. No actual figures were given to me but when I asked I was told it was on the order of $100k, not $1M. And also told that the costs are dropping steadily.
Sorry, the Tesla may be a nice car with good performance but there isn't much of a future for BEVs as they stand today or even as the technology projects for the next 5-10 years. FCVs, Hybrids, and PHEVs are the way forward.
The new Accord PHEV is brilliant. I just hope it doesn't cost too much. |
Tesla S has one huge downfall against the Clarity: refill time.
Tesla S is further down the evolution track. That implies there is less upside.
As I see it, Clarity is a very new technology and progress is rapid with plenty of potential for further improvement.
In my opinion, 6SPDTL hits the nail too, quote| You cant cheat the laws of thermodynamics. For electric vehicles to compete against internal combustion batteries would have to increase their energy density 3-4 fold. It doesnt matter how you color a turd, its still a turd. Even the most advanced batteries in the market are nowhere close to that. If the government were really interested in developing batteries as if it were a national priority it would stop throwing money around aimlessly and would establish a manhattan project type public effort. |
Energy density, recharge time and cost. All are inherent hurdles. All currently reflect years of development and progress. yet remain well above customers' expectations and have limited scope for progress. ie, much less potential upside.
You say, quote| Increasing the battery energy density by 3-4 times would give the Model S a range of 795-1060 miles, which far exceeds most gasoline powered cars today. |
Pardon me, that's an indirect statement. You say you don't reply to them. Ah well.
As DrWhiner quotedall of our testing, including a few dragstrip runs just for photography, had consumed 13 miles. And the car's computer was predicting that at the abusive rate we were going, our Model S was only good for another...40 miles.
Start to endpoint, it looked to be about 240 miles. Even with the A/C off (but with ventilation on), cruise control set at 65 mph, and the body lowered on its air suspension, the car's range prediction quickly went sour. |
You discuss averages. I'm always wary about averages. They hide significant points and understanding. One of the beauties of the IC car is its enormous flexibility. Typically drive a few miles each day, no problems. Occasionally need to drive 500 miles quickly, no problems. Need to go off route, no problems. Need to stay in one area for limited time, no problems. IC cars provide enormous choice and flexibility.
Are there safety concerns about having a massive sandwich floor of many of Li-ion batteries? Genuine question.
A small hybrid battery or fuel tank can be protected and isolated in crashes.
For me, DCR nails it, quoteThe biggest problem the EV vehicle has is that the gas vehicle is still around, and there are millions of them ranging in prices available to all. With increased reliability from nearly every major manufacturer, along with increased technology in ICE development, the EV just simply has too many drawbacks for the normal mainstream buyer in comparison. Also, I do not think EV's have consumer confidence in any way, and I think some good marketing could help that. The car has to make sense for people to buy it in volume.
Second, the gas vehicle has an answer for any advantage the EV presents, and because of that, it is very easy to advertise against, and hard to advertise for. I am sure many of us have discussed EV's with people at one time or another, and what almost always comes out is the range anxiety, lack of charging options away from home and cost. |
My conclusions, for what it's worth:
- Tesla S is impressive in many ways
- there are some positives to EV's.
EV's are burdened though with inherent handicaps:
- recharge time
- range on anything but a monster battery that requires inefficiently accelerating, braking and hauling a huge weight burden worsened by having to lug correspondingly heavier suspension components, brakes, motor, ...
- limited upside opportunity for rapid development of key components that have progressed in recent decades: battery
- battery charge density
- battery cost.
These are serious. To a large extent they seem inherent and with limited prospect of being overcome.
Like the Prius, Tesla's S model will sell as a fashion statement and as a benefit under some narrow applications.
Yes, I acknowledge that some IC cars are bought as fashion statements. Secondly, it's fine for people to buy fashion statements if that's their priority. IC cars though allow people to choose fashion or practicality. EV's do not unless one is restricted to short city commutes and has no need of flexibility. Yet even then cost comes into the picture negatively.
And that is where IC's have a huge advantage. Flexibility and price.
It's the inherent disadvantage that cause me to draw almost entirely negative conclusions about EV's. They're not suited to convenient, cost-effective transportation across the current auto market's wide range of user needs.
Thank you atomic. Without your posts I wouldn't have learned anywhere nearly as much as I did.
Malcolm
:)
PS
Tony, interesting summary comments on Toyota hybrid.
Honda does superior engineering driven by longer-term approach and sound philosophy.
Toyota superior marketing.
I suspect you're forecasts will prove correct.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
EV batteries. Nissan Twig:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/29/no-future-in-sight-for-electric-cars-says-toyota-german-auto-economics-professor/
Chevy Dolt:
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/10/02/chevy-volt-leases-costing-taxpayers-10-gallon-gas-saved
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/09/26/record-volt-sales-not-really-gm-counts-159-leases-89000-car
Malcolm
:)
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.Concurrently I hope you can see the inherent problem in the figures. Weight.
Weight means inefficiency.
| And it rings up good numbers at our test track: 66.8 mph through the slalom and 0.86 g on the skid pad are not bad for a machine that weighs 400 pounds more than a Panamera GTS despite riding on rubber that's skinnier by 10mm in front and 30mm out back. |
|
The Tesla Model S is heavy, and that contributes to inefficiency, but that's only half the equation. The electric powertrain is very efficient and rates 89 MPGe: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32557. The Panamera cannot realistically come close to equaling this efficiency.
We should also look at how the Honda FCX Clarity compares to the Honda Accord 4-cylinder (closest match in performance).
3582 lbs for the FCX Clarity: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx
3279 lbs for the 2012 Honda Accord LX K24+5AT: http://automobiles.honda.com/2012/accord-sedan/specifications.aspx
3254 lbs for the 2013 Honda Accord LX K24W+CVT: http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/specifications.aspx
The FCX Clarity weighs 300+ lbs. more than the 2013 Accord LX CVT. Nobody is complaining that the Clarity is inefficient because of its weight.
| Recharging time is impressively better than expected. Although spending 30 minutes every 150 miles would make a cross-country trip frustrating. That's hardly a performance car, is it? |
The longest driving trips I've taken are in the 400-600 mile range. That's typically 7-10 hours of driving, with stops every 3 hours or so for food and/or restroom breaks. If I have to drive a longer distance, I'll make it a multi-day trip, or book an airline flight.
So lets say I am driving a Model S and there are Supercharger stations available along my route, which is, say 450 miles. I start out with ~265 miles of charge, and drive at an average of 65 MPH. After 3 hours, I have driven 195 miles, leaving 70 miles of range in the car. Take a 40 minute rest stop to buy lunch, eat lunch, use restrooms. During that 40 minutes, I add 150 miles of range, bringing my car up to 220 miles. Drive another 3 hours, same avg. speed: total of 390 miles, 25 miles left. Stop again for 30 minutes to have a snack, use restrooms, and walk around. Car charges up to 175 miles. Get back in car and drive to destination 60 miles away.
I think that road trips are doable in a Tesla Model S, provided that there is a Supercharger network available. Trips of 400-500 miles are not that much different than what one would expect from a gasoline car.
Drive it vigorously and range plummets. Simple physics explains the reason....
Hammering an IC car reduces its range. Hammering a battery car though almost kills its range. There's a significant difference here. It cannot be glossed over. |
I don't floor my Honda Accord or blast it from 0-60 at WOT multiple times during my drives. Some people might, but most I would guess will not. I think it is unrealistic to expect that a Tesla Model S will be using all of their horsepower all the time in normal driving.
| Re my comment about your smoking. I acknowledge your hurt and annoyance. No harm was intended. It was a crude and poor attempt at humour. NO, it was not an attempt to imply you're a druggie. I regret my comment. |
No problem. Jokes are sometimes hard to see through text on a message board. I am no longer offended.
| Is my previously negative comment on Tesla based on its earlier model and the delays in that car's release and poor reliability? Or am I wrong and confused with another luxury EV manufacturer? |
You may be thinking of Fisker, which makes the competing Karma plug-in hybrid. The Karma has had several fire incidents, and the test model purchased by Consumer Reports broke down shortly after delivery. The CEO of Tesla is actually rivals with the guy running Fisker.
The Tesla Model S roadster sports car has had sporadic issues with batteries being bricked, but as far as I know there have not been disastrous failures like the Karma has experienced.
| Commenting on unreliability is not being disingenuous. It's fact. Very few if any Honda's were inherently unreliable. |
I'm not so sure about that. Again, I refer to the 5AT disaster 10 years ago, and the CVT on the Civic Hybrid based on the 7G Civic. The latter received many black marks in the Consumer Reports reliability survey.
One concern is that you somehow think that people who differ with your views have a responsibility to respond to your posts. You say, quoteI await responses from yourself,
HONDA AFVM,
and Jeff. |
...
I honestly thought I'd be replying much earlier than I have. Other priorities. |
You are in no position to make this criticism. You yourself demand responses to your own statements in the Politics and News forum.
You always write "Still waiting" when someone contradicts you, you respond, and they haven't yet responded.
Examples:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1094752 @ 09-12-2012 01:31, 09-12-2012 03:51, 09-12-2012 15:41, etc.
and
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1086659 @ 08-20-2012 09:23, 08-24-2012 01:26, 08-24-2012 16:26
and
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1097118 @ 09-20-2012 16:42, 09-20-2012 16:46, 09-20-2012 17:10
If Jeff or HONDA AFVM wish to respond, they will, and on their own time. I stated ONCE that I awaited yours and their response, and I did not raise the matter again.
Contrast this to you, who post over and over again demanding responses from those who disagree with you in the Politics forum.
Do not presume to lecture me on this. It is hypocritical.
| The implications for 4WD in the bush are horrific. |
Electric vehicles may not be practical for all applications. I never claimed that they were. Most drivers in the U.S. are not using 4WD vehicles in the desert.
Other comments:
Waldo makes sense to me| So you are willing to buy a $37,000 Accord that has an 8 cu. ft. trunk to save 30% on your gas bill? If that 10-15 mile range will do that for you, it means you don't drive very much, and it makes the equation even less logical. A Civic or Fit will also save you 30%, hold more stuff, and cost half the price. |
|
Some people are willing to spend $30,000 on a Subaru BR-Z sports car with a tiny trunk so that they can do burnouts on a track. A Civic or Fit will be $10,000 cheaper, hold more stuff, and cost far less to insure.
It depends on what one's priorities are. This isn't always about saving money.
| Tesla S has one huge downfall against the Clarity: refill time |
Not really. This assumes that there is a plan for hydrogen refill infrastructure around the United States. There isn't, as far as I can tell.
Are there safety concerns about having a massive sandwich floor of many of Li-ion batteries? Genuine question.
A small hybrid battery or fuel tank can be protected and isolated in crashes. |
Anything with a lot of energy can burn or explode. I don't see how batteries are any different than a fuel tank.
EV's are burdened though with inherent handicaps:
- recharge time
- range on anything but a monster battery that requires inefficiently accelerating, braking and hauling a huge weight burden worsened by having to lug correspondingly heavier suspension components, brakes, motor, ...
- limited upside opportunity for rapid development of key components that have progressed in recent decades: battery
- battery charge density
- battery cost.
These are serious. To a large extent they seem inherent and with limited prospect of being overcome. |
A few years ago, recharging a battery to 150 miles capacity in 30 minutes would have seemed ridiculous. Today, Tesla's products show that it is a reality.
Nobody can predict how quickly BEV technology will progress, but I believe that there is potential here. BEVs may or may not work out. The existence of a well-engineered electric car, the Model S, is evidence to me that BEVs cannot be written off yet.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Absolutely agree to many points!
The reality is that the so called mature and established technology is in detail not that mature.
Burning cars - "Big 3"? Fords recalls? Even Porsche has had their share...
4WD in the bush? Well reality is diesel out there is often so bad that the new common rails systems are failing and repair shops have no idea how to calibrate a new injector.
Not even mentioning the retrofit of so many 4WD to manage blow by gas to keep the engine oil from degrading and turbo clean.
Fact is in most extreme applications Electro drivetrains are state of the art and will trickle down to simple applications; look at NASA.
Honda basically copied the locomotive approach for the accord.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thanks atomic.
Three points.
1. I had no idea the Clarity was so heavy.
Hadn't thought about it.
2. Still waiting refers to calling believers on their false claims that they have evidence that human CO2 does what they claim. That's my way of reinforcing that they have none.
3. I accept many of your points.
Conclusion remains the same for reasons mentioned. People value flexibility and freedom.
Why use electricity when oil is fine?
Maybe though based on your comments the EV market will be bigger than I expect.
Ultimately, providing government gets put back in its box, the market will decide: objectively aggregating millions of independent hearts and minds making independent decisions.
We'll know in a decade.
I suspect we'll know in a few years.
And stay off the drugs :)
Malcolm
:)
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
The problem with EVs is that although they are heavy, the primary advantage is that you have a large degree of freedom on where you want to put the battery pack.
Case in point for the Tesla: It has phenomenal braking and handling numbers. You'll also notice that it has a 48/52 weight distribution, the BACK rotors are larger than the fronts, and there are numerous comments about the lack of dive when braking, and roll when cornering. You can thank a low center of gravity (and resulting roll moment) for that... because the majority of the vehicle's weight from the battery packs are located basically at/slightly below the wheel centerline.
MalcolmR, you seem to feel that the use of hybridization and electrification as alternative sources in petrol vehicles can only be construed as a countermeasure against CO2. However, as we are now seeing, there are greater degrees of freedom in vehicle design... and even improvement in performance.
People do have a choice, you are right, and that should drive the sales of cars. The Tesla Model S is a good enough car on its own right to sell, federal tax breaks or not. A decade ago, people were criticizing vehicles like the Toyota Prius for not being practical; it's only about a decade later and that viewpoint has changed (or rather... it's been transferred to BEVs).
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
2. Still waiting refers to calling believers on their false claims that they have evidence that human CO2 does what they claim. That's my way of reinforcing that they have none. |
I don't care if you call people out in every thread and every post you make at ToV. However, if you are going to call people out while simultaneously objecting when other people ask for a response from you, that looks bad. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Even if you do not intend insult, that's what is conveyed.
3. I accept many of your points.
Conclusion remains the same for reasons mentioned. People value flexibility and freedom.
Why use electricity when oil is fine? |
CarPhreakD covered many of engineering advantages of electric powertrains already. However, I will add that electric motors like the ones Tesla uses provide massive amounts of torque throughout the entire rev range of the motor. The powertrain is instantaneously responsive on a level beyond that of the vast majority of gasoline engines, and nearly silent as well. The experience of this is enough to be a big selling point.
People bought Honda's 8G Civic Si because the K20Z3 provided a unique sky-high RPM experience that no other sport compact provided. Tesla is similar in that it provides its own unique driver experience that some buyers may value highly.
Ultimately, providing government gets put back in its box, the market will decide: objectively aggregating millions of independent hearts and minds making independent decisions.
We'll know in a decade.
I suspect we'll know in a few years. |
I believe that the marketplace will decide regardless of government interference. A car like the i-MiEV, which sucks, is not going to sell well regardless of tax breaks and subsidies, because it is designed poorly and does not serve consumers well. The vast majority of people are NOT going to buy a car that is ugly, has terrible ergonomics, and performs poorly, just because they get a couple thousand dollars in tax breaks.
In the same manner, a car like the Model S, which has excellent levels of performance, utility, and design, will sell well, because it has what buyers want. The tax incentives are largely irrelevant to buyers. I have consistently written here at ToV that government use of the tax code to influence people's behavior is generally a waste. People are going to buy what they want.
So I actually agree with you on this point, mostly. We'll know in a few years how EVs will fare in the marketplace. Nobody knows yet what will happen.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you CarPhreakD
| The problem with EVs is that although they are heavy, the primary advantage is that you have a large degree of freedom on where you want to put the battery pack. |
Nonetheless, weight means inefficiency. To justify the inefficiency of dragging around so much weight there need to be major improvements in other efficiencies.
| Case in point for the Tesla: It has phenomenal braking and handling numbers. You'll also notice that it has a 48/52 weight distribution, the BACK rotors are larger than the fronts, and there are numerous comments about the lack of dive when braking, and roll when cornering. You can thank a low center of gravity (and resulting roll moment) for that... because the majority of the vehicle's weight from the battery packs are located basically at/slightly below the wheel centerline. |
| MalcolmR, you seem to feel that the use of hybridization and electrification as alternative sources in petrol vehicles can only be construed as a countermeasure against CO2. However, as we are now seeing, there are greater degrees of freedom in vehicle design... and even improvement in performance. |
I agree that there could be huge benefits in terms of vehicle design.
| People do have a choice, you are right, and that should drive the sales of cars. The Tesla Model S is a good enough car on its own right to sell, federal tax breaks or not. A decade ago, people were criticizing vehicles like the Toyota Prius for not being practical; it's only about a decade later and that viewpoint has changed (or rather... it's been transferred to BEVs). |
The market will tell. Whether weight continues as the enemy of car makers and users or is overcome by technological advances that bring more new freedoms, some as yet unseen.
Wind power has been available for centuries. It once dominated the shipping industry. We saw forecasts and concepts ten years ago, yet nothing emerged.
Time will tell and markets will reveal.
Malcolm
:)
|
saitamahonda
|
|
I would not be so hasty to write off EV's.
The truth is the government and law makers are not aware of the type of research that is going on behind closed doors on the campuses of universities and private sector.
Flow battery technology has much promise to be the replacement to gasoline while retaining current infrastructure, as well as the possibility of having quick charge EV plugs at the gas stations.
The problem with EVs are both environmental and cost, yet there are new innovations that will eliminate the need for lithium in batteries. I won't go into details but Honda and many Japanese universities are experimenting with battery technology that do not require metal or lithium to be used. Lithium is the most costly resource to current EV battery tech, and it is soon to be replaced. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I wouldn't under-estimate innovation. Honda is deep into carbon nano-tube research and practical application, and Yuasa will undoubtedly be working with the universities that have created a new battery that doesn't use lithium or metal anodes.
The US is too hasty and doesn't see past quarterly earnings, whereas Honda and these emerging technologies have 10-15 year time-horizons. Battery technology and cost will significantly reduce in this time frame. It's been reported that current battery technology will become drastically cheaper to produce by 2015. I believe this was announced by Toyota in Japan. While the US prolongs hybrids, Japan will have achieved smart grids and will have more EVs than petrol cars or hybrids by 2025. It's all about what kind of vision a country has for the future and aspiring for what its people needs. I'm pretty certain the US will come around and further EV/FC technology. If not, the US might be one of a few countries stuck in the oil-age while emerging markets create advanced cities built on smart grids and EV tech.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you CarPhreakD
| The problem with EVs is that although they are heavy, the primary advantage is that you have a large degree of freedom on where you want to put the battery pack. |
Nonetheless, weight means inefficiency. To justify the inefficiency of dragging around so much weight there need to be major improvements in other efficiencies.
| Case in point for the Tesla: It has phenomenal braking and handling numbers. You'll also notice that it has a 48/52 weight distribution, the BACK rotors are larger than the fronts, and there are numerous comments about the lack of dive when braking, and roll when cornering. You can thank a low center of gravity (and resulting roll moment) for that... because the majority of the vehicle's weight from the battery packs are located basically at/slightly below the wheel centerline. |
| MalcolmR, you seem to feel that the use of hybridization and electrification as alternative sources in petrol vehicles can only be construed as a countermeasure against CO2. However, as we are now seeing, there are greater degrees of freedom in vehicle design... and even improvement in performance. |
I agree that there could be huge benefits in terms of vehicle design.
| People do have a choice, you are right, and that should drive the sales of cars. The Tesla Model S is a good enough car on its own right to sell, federal tax breaks or not. A decade ago, people were criticizing vehicles like the Toyota Prius for not being practical; it's only about a decade later and that viewpoint has changed (or rather... it's been transferred to BEVs). |
The market will tell. Whether weight continues as the enemy of car makers and users or is overcome by technological advances that bring more new freedoms, some as yet unseen.
Wind power has been available for centuries. It once dominated the shipping industry. We saw forecasts and concepts ten years ago, yet nothing emerged.
Time will tell and markets will reveal.
Malcolm
:)
|
Malcolm, thank you for your points, and as anyone will acknowledge, the additional weight carried by BEVs and hybrids will forever be a contentious issue. First, a point I'd like to make is that the Tesla Model S is actually about 400 lbs. heavier than a Porsche Panamera (4600 vs. 4200, aprox). I cannot pass this off as "marginal", but keep in mind this is considering a vehicle that has substantially more cargo capacity and a fairly useable driving range. It takes intelligent vehicle design. Instead of having the batteries as a module sitting the trunk, it should be incorporated into the floor... in fact, it should *be* part of the monocoque structure in order to minimize weight and take advantage of their structural rigidity.
The weight issue will likely forever continue, because the whole premise of BEVs, PHEVs and the like is that there is an energy storage unit onboard the vehicle (and for the foreseeable future, it will never have the energy density of a fuel tank). That will always require a weight penalty. However, right now we're seeing that electrification of vehicles has the potential for actual, tangible benefits in terms of vehicle packaging (Model S) and performance (Porsche 918... perhaps the NSX and RLX). We will need to wait and see how far this technology will progress.
I think the market perception of hybrids in the US has become more accepting and slightly less skeptical. The Prius has gone "mainstream", and the sales of hybrid vehicles are significantly higher than that of other types of alternative propulsion (mainly diesel, but also CNG, etc.). I cannot speak for Australia, but Europe still seems to prefer diesel powertrains, although European manufacturers are dipping their toes into hybridization and electrification as well.
Speaking of wind power, I live near the Detroit/Windsor border and just outside of Essex county we have several large wind farms. Enormous things, and quite a nice viewpoint when you're taking highway 401.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
saitamahonda wrote:
I would not be so hasty to write off EV's.
The truth is the government and law makers are not aware of the type of research that is going on behind closed doors on the campuses of universities and private sector.
Flow battery technology has much promise to be the replacement to gasoline while retaining current infrastructure, as well as the possibility of having quick charge EV plugs at the gas stations.
The problem with EVs are both environmental and cost, yet there are new innovations that will eliminate the need for lithium in batteries. I won't go into details but Honda and many Japanese universities are experimenting with battery technology that do not require metal or lithium to be used. Lithium is the most costly resource to current EV battery tech, and it is soon to be replaced. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I wouldn't under-estimate innovation. Honda is deep into carbon nano-tube research and practical application, and Yuasa will undoubtedly be working with the universities that have created a new battery that doesn't use lithium or metal anodes.
The US is too hasty and doesn't see past quarterly earnings, whereas Honda and these emerging technologies have 10-15 year time-horizons. Battery technology and cost will significantly reduce in this time frame. It's been reported that current battery technology will become drastically cheaper to produce by 2015. I believe this was announced by Toyota in Japan. While the US prolongs hybrids, Japan will have achieved smart grids and will have more EVs than petrol cars or hybrids by 2025. It's all about what kind of vision a country has for the future and aspiring for what its people needs. I'm pretty certain the US will come around and further EV/FC technology. If not, the US might be one of a few countries stuck in the oil-age while emerging markets create advanced cities built on smart grids and EV tech.
|
I don't think Lithium will be eliminated, not for a long time. The reason being that it has the largest standard electrode potential of all materials. Challenges right now are replacing the "other" components of a battery pack, to reduce weight and increase stability. Currently the market is already moving towards lithium iron phosphate batteries, which have slightly less ultimate energy density but offers more stable chemistry (ability to quickly charge and discharge; withstands more charge cycles); there's research into lithium air batteries that would reduce the weight of batteries substantially if it comes to fruition.
More likely, you will see better lithium recycling programs.
Japan is actually behind in BEVs believe it or not. Most countries have BEVs as a fringe technology... however, China has already put 30 million electric scooters on the roads in the hands of everyday people and the numbers are increasing drastically. As for America, we have a bigger challenge of being more reliant on our vehicles (due to lower population density and resulting public transit network) and large range (since obviously, North America is several times larger than Japan).
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
You were making strong points CarPhreakD until your last para.
Wind power is exorbitantly costly, highly unreliable, requires backup coal-fired or nuclear or hydro or ... power 100% of the time, is environmentally damaging and apparently poses severe health risks to people living nearby.
Useful points on EV's though.
Malcolm
:)
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
2. Still waiting refers to calling believers on their false claims that they have evidence that human CO2 does what they claim. That's my way of reinforcing that they have none. |
I don't care if you call people out in every thread and every post you make at ToV. However, if you are going to call people out while simultaneously objecting when other people ask for a response from you, that looks bad. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Even if you do not intend insult, that's what is conveyed.
3. I accept many of your points.
Conclusion remains the same for reasons mentioned. People value flexibility and freedom.
Why use electricity when oil is fine? |
CarPhreakD covered many of engineering advantages of electric powertrains already. However, I will add that electric motors like the ones Tesla uses provide massive amounts of torque throughout the entire rev range of the motor. The powertrain is instantaneously responsive on a level beyond that of the vast majority of gasoline engines, and nearly silent as well. The experience of this is enough to be a big selling point.
People bought Honda's 8G Civic Si because the K20Z3 provided a unique sky-high RPM experience that no other sport compact provided. Tesla is similar in that it provides its own unique driver experience that some buyers may value highly.
Ultimately, providing government gets put back in its box, the market will decide: objectively aggregating millions of independent hearts and minds making independent decisions.
We'll know in a decade.
I suspect we'll know in a few years. |
I believe that the marketplace will decide regardless of government interference. A car like the i-MiEV, which sucks, is not going to sell well regardless of tax breaks and subsidies, because it is designed poorly and does not serve consumers well. The vast majority of people are NOT going to buy a car that is ugly, has terrible ergonomics, and performs poorly, just because they get a couple thousand dollars in tax breaks.
In the same manner, a car like the Model S, which has excellent levels of performance, utility, and design, will sell well, because it has what buyers want. The tax incentives are largely irrelevant to buyers. I have consistently written here at ToV that government use of the tax code to influence people's behavior is generally a waste. People are going to buy what they want.
So I actually agree with you on this point, mostly. We'll know in a few years how EVs will fare in the marketplace. Nobody knows yet what will happen.
|
Atomic, I would like to point to a few potential shortcomings in your suppositions.
1) There is a much larger max and min on the Tesla. You can compare Porsche performance all you want, but we both know that there are cheaper gas alternatives that supply nearly the same performance, which makes the Porsche look less impressive either way.
However, I am pretty sure you could hook up an afterburner system in the exhaust of the Porsche and dump raw fuel out of the exhaust system and still not get a range of some 30-40 miles.
2) It is great to talk about the theoretical maximum range in cool and temperate places like LA, but what about in the depths of the Mohave or Sonoran desert in the middle of summer when it is 120+? Not only is that going to kill your battery efficiency, but it is going to greatly increase power demands as well. How about Chicago, Minnesota, or Manitoba Canada in the winter? That is also going to kill your battery efficiency, and that is assuming they even work that cold.
3) How about the lifespan of the batteries? Great. When they are new, they can power the car for nearly 260 miles in IDEAL conditions, but what happens 3-5 years down the road? As you see with most electronic devices, performance will degrade rapidly around that time frame. Keep in mind too that most electronic devices don't have to deal with the temperature extremes that this car's pack will. That will further degrade lifespan.
4) I think your range predictions are a little off. I will agree with the ~3 hours between stops thing. Sometimes I will agree with the roughly 30-40 minute break, although in many cases, for many people, they only do a 30-40 minute break sporadically, and the rest are just long enough to pee and get gas.
However, where I think your estimates on the Tesla's usefulness are off, is in cruising anywhere outside of metro areas or eastern states with lower limits. Most states west of the Mississippi average roughly 80MPH. At 3 hours you are just about out of options in the Tesla, where in most modern gas powered cars, you have almost 100+ miles left. Even with a measly 30-32MPG average, my 13.2 gallon Civic will do nearly 400 miles with a comfortable reserve. The Tesla will not. Either way, it narrows my options.
Also, a nationwide useful network of superchargers is about as hopeful as a nationwide network of hydrogen filling stations at the moment. And actually, there WAS a plan to start to implement, but our boy Obama killed it in favor of much more marginal technologies. Ironically, the Chu lead department of Energy has since done an about face in the last 6 months wasting literally almost $50 billion dollars in the process (considering all of the other spending that was rerouted into marginal product, plus all of the programs that were shut down after their Bush implemented hydrogen funding was yanked). On one key point, Bush had it right. Whatever technology replaces gasoline is going to have to be cheap, plentiful, easy to get to, easy to use, and quick to work with. Electrical doesn't really do any of those things unless you have extra time to do with. It is no mystery why gasoline became the energy of choice back in the early 1900's, and while EV technology has surely improved, it still has not overtaken (or even matched gasoline) on an energy density per unit volume, cost, or convenience basis.
5) I don't know if you are distorting it for the benefit of this conversation, or if you are distorting it unintentionally because you don't know better, but let's clear up a few things about the Clarity and fuel cell vehicles.
First, Honda has already said that within one generation of product cycle, they could be producing the Clarity for around $30K. The first examples were very expensive, but the ones running around LA for engineering data are far from $1.2 million dollar cars. Honda has also clearly said that the hydrogen infrastructure is the real problem. Of course, so is the case with EV's because we have to burn coal to charge batteries. Call it a wash.
Second, no matter how much the Clarity weighs, it has a smaller pack which means that less % of the weight is dead weight when the batteries aren't full. I would be willing to bet that Honda could still pull quite a bit of weight out of the car, and one area they have already identified to do that is in the hydrogen tank; which IIRC, they admitted was very heavy. They have also said that the fuel cell can be more efficient and ultimately, the motor and drivetrain could be improved (look how far Tesla has evolved in 5 years, and it would be silly to assume that Honda couldn't do the same).
Third, as for increasing range, it is a simple matter of carrying more hydrogen. It is lightweight, so it isn't a huge deal to increase the capacity once they start to improve the tank technology. With an EV, you always have to add more battery capacity, and no matter how efficient your batteries are, they are still heavier than compressed hydrogen. The great thing about it though is that with hydrogen, you don't have to carry all of your energy in the form of an electric charge at once. While it is still not 100% efficient, you get a lot more bang for unit of work by converting the hydrogen into electricity on demand, which saves a ton of weight on the front side.
6SPDTL was correct with his assertions of cheating the laws of thermodynamics when it comes to battery storage.
While fuel cells have been around awhile, they are nowhere near as mature as battery technology, and Honda has been finding two and threefold efficiency increases, where batteries are down into the 10-20% range. I think it is safe to say that eventually, fuel cells will probably catch up. The fact that they have so many potential upsides is even more promising, and they probably have more promise for longer lifespans.
The real issue with them is the source of the hydrogen, but that is another matter entirely.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
1) There is a much larger max and min on the Tesla.
...
However, I am pretty sure you could hook up an afterburner system in the exhaust of the Porsche and dump raw fuel out of the exhaust system and still not get a range of some 30-40 miles. |
This is true, because the Tesla's battery only holds energy that is equivalent to about 2.5 gallons of gasoline. However, as I pointed out before, most buyers of the Model S are not buying this car so they can hammer out 0-60 as fast as possible as often as possible, or blast through a slalom run. When driving on public roads, I think the range is more than good enough. The extra power is useful for passing and emergency maneuvers, but these are not continuous demands on the battery.
| 2) It is great to talk about the theoretical maximum range in cool and temperate places like LA, but what about in the depths of the Mohave or Sonoran desert in the middle of summer when it is 120+? Not only is that going to kill your battery efficiency, but it is going to greatly increase power demands as well. How about Chicago, Minnesota, or Manitoba Canada in the winter? That is also going to kill your battery efficiency, and that is assuming they even work that cold. |
Tesla claims that the Model S is engineered to function in hot or cold climates: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts
"Model S is engineered to perform in both hot and cold climates"
The car does work in harsh winter climates: http://youtu.be/i0sflIrq_UM
It also works in hot climates too: http://www.motortrend.com/features/travel/1209_tesla_model_s_las_vegas/viewall.html
The Model S scored in the 120 MPGe range on trips to Las Vegas from LA, and did not get stranded. The downside is that the Motor Trend crew resorted to cruising at low speeds ~50-55 MPH and sometimes turned off the air conditioning, which isn't fun in 100+ degree heat.
| 3) How about the lifespan of the batteries? Great. When they are new, they can power the car for nearly 260 miles in IDEAL conditions, but what happens 3-5 years down the road? As you see with most electronic devices, performance will degrade rapidly around that time frame. Keep in mind too that most electronic devices don't have to deal with the temperature extremes that this car's pack will. That will further degrade lifespan. |
This is a question that only time and real-world experience will answer.
| 4) I think your range predictions are a little off. I will agree with the ~3 hours between stops thing. Sometimes I will agree with the roughly 30-40 minute break, although in many cases, for many people, they only do a 30-40 minute break sporadically, and the rest are just long enough to pee and get gas. |
I will usually take at least one 30-40 minute break on a road trip to get lunch at a rest stop. If I drove 215 miles and took a lunch break while adding 150 miles, this means I can drive 365 miles without inconvenience and still have 50 miles of range in reserve.
Yes, longer trips involve some increased degree of inconvenience, but I don't think they make road trips impossible. Something like the Nissan Leaf, which charges much more slowly, is practically impossible to road trip with.
| However, where I think your estimates on the Tesla's usefulness are off, is in cruising anywhere outside of metro areas or eastern states with lower limits. Most states west of the Mississippi average roughly 80MPH. |
This is a fair point. However, one does not need to cruise at 80 MPH even if the limits specify this speed.
| Also, a nationwide useful network of superchargers is about as hopeful as a nationwide network of hydrogen filling stations at the moment. And actually, there WAS a plan to start to implement, but our boy Obama killed it in favor of much more marginal technologies. |
This is incorrect, because Tesla's plan for a supercharger network is entirely pushed by private sector entities. Tesla and Solar City will deploy these stations. There is no government planning here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgk5-eB9oTY
The stations use Tesla's proprietary connector because the industry standard cables don't deliver enough charge.
| 5) I don't know if you are distorting it for the benefit of this conversation, or if you are distorting it unintentionally because you don't know better, but let's clear up a few things about the Clarity and fuel cell vehicles. |
Most of the information I posted about the Clarity comes from either Honda's website, or statements by HONDA AFVM, who, as you probably know, works for a Honda dealership and has extensive contacts in Torrance. I provided links to his statements in my previous posts in this thread.
| First, Honda has already said that within one generation of product cycle, they could be producing the Clarity for around $30K. The first examples were very expensive, but the ones running around LA for engineering data are far from $1.2 million dollar cars. |
Do you have a link to a source for this information? I read ToV and many automotive related websites on a daily basis, and I have never seen a claim for a Clarity-level vehicle from Honda with a production cost of $30k.
HONDA AFVM reports a cost of $1.2M. Jeff says its $100k to build. You say $30K for the next generation. Look, I don't know what to believe at this point. The fact of the matter is that Tesla products have a set price and actually products are making it into the hands of consumers.
Meanwhile Honda has said very little about the FCX Clarity project in recent times, except to say that there will be a next generation product in 3 years. Well, that's just great, a day late, and a dollar short.
This is exactly the same problem as the NSX and RLX. "We will bring sporty" back says Honda. In the meantime, people leave for other products like the BRZ.
I would be willing to bet that Honda could still pull quite a bit of weight out of the car, and one area they have already identified to do that is in the hydrogen tank; which IIRC, they admitted was very heavy.
...
Third, as for increasing range, it is a simple matter of carrying more hydrogen. It is lightweight, so it isn't a huge deal to increase the capacity once they start to improve the tank technology. |
The hydrogen tank is heavy because it has to contain gas at 5000 PSI, and be strong enough not to rupture if the car is involved in a collision. Carrying more hydrogen is not a simple matter IMO. You can either increase the tank volume, or compress the gas further. I believe that GM's fuel cell cars held their fuel in tanks @ 10,000 PSI.
The other issue with high pressure tanks is that energy must be expended during gas production to pressurize the fuel.
I think it is safe to say that eventually, fuel cells will probably catch up. The fact that they have so many potential upsides is even more promising, and they probably have more promise for longer lifespans.
The real issue with them is the source of the hydrogen, but that is another matter entirely. |
I think we just don't know. We don't know how batteries will advance in the same time period. We don't know how real world heat and extreme cold will affect the Tesla packs over time, or how they would affect Honda's fuel cell stacks.
As things stand, I'm not writing off fuel cells entirely yet, because BEVs are not proven, but I think that Tesla has put BEVs ahead in the race, and Honda better have not just a really good successor to the FCX Clarity, but an actual plan for fueling infrastructure as well. I just don't see it from Honda. You know as well as I do that they've made serious mistakes in the past few years and wasted enormous amounts of resources on stupid vehicles.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
You were making strong points CarPhreakD until your last para.
Wind power is exorbitantly costly, highly unreliable, requires backup coal-fired or nuclear or hydro or ... power 100% of the time, is environmentally damaging and apparently poses severe health risks to people living nearby.
Useful points on EV's though.
Malcolm
:)
|
LOL I don't dispute that. It's not in my control what Essex county has or doesn't have.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
After your helpful earlier posts I'm relieved to read your response.
Malcolm
:)
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
1) There is a much larger max and min on the Tesla.
...
However, I am pretty sure you could hook up an afterburner system in the exhaust of the Porsche and dump raw fuel out of the exhaust system and still not get a range of some 30-40 miles. |
This is true, because the Tesla's battery only holds energy that is equivalent to about 2.5 gallons of gasoline. However, as I pointed out before, most buyers of the Model S are not buying this car so they can hammer out 0-60 as fast as possible as often as possible, or blast through a slalom run. When driving on public roads, I think the range is more than good enough. The extra power is useful for passing and emergency maneuvers, but these are not continuous demands on the battery.
| 2) It is great to talk about the theoretical maximum range in cool and temperate places like LA, but what about in the depths of the Mohave or Sonoran desert in the middle of summer when it is 120+? Not only is that going to kill your battery efficiency, but it is going to greatly increase power demands as well. How about Chicago, Minnesota, or Manitoba Canada in the winter? That is also going to kill your battery efficiency, and that is assuming they even work that cold. |
Tesla claims that the Model S is engineered to function in hot or cold climates: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts
"Model S is engineered to perform in both hot and cold climates"
The car does work in harsh winter climates: http://youtu.be/i0sflIrq_UM
It also works in hot climates too: http://www.motortrend.com/features/travel/1209_tesla_model_s_las_vegas/viewall.html
The Model S scored in the 120 MPGe range on trips to Las Vegas from LA, and did not get stranded. The downside is that the Motor Trend crew resorted to cruising at low speeds ~50-55 MPH and sometimes turned off the air conditioning, which isn't fun in 100+ degree heat.
| 3) How about the lifespan of the batteries? Great. When they are new, they can power the car for nearly 260 miles in IDEAL conditions, but what happens 3-5 years down the road? As you see with most electronic devices, performance will degrade rapidly around that time frame. Keep in mind too that most electronic devices don't have to deal with the temperature extremes that this car's pack will. That will further degrade lifespan. |
This is a question that only time and real-world experience will answer.
| 4) I think your range predictions are a little off. I will agree with the ~3 hours between stops thing. Sometimes I will agree with the roughly 30-40 minute break, although in many cases, for many people, they only do a 30-40 minute break sporadically, and the rest are just long enough to pee and get gas. |
I will usually take at least one 30-40 minute break on a road trip to get lunch at a rest stop. If I drove 215 miles and took a lunch break while adding 150 miles, this means I can drive 365 miles without inconvenience and still have 50 miles of range in reserve.
Yes, longer trips involve some increased degree of inconvenience, but I don't think they make road trips impossible. Something like the Nissan Leaf, which charges much more slowly, is practically impossible to road trip with.
| However, where I think your estimates on the Tesla's usefulness are off, is in cruising anywhere outside of metro areas or eastern states with lower limits. Most states west of the Mississippi average roughly 80MPH. |
This is a fair point. However, one does not need to cruise at 80 MPH even if the limits specify this speed.
| Also, a nationwide useful network of superchargers is about as hopeful as a nationwide network of hydrogen filling stations at the moment. And actually, there WAS a plan to start to implement, but our boy Obama killed it in favor of much more marginal technologies. |
This is incorrect, because Tesla's plan for a supercharger network is entirely pushed by private sector entities. Tesla and Solar City will deploy these stations. There is no government planning here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgk5-eB9oTY
The stations use Tesla's proprietary connector because the industry standard cables don't deliver enough charge.
| 5) I don't know if you are distorting it for the benefit of this conversation, or if you are distorting it unintentionally because you don't know better, but let's clear up a few things about the Clarity and fuel cell vehicles. |
Most of the information I posted about the Clarity comes from either Honda's website, or statements by HONDA AFVM, who, as you probably know, works for a Honda dealership and has extensive contacts in Torrance. I provided links to his statements in my previous posts in this thread.
| First, Honda has already said that within one generation of product cycle, they could be producing the Clarity for around $30K. The first examples were very expensive, but the ones running around LA for engineering data are far from $1.2 million dollar cars. |
Do you have a link to a source for this information? I read ToV and many automotive related websites on a daily basis, and I have never seen a claim for a Clarity-level vehicle from Honda with a production cost of $30k.
HONDA AFVM reports a cost of $1.2M. Jeff says its $100k to build. You say $30K for the next generation. Look, I don't know what to believe at this point. The fact of the matter is that Tesla products have a set price and actually products are making it into the hands of consumers.
Meanwhile Honda has said very little about the FCX Clarity project in recent times, except to say that there will be a next generation product in 3 years. Well, that's just great, a day late, and a dollar short.
This is exactly the same problem as the NSX and RLX. "We will bring sporty" back says Honda. In the meantime, people leave for other products like the BRZ.
I would be willing to bet that Honda could still pull quite a bit of weight out of the car, and one area they have already identified to do that is in the hydrogen tank; which IIRC, they admitted was very heavy.
...
Third, as for increasing range, it is a simple matter of carrying more hydrogen. It is lightweight, so it isn't a huge deal to increase the capacity once they start to improve the tank technology. |
The hydrogen tank is heavy because it has to contain gas at 5000 PSI, and be strong enough not to rupture if the car is involved in a collision. Carrying more hydrogen is not a simple matter IMO. You can either increase the tank volume, or compress the gas further. I believe that GM's fuel cell cars held their fuel in tanks @ 10,000 PSI.
The other issue with high pressure tanks is that energy must be expended during gas production to pressurize the fuel.
I think it is safe to say that eventually, fuel cells will probably catch up. The fact that they have so many potential upsides is even more promising, and they probably have more promise for longer lifespans.
The real issue with them is the source of the hydrogen, but that is another matter entirely. |
I think we just don't know. We don't know how batteries will advance in the same time period. We don't know how real world heat and extreme cold will affect the Tesla packs over time, or how they would affect Honda's fuel cell stacks.
As things stand, I'm not writing off fuel cells entirely yet, because BEVs are not proven, but I think that Tesla has put BEVs ahead in the race, and Honda better have not just a really good successor to the FCX Clarity, but an actual plan for fueling infrastructure as well. I just don't see it from Honda. You know as well as I do that they've made serious mistakes in the past few years and wasted enormous amounts of resources on stupid vehicles.
|
1) Please re-read my statement. It isn't about "hammering" out 0-60 times. It is about placing large loads on the batteries which will absolutely DESTROY range. In order for your version to pan out, you have to discount every other range sucking possibility. I can assure you that if you run that car in "normal" driving conditions anywhere outside of the LA Basin, it isn't going to go anywhere near 260MI. These are the same conditions that made the EV1 impractical by reducing its claimed range to something on the order of 9 miles.
Again, you are dodging the point that gasoline engines have an absolutely astronomical advantage in anything not resembling ideal, temperate conditions. The gas engine still technically has a lot of advantages in those temperate conditions, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The "maximum" performance gibberish, is just that. It wasn't the main focus of that point, and it still isn't.
2) The Russians claimed Chernobyl's containmentless reactor design was safe. Doesn't make it so. When the Tesla doesn't see a huge drop off in range outside of ideal conditions, then I will believe it. Not a second before.
GM claims their small SUV's do as well as Honda's Civic, but we all know that is clearly not the case. It would be naive to assume that Tesla doesn't market its product in the best possible light. So you will have to forgive me when "Tesla claims" doesn't hold a lot of water with me.
3) Real world experience is already out there on Li-Ion cells. It isn't like the laws of physics suddenly change. There isn't a battery in existence that can withstand repeated cycling indefinitely. Most start to lose major charge after 2-3 years, and with that number coming from a lot of contemporary battery technologies, I am going to be skeptical of Tesla's ability to achieve anything much better.
Again, you have to neglect half of reality in order for your ideology to pan out because even though they have not been tested in that exact car, there is a huge data sample on the basic technology elsewhere. Hybrids, cellphones, iPads, iPods and every other manner of electric device, and the batteries typically DO NOT last the life of the vehicle, while also exhibiting diminished performance within a few years. Add the environmental factors and it gets worse. Consider that hybrids have a 95-99% battery replacement rate in warranty, which in most cases is 100K miles...
*Nice attempt on the Vegas story, but try again. 120 and 90 are 30% different. That isn't a small amount. All cars work a lot harder to keep cool when the temperature goes up by 30*. Efficiencies on batteries also drop rapidly. The average lifespan of a normal Lead Acid battery drops by about half when exposed to normal hot summers in AZ when compared to the parts of the state that experience highs of around 90*. To pretend that 90* is even in the same sphere as 120 is silly. We typically crest 120* sometime in late May to early June, and usually stay in that range until late September. Which also brings me to the second flaw in your point. A couple of hours in 90* heat isn't even CLOSE to a full summer (or multiple full summers for that matter) in 120* heat. The amount of additional wear and tear, thermal factor, degradation of everything, battery life etc can't be comprehended unless you have seen it or tested it fully. So dismiss it all you want, but that Motor Trend article is not representative of prolonged high temperature operations.
Same issue with the cold weather. A couple days is not representative of a couple months or years worth of duty cycle.
4) If you have 3 15 minute breaks and 1 longer lunch break, then the Tesla doesn't make it. Simple as that. You can bend the rules all you want, but you will find most people don't spend 1/3 of their time stopped on a road trip unless they are sleeping. Of course, that is only magnified now that money is tighter and vacations are shorter/fewer between because that would be less time at the destination.
I could say something to the effect of "If I never take a road trip..." but that would be impractical as it would be for many people using the car on longer trips under high loads. Of course, we haven't even talked about the elevation change factor of most Western States. Take that Tesla up the Rockies and see how it does...
The bigger point that you are completely ignoring is that under the varied conditions created that render a slight inconvenience in a gas powered engine, the electric will not fare as well. As such it is a compromised technology, and as such it will not achieve the penetration you hope.
As for the speed limit thing? Please. You are right, I don't HAVE to drive 80, but if I don't, then life becomes a lot more inconvenient. First, I will spend more time accomplishing nothing. That is time, time is money, money is economic success. Money isn't the root of life, but if I can spend that 6 extra hours doing something else, then so be it. Especially if I am trying to maximized my reduced rest time. Second, if you drive significantly under the speed limit, then you are one of the douchebags that causes more issues than you solve by essentially becoming a rolling road block and inconveniencing people around you. Not only is that rude as shit, inconsiderate and being a shit head, but it is potentially more dangerous because now you have people speeding around you, cutting you off, and taking chances to shoot holes they might not otherwise have taken. I would assume that being from the Bay area you would probably understand that. In AZ, where trucks go 75 when able, I would encourage you to see what happens in a 13 truck convoy that you are stuck behing on a hill, or are trying to get passed by on said hill because you are going 10-15MPH below the speed limit. Good luck with that.
Also, having to slow down to make the car perform better only supports my point further. I don't HAVE to do it in a gas powered car to get a reasonable level of range, which simply further proves the inconvenience of the technology. When the stuff is actually ready for prime time, then it won't require me to be inconvenienced by it, and this is the entire part that the liberals trying stuff this shit down our throats simply fail to comprehend. Frankly, I just don't think they have the cognitive ability to grasp the concept. They are too ignorant and blinded by ideology (ironically like the "God fearing" people they attack) to see the light of the situtation, whereas any objective, reasonably educated person can see it isn't working. Maybe someday in the future, but not right now. The fact that I have to pay out of my pocket for this crap pisses me off even more, but that is another matter entirely.
Frankly, I see this panning out a lot like the Tesla Roadster did. I still have the car mag articles that talked about what a revelation it was to drive, how it would make the electric car feasible and yada, yada, yada. It didn't work. When the S works, THEN I will believe it. Until then, you can continue to modify your own lifestyle and continue to support the development with your pocket money; you can change whatever life factors you see fit, but I will politely agree to disagree.
|
owequitit
|
|
saitamahonda wrote:
I would not be so hasty to write off EV's.
The truth is the government and law makers are not aware of the type of research that is going on behind closed doors on the campuses of universities and private sector.
Flow battery technology has much promise to be the replacement to gasoline while retaining current infrastructure, as well as the possibility of having quick charge EV plugs at the gas stations.
The problem with EVs are both environmental and cost, yet there are new innovations that will eliminate the need for lithium in batteries. I won't go into details but Honda and many Japanese universities are experimenting with battery technology that do not require metal or lithium to be used. Lithium is the most costly resource to current EV battery tech, and it is soon to be replaced. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I wouldn't under-estimate innovation. Honda is deep into carbon nano-tube research and practical application, and Yuasa will undoubtedly be working with the universities that have created a new battery that doesn't use lithium or metal anodes.
The US is too hasty and doesn't see past quarterly earnings, whereas Honda and these emerging technologies have 10-15 year time-horizons. Battery technology and cost will significantly reduce in this time frame. It's been reported that current battery technology will become drastically cheaper to produce by 2015. I believe this was announced by Toyota in Japan. While the US prolongs hybrids, Japan will have achieved smart grids and will have more EVs than petrol cars or hybrids by 2025. It's all about what kind of vision a country has for the future and aspiring for what its people needs. I'm pretty certain the US will come around and further EV/FC technology. If not, the US might be one of a few countries stuck in the oil-age while emerging markets create advanced cities built on smart grids and EV tech.
|
As usual, you are being disingenuous.
You completely blew yourself out of the water by downplaying Americans. May I remind you sir, that it is unlikely Americans would have driven the vast majority of technological innovation over the past 100 years if we were as stupid as you so insidiously propose.
It has a whole lot more to do with reality than pipe dreams. Honda can research all of the technology they want. The reality is that a very small % of research actually pans into something more meaningful. At best, it takes years and years to move from a theoretically unproven idea into a production product. So when Honda starts offering nano-tube batteries that make everything else obsolete, then we will have a technology to run with. Until then, it is nothing more than a promise and a pipe dream. I can say the same thing about flying cars, implanted computers, Missions to Mars and on and on and on. Don't forget that in the 1950's the "forward thinkers" were sure that we would be living in the sky, driving Jetsons cars and roving freely around the universe by the 1980's. Clearly that didn't pan out even though linear extrapolation of research said it would.
So you can take your smugness and go research a way to make it into reality, because as of now, you are failing.
Also, the second major flaw in your hypothesis is that no matter what technologies evolve that don't currently exist, they all battery car will still have the same inherent limitations when compared to another delivery method (such as hydrogen) that doesn't need as much battery capacity. In order for your theory to hold true, you can't apply any of the battery technologies to other avenues.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you for the reality check owequitit.
Despite showing promise, BEV's have yet to deliver in the real-world of everyday driving facing multiple, varied demands.
Malcolm
:)
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
1) Please re-read my statement. It isn't about "hammering" out 0-60 times. It is about placing large loads on the batteries which will absolutely DESTROY range. In order for your version to pan out, you have to discount every other range sucking possibility. I can assure you that if you run that car in "normal" driving conditions anywhere outside of the LA Basin, it isn't going to go anywhere near 260MI. |
The part I bolded is a claim you make without proof. There is a wide variety of terrain in North America. Tesla claims a maximum of 300 miles @ 55 MPH in ideal conditions. The EPA says it believes 265 miles is more realistic.
We won't know for sure until actual customers start posting detailed range data.
| When the Tesla doesn't see a huge drop off in range outside of ideal conditions, then I will believe it. Not a second before. |
This is fair. We'll know more once buyers from all over the country have put the car to the test in a few months.
| GM claims their small SUV's do as well as Honda's Civic, but we all know that is clearly not the case. It would be naive to assume that Tesla doesn't market its product in the best possible light. So you will have to forgive me when "Tesla claims" doesn't hold a lot of water with me. |
Again, you posted no evidence and no links. The typical Honda Civic 5AT rates 28 City 39 Highway on the EPA cycle. I don't know of any GM SUV that rates this high, but perhaps you could enlighten us. You might be able to get comparable EPA MPG by pitting a 4-cylinder GM SUV against a Civic Si, but the Si is a low volume sporty car that is the least efficient Civic offered. To say that GM broadly claims small SUV efficiency on par with the Civic generally is ridiculous.
| Real world experience is already out there on Li-Ion cells. It isn't like the laws of physics suddenly change. There isn't a battery in existence that can withstand repeated cycling indefinitely. Most start to lose major charge after 2-3 years, and with that number coming from a lot of contemporary battery technologies, I am going to be skeptical of Tesla's ability to achieve anything much better. |
I addressed this in my response to you. I said, "We don't know how real world heat and extreme cold will affect the Tesla packs over time". I am well aware that batteries loose capacity as they age, and that temperature extremes affect the chemistry of the cells. You rant on without having read my responses.
| Consider that hybrids have a 95-99% battery replacement rate in warranty, which in most cases is 100K miles... |
Again, no links, no proof, no anything.
Consumer reports found, to the contrary, that a 10-year-old Prius had negligible performance and efficiency loss after over 200k+ miles of service: http://autos.aol.com/article/toyota-prius-reliability/
And in 2009:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/04/nyc-hybrid-taxis-prove-reliable-.html
"It’s been about three and a half years since hybrid-powered taxis began working the mean streets of New York City, and not only have the cabs proved generally reliable, they’ve had zero failures of battery packs or other major components."
And in 2011:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1063767_ford-hybrids-prove-durability-by-racking-up-most-taxi-miles
"Last week, Ford released data on how well its hybrids have survived, and it's remarkably good. Among the 190,000 nickel-metal-hydride battery packs it has built, just five reliability issues have been logged, out of a total of more than 42 million cells in those packs.
The five cells involved in those incidents turned out to have two different manufacturing flaws, which Ford resolved with its supplier. According to Ford, it has had no cell issues at all since 2007."
Taxi cabs in major cities put tens of thousands of miles on their odometers every year. If hybrids were really that unreliable, there would be reports of mass failures and very unhappy taxi companies.
| ... I would assume that being from the Bay area you would probably understand that. |
You assume wrong. I'm nowhere near the Bay area, and I have no intention of ever living in the train wreck that is California.
| and this is the entire part that the liberals trying stuff this shit down our throats simply fail to comprehend. Frankly, I just don't think they have the cognitive ability to grasp the concept. |
Nobody can "force" you to buy a Tesla any more than they could force you to buy a Crosstour. On the matter of tax breaks for BEVs, I agree that there should be none. Buyers of Tesla cars don't need the tax break (it's a full size luxury sedan after all), and tax breaks don't help the bad EVs on the market because few people want them regardless of price.
| When the S works, THEN I will believe it. Until then, you can continue to modify your own lifestyle and continue to support the development with your pocket money; you can change whatever life factors you see fit, but I will politely agree to disagree. |
I don't care if you disagree, but don't pretend that you are polite. Even today, you can't help but troll: http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1102324 @ 10-08-2012 01:19. And no, I'm not a danielgr fan. Actually, we were on the same side of this debate concerning the ILX hybrid: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1072090. Danielgr didn't fare too well arguing against me.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] 3 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
