Gas prices

[simonpro]

-- in the world of performance cars, $100k isn't that unusual. I've got about that in my car, and I know people who have a LOT more in theirs.

Problem is, it's not a performance car. It's only "performance" trick is it's 0-62mph acceleration (which is only equal to the Ford Mustang anyway), the top speed is slower than just about any car on the road today and it's 0-100mph isn't particularly impressive (11.2sec - slightly slower than a Corvette).

I applaud people for buying it because they want an electric car that isn't slower than walking, but buying it on pure performance terms is like trying to dogfight an F-15 from a learjet.

 

[GregBurch]

Problem is, it's not a performance car. It's only "performance" trick is it's 0-62mph acceleration (which is only equal to the Ford Mustang anyway), the top speed is slower than just about any car on the road today and it's 0-100mph isn't particularly impressive (11.2sec - slightly slower than a Corvette).

I applaud people for buying it because they want an electric car that isn't slower than walking, but buying it on pure performance terms is like trying to dogfight an F-15 from a learjet.

I certainly agree with your general point that you can get more performance for the money in the price range of the Tesla roadster. I do take issue with the point about Rustangs, though. Take a look at this:

http://mustangs.about.com/od/modelyearprofiles/a/gt-vs-challeng.htm

5.1 sec 0-60 is more like it. In my own personal rule-of-thumb way of measuring things, anything that's got a 0-60 time below 4.5 seconds counts as some kind of performance car these days. But you aren't in "world-class" territory until you're hitting sub-4-second 0-60 times. I'm barely breaking that barrier these days with my car. It'll take different rear-end ratios and/or forced induction to get much lower, and that will have to wait until I retire my current ride from daily-driver status.

The top speed on the Tesla is said to be "electronically limited" -- I'm betting that's the work of lawyers, since the basic Lotus foundation of the car could do much better. In fact, I'm REALLY looking forward to a golden age of hot rodding when kids start realizing what torque monsters all electrics can be.

 

[V8Li]

I don't want to argue with you guys since I don't know much about it, but the question here is how much did they spent for performance (carbon fiber panels, suspension, difs etc etc ect) and how much went into that electric motor and it's power cells. Keep in mind that electric engines produce maximum torque through their entire rev range, so even with a regular transimission an electric engine can go easy to 60 mph in less than 6 seconds. Not the power is the issue with an electric car, it's how much it's power lasts. It's great for showcase, but if they've spent 60K for it's "electrical" side, that won't fix our problems...

 

[reverend]

[SIZE=+1](UK£ 1.16) / liter = 8.62275922 U.S. dollars / US gallon
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]1.60 (Australian dollars / liter) = 5.78047521 U.S. dollars / US gallon
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]47.80 (Indian rupees / liter) = 4.39184081 U.S. dollars / US gallon[/SIZE]

Gas here has peaked to the highest i've ever seen it at $4.17 / gallon


Water Power (HHO) is really taking off quickly. A few searches on youtube and you'll find hundreds of people making their own hydrogen fuel cells and doing their own mods to make their engine run on it.

 

[Bj]

I don't know why people look at acceleration rate of cars. Whats the point of accelerating faster unless your drag racing? I would rather look at engine performance. (quiet, top speed is above 60, High MPG...) And I wouldn't truly care if the vehicle is loud our not.

oh and I would like a car that doesn't break down all the time

(my moms new van had the airbag light on again today...:dry

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Added more options to the poll with Bj's permission. However, I could only add 2 more options without restructuring the whole poll and without losing the current results. I could manually remap the results to new poll options, but I don't think that's a good idea for now. We could always start a new poll later.

regards,
mcduck

[Edit]
Was able to add some more options after all, it needed a second edit.
[/Edit]

 

[thomasantony]

Talking about fuel cells .. are there any designs, or has anyone tried to build a fuel cell that uses gasoline + O2? Existing distribution infrastructure ( for the gas ) , high energy density etc. would be some of its pros. But is it possible?

~
Thomas

 

[GregBurch]

I don't know why people look at acceleration rate of cars. Whats the point of accelerating faster unless your drag racing? I would rather look at engine performance. (quiet, top speed is above 60, High MPG...) And I wouldn't truly care if the vehicle is loud our not.

oh and I would like a car that doesn't break down all the time

(my moms new van had the airbag light on again today...:dry

I think this falls into the category of things that "if you have to explain, then you probably won't get it." In other words, de gustibus non disputandem. For instance, although there were modest power gains when I installed the Borla exhaust and bigger cross-overs on my baby, I got almost as much (if not more) pleasure from the sound they produced. At least two or three times a week, I let up on the throttle around 2 grand just to hear that rumbling, crackling music ....

I will miss that music ... but I won't miss sending money to Osama's paymasters.

GB

 

[Quick_Nick]

I voted $3.50-$3.80 since about two days ago it was $3.65, but it is already predicted that by next week the price will be well over $4. I don't know about other places(probably the same though) but gas prices are rapidly going up around here. I think it goes up $0.10 per week at the very least.

 

[simonpro]

I certainly agree with your general point that you can get more performance for the money in the price range of the Tesla roadster. I do take issue with the point about Rustangs, though. Take a look at this:

http://mustangs.about.com/od/modelyearprofiles/a/gt-vs-challeng.htm

5.1 sec 0-60 is more like it.

Oh, for some reason I thought the mustang was 3.9ish.

The top speed on the Tesla is said to be "electronically limited" -- I'm betting that's the work of lawyers, since the basic Lotus foundation of the car could do much better. In fact, I'm REALLY looking forward to a golden age of hot rodding when kids start realizing what torque monsters all electrics can be.

The car it's based on (the Lotus Elise) isn't particularly fast, mostly as it had a terrible engine. I think, though, that a lot has been changed from the Elise to the Tesla (thank god, I've driven an Elise and it's absolutely awful at cornering), the Tesla boys seem to have beefed up the suspension a fair bit, which should improve matters.
On the subject of it's speed, I think it's electronically limited to prevent the battery from frying itself. Any faster than 200kph and you'll be 'burning' electrons like crazy, discharging a battery that fast is quite bad for it - would probably not be pretty

I don't know why people look at acceleration rate of cars. Whats the point of accelerating faster unless your drag racing? I would rather look at engine performance. (quiet, top speed is above 60, High MPG...)

I'm not sure there's any cars with a top speed of under 60mph.:lol:
In my opinion there's two reasons why having a fast acceleration is good:

1) It's damned good fun. I occasionally take my car over to a track in Sweden and mess around with it, spending a morning driving around like a maniac is superb fun.

2) It's safer (assuming you're a good driver). Faster acceleration means it's easier and quicker to overtake things, and less time spent on the opposing carriageway means less time where you could experience a headon collision.