What kind of performance would the Tesla have

[JThiessen]

Data sheets are fine for theory - I'm more interested in the dynamics of real world system tests. Stick these cells in a system, beat the living snot out of it - hopefully until they fail, and see where the down side is with them, then improve them, or build in the fail safes needed. Then compare it to what others have done (like Tesla).
There may be an upside to the lower C systems. I would liken it to the difference between Diesel and Gas powered vehicles. You can have a 400hp/600ft-lb gasoline motor, and a 300hp,600ft-lb diesel. The spec sheet on that car would be fantastic compared to the diesel - but I wouldn't pick the gas motor for towing.

Take your data to a respected automotive engineering college. I suspect you will have open ears (and minds) there. The downside would be give open liscense to a technology, for them to develop further. The upside is that it is good for all of us down the line.

[Lauri]

Well... I won't start to argue with you guys PR and government support and big corporations and things are bad, mmmmmmkay We've all seen the "Who killed the electric car" documentary - it really pisses you off and frustrates, how things are done... but that's life, what can you do?! I think that documentary explaned very nicely what and why is happening.

It is an ongoing process. Tesla is a step in a right direction. Or maybe not. Time will tell. London is full of GWiz cars. It works there. Tesla IS the first real car that George or Matt can go, buy, enjoy and see that electric cars do work and make sense.

I think Tesla shows people that electric car can work. And Tesla puts the big car companies to work on the electric cars also although they dont't want to.

Only time will tell how we are charging our electric cars in 10 or 20 years.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by lutach

Forgot to mention this again, but here goes. Tesla did not get started with their own ideas. They got the TZero from AC Propulsion as a loaner to get potential investors and they nailed one called Elon Musk, but now Mr. Musk took over and the founders (Not sure if only one is not with the company) are not there anymore. Now Tesla claims to have their own technology, but it's still the same old AC Propulsion technology, but they claim to have a version of the drive train that puts out more power.

I should loan a Prius load it with about 500lbs. of extra battery and show it to potential investors to see what would happen . Tell them I have 500lbs. less then the Tesla and get an actual 200mpg to see if they fall for it.

Yeah! And get this, they fired some 100 employees by some email... an email!!! What the F#$K !? How would you feel if you got fired in such a manner? No one really knew that they were fired even a month after the emails were sent out, and IIRC, the guy who sent the emails was fired after as well! What a horrible company, that is another reason why I am boycotting them.

Not to mention they are a disgrace to the name Tesla. They should be destroyed.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by Lauri

Well... I won't start to argue with you guys PR and government support and big corporations and things are bad, mmmmmmkay We've all seen the "Who killed the electric car" documentary - it really pisses you off and frustrates, how things are done... but that's life, what can you do?!

I don't mean to attack you, but please, please don't say things like that! It really grinds my gears when people say "that's just life, get used to it"

It's only life if you accept it to be that way.

[snellemin]

Originally Posted by zeropointbug

it's only life if you accept it to be that way.

word

[lutach]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Data sheets are fine for theory - I'm more interested in the dynamics of real world system tests. Stick these cells in a system, beat the living snot out of it - hopefully until they fail, and see where the down side is with them, then improve them, or build in the fail safes needed. Then compare it to what others have done (like Tesla).
There may be an upside to the lower C systems. I would liken it to the difference between Diesel and Gas powered vehicles. You can have a 400hp/600ft-lb gasoline motor, and a 300hp,600ft-lb diesel. The spec sheet on that car would be fantastic compared to the diesel - but I wouldn't pick the gas motor for towing.

Take your data to a respected automotive engineering college. I suspect you will have open ears (and minds) there. The downside would be give open liscense to a technology, for them to develop further. The upside is that it is good for all of us down the line.

Datasheets of real world testing, not just datasheets of the cells I mentioned. In fact, one of the cells was pushed even further then what the datasheet stated. Some tanks have a nice hybrid system. You think some of those jet powered tanks are actually propelled by the jet engine? No. One of the drive train I can get was meant for a 200mph+ race car, but the program was scrapped due to some fools testing out part of the system in another country and it caused some major damage mainly due to human error. The car itself was fully tested and would've made history if the program continued. All the stuff I talk about have been fully tested, but somehow never makes it and who knows the reason why. I've contacted major scientist in regards to very high C rate cells and they all said, the higher the C rate of the cell the higher charge rate it'll allow. The only upside so far of a lower C rated cell is the price, but things can change with new technologies. I like the power of a diesel and it has proven itself, but the addiction to gas seems much higher than expected.

Good thing you mentioned to take my data to respected automotive engineers and I have done that. Not only that I have given my data to most engineers that work for companies I sell Electronic Components to and they were amazed on how easy it can be. Most of the electronic engineers told me I can go from NY to CA and back to NY on a single charge. Now the automotive engineers told me it could never happen, but they were amazed on the data I showed them. The only things is, they don't know where to get the technology and my main ideas were not mentioned. Ford (Brasil), GM (Brasil), Fiat (Brasil), Toyota (Brasil), Mosler (USA) and a few more. They all listened, but they a seem brain washed except for Mosler who definitely showed an interest.

Now I said a 41Ah cell (Not as powerful as the others, but a medium power cell) was used in a voltage similar to the Tesla's voltage and that set up and they got 120 miles out of it. That same set up was also used in some race cars with similar results. So the technology is fully tested and not something I'm making up.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by Lauri

Well... I won't start to argue with you guys PR and government support and big corporations and things are bad, mmmmmmkay We've all seen the "Who killed the electric car" documentary - it really pisses you off and frustrates, how things are done... but that's life, what can you do?! I think that documentary explaned very nicely what and why is happening.

It is an ongoing process. Tesla is a step in a right direction. Or maybe not. Time will tell. London is full of GWiz cars. It works there. Tesla IS the first real car that George or Matt can go, buy, enjoy and see that electric cars do work and make sense.

I think Tesla shows people that electric car can work. And Tesla puts the big car companies to work on the electric cars also although they dont't want to.

Only time will tell how we are charging our electric cars in 10 or 20 years.

We here love to debate things so please don't think we are starting things. I like what you posted, but for this technology to be on par with petro powered vehicles, it needs to be compatible in every way possible. I like what Tesla did too for the EV market, but it could've been much better.

[Lauri]

lutach - higher C-values make batteries A LOT HEAVIER also! This is not 5 or 10% but can be up to 30% or even 50%! This is from RC. I have places where 1C LiPos would be ideal. Sadly it is hard to get those low-C batteries. And on my 1/8th buggy I want to have 30-40C battery. Don't have the figures with me at the moment but the difference is big.

If Tesla's or any other electric car's battery weighs X with slow-charge battery that gives out enough energy. Then the weight would be 1.5x with fast-charge battery that gives out a lot energy (high-C). Because we don't have the infrastructure for fast charging "sockets" I'd go with the first just like Tesla has.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by Lauri

lutach - higher C-values make batteries A LOT HEAVIER also! This is not 5 or 10% but can be up to 30% or even 50%! This is from RC. I have places where 1C LiPos would be ideal. Sadly it is hard to get those low-C batteries. And on my 1/8th buggy I want to have 30-40C battery. Don't have the figures with me at the moment but the difference is big.

If Tesla's or any other electric car's battery weighs X with slow-charge battery that gives out enough energy. Then the weight would be 1.5x with fast-charge battery that gives out a lot energy (high-C). Because we don't have the infrastructure for fast charging "sockets" I'd go with the first just like Tesla has.

Not really. It really depends on who makes it, the technology used and how fine the materials are. Right now I'm looking way beyond R/C. The current 400C cell is very new, but as the materials and technology gets better, we can see some real potential from the cells. Example and I'll use the medium power 41Ah cell that is capable of 10C continuous discharge weighs 1kg Since it went 120 miles in a single charge it should be a good example. The Tesla uses 69 cells in parallel and each cell weighs 47g so we have a module that with cells alone weighs 3243g and 99 of those modules in series for a claimed 200+ mile range which have mixed results. Now if the 41Ah cell I mentioned did 120 miles under real testing done by our military then lets use 3 in parallel for a 3Kg module and 99 in series one could easily say it would give more range then the Tesla's pack. Tesla's cells can't be charged at 1C and the ones I mentioned can and a bit more and we would save 24kg or more since the 41Ah cells don't need a steel of whatever material Tesla uses to make their pack. Much safer technology and in reality only 2 cells in parallel would be needed.

Like I said before, the infrastructure is there, you have to look for it. A lot of industrial machines works on 400V plus and you can have that in gas stations as well as you house if you have a garage. An onboard charger can also be made, but it would be a little smaller and less powerful. It would work on 110V or 220V, but would be a more efficient charger then what Tesla offers. Now look at the Tesla chargers http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php. Do you think they can put out what they claim? Look at the price, even Brusa would be smiling after looking at that. Please, look at them. For the output it needs to put out, the unit would have to be a little bigger then that and have some sort of cooling (fan cooling) for it to work out.

[Lauri]

But tell us some information about those super cells?
voltage -
capacity -
internal resistance - (graph not needed but some examples to get a sense)
weight -

We know these settings for regular LiPos, LiFePO4s, A123s and those that Tesla uses... I'd just like to see how those super-cells differ mainly in energy density and internal resistance.

[lincpimp]

Not to look down on anything here, but electric cars are a really bad idea. I say that they are bad, not because the idea is bad, but the usage is. Until we figure out a way to get electricity with burning stuff (nuclear?) and implement it 100% having an electric car that is powered by electricity made buy burning coal is not really doing us any good.

I am not aware of any of the cradle to grave studies on what kind of pollution electric cars make compared to gas one, but I can only imagine that it is higher.

Battery tech needs to go a long way before it can be implemented in large scale like an electric car needs. Having all of the "5 year" batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of is not good for the environment. And the cost to make these cars light and strong and all of the exotic materials just pushes the price and pollution/energy usage way up as well.

I just do not find all of this "jumping on the green bandwagon" socially responsible. People need to focus on cutting back "burning" to make the electricity, and that will stimulate the design of better batteries and a general increase in cleaner technology.

Not that I really care, as I will be dead inside of 70yrs and I doubt we will see much change (unless we have another world war).

Luciano, I applaud you for making all of this progress, and hope your electric car is a beautiful high performance supercar. Use the electricity like we do here, to make a stupid fast machine! Maybe the world will notice and reform the power production systems, then you can make an economy model, but until then it is just piss in the wind...

[redshift]

I can agree with almost 100% there linc. I will admit to being bipolar about this. For me it's not a green thing, it's being bored with 100+ year old "technology". Fer chrissakes the Garrett water carburetor was invented in the 20s. Look at the advancements made over the last 20 years with computers, and weigh that against conventional engine's 'progress' made in the last 120 years. No comparo. Speaking for only myself, I just want something different.

As for pollution, it seems to me that more components could be recycled, not sure on that one however. Much of that will depend also on how complex the mfr makes it. Tesla surely doesn't get much credit here due to the sheer numbers of cells alone.

I agree about the batteries as a potential problem, but again think about what a gasoline powered vehicle consumes in that same 5 year period, and the waste it will create in more forms than exhaust.

Not trying to preach here, just trying to see both sides better. If we could have something like a Gwiz here (maybe a little less pathetic tho) I would have one. A few years back, Corbin Seats made some 3 wheeled fiberglass cars. In the event of a collision, they would bounce off the other vehicle, was the theory at least. The point is, it is possible to make a small vehicle that is safe, and super efficient. The number of SUVs on the road at any given moment with one person in them is really stupid.

The cost, as pointed out on that Tesla vid, was "three pounds fifty" versus 40 pounds, per roughly the same mileage. Less than one tenth the cost. That's very attractive, and if we don't do something we'll continue to be raped by the petros. I could feel a lot better with the 'bang' being produced in a reactor. Versus some Arab in cahoots with top level politicians producing it at least...

I dunno, shit needs to change.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by lincpimp

Not to look down on anything here, but electric cars are a really bad idea. I say that they are bad, not because the idea is bad, but the usage is. Until we figure out a way to get electricity with burning stuff (nuclear?) and implement it 100% having an electric car that is powered by electricity made buy burning coal is not really doing us any good.

I am not aware of any of the cradle to grave studies on what kind of pollution electric cars make compared to gas one, but I can only imagine that it is higher.

Battery tech needs to go a long way before it can be implemented in large scale like an electric car needs. Having all of the "5 year" batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of is not good for the environment. And the cost to make these cars light and strong and all of the exotic materials just pushes the price and pollution/energy usage way up as well.

I just do not find all of this "jumping on the green bandwagon" socially responsible. People need to focus on cutting back "burning" to make the electricity, and that will stimulate the design of better batteries and a general increase in cleaner technology.

Not that I really care, as I will be dead inside of 70yrs and I doubt we will see much change (unless we have another world war).

Luciano, I applaud you for making all of this progress, and hope your electric car is a beautiful high performance supercar. Use the electricity like we do here, to make a stupid fast machine! Maybe the world will notice and reform the power production systems, then you can make an economy model, but until then it is just piss in the wind...

Well my idea wouldn't need much charging at all. Zeropoint and I know of many ways to make it happen. The idea actually came from Mr. Porsche and like Tesla, was another genius. If I do ever make a car, the petroleum would be used for something else instead of fueling the vehicle. I've always wanted to make a EV and the first one was going to be my kart back in Brasil. I just like electric things lol. I'm trying my best to get the attention of a certain few in the automotive industry and if they come to a conclusion that this is the way to go, then it's on.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by Lauri

But tell us some information about those super cells?
voltage -
capacity -
internal resistance - (graph not needed but some examples to get a sense)
weight -

We know these settings for regular LiPos, LiFePO4s, A123s and those that Tesla uses... I'd just like to see how those super-cells differ mainly in energy density and internal resistance.

Fully charged 4.15V (3.65V nominal), 5.5Ah at 1C and just above 5Ah at 400C, Impedance at 350A is around 0.60 mΩ (2000A 0.20 mΩ) and it weighs 340g. That's the latest power cell. I'll see if I can get more data for the medium power and the energy cells. Now the energy cell they have is 4.15V, 52Ah at 7C, don't have info on resistance, it weighs 1Kg and the best thing about it is that it gives a full 50Ah at 20C. The lowest voltage the 5.5Ah cell can go to is 1.5V and the 52Ah cell is 2.5V. How do you mach those stats to the Panasonic cell?

[lutach]

Originally Posted by redshift

I can agree with almost 100% there linc. I will admit to being bipolar about this. For me it's not a green thing, it's being bored with 100+ year old "technology". Fer chrissakes the Garrett water carburetor was invented in the 20s. Look at the advancements made over the last 20 years with computers, and weigh that against conventional engine's 'progress' made in the last 120 years. No comparo. Speaking for only myself, I just want something different.

As for pollution, it seems to me that more components could be recycled, not sure on that one however. Much of that will depend also on how complex the mfr makes it. Tesla surely doesn't get much credit here due to the sheer numbers of cells alone.

I agree about the batteries as a potential problem, but again think about what a gasoline powered vehicle consumes in that same 5 year period, and the waste it will create in more forms than exhaust.

Not trying to preach here, just trying to see both sides better. If we could have something like a Gwiz here (maybe a little less pathetic tho) I would have one. A few years back, Corbin Seats made some 3 wheeled fiberglass cars. In the event of a collision, they would bounce off the other vehicle, was the theory at least. The point is, it is possible to make a small vehicle that is safe, and super efficient. The number of SUVs on the road at any given moment with one person in them is really stupid.

The cost, as pointed out on that Tesla vid, was "three pounds fifty" versus 40 pounds, per roughly the same mileage. Less than one tenth the cost. That's very attractive, and if we don't do something we'll continue to be raped by the petros. I could feel a lot better with the 'bang' being produced in a reactor. Versus some Arab in cahoots with top level politicians producing it at least...

I dunno, shit needs to change.

I really do wish those 100+ years was spent developing the EV. If that was the case, we would be in a much better shape now as we would have the technology to live oil free in almost all types of industry.