SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the my-whoosh-is-bigger-than-yours dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
FRANKFURT -- The gleaming white Porsche with menacing black trim took less than 8 minutes to complete the Nurburgring's demanding Nordschleife circuit. The result was respectable but not spectacular for a 600-hp beast that sprints from 0 to 62 mph in a little more than 3 seconds.
Unlike the Panamera production car, which can easily beat its lap time, the Mission E concept doesn't have camshafts, pistons or valves to mix air and fuel in a combustion chamber or a spark plug to ignite it. It runs on a current of pure electrons supplied by a lithium ion battery, and it can almost fully recharge itself within 15 minutes.
The Tesla Model S doesn't come anywhere close to those specs -- which is the point.
Porsche's 1 billion euro ($1.12 billion) gamble to lure Tesla owners from their beloved electric car is just one example of how much premium European automakers are investing to try and match their Silicon Valley-based rival. Tesla's zero-emissions sports sedan has made Europe's finest automakers look woefully behind the times in an area they typically dominate: technology. The question is whether established brands can win back the hearts and minds of car buyers seeking the next big thing.
Germany's best known sports car maker promises its Mission E, which was teased at last year's Frankfurt auto show, will be "an electric Porsche that deserves the name." That means it will be consistently fast over an extended period with no loss of performance despite repeated accelerating and braking. It is supposed to be the first zero-emissions car worthy of being taken to the racetrack.
Porsche, however, will need years before it can mass produce and sell its electric sports car at a decent profit. Meanwhile, Tesla will continue to deliver tens of thousands of its vaunted sedans and SUVs every year to wealthy progressives around the world, most likely at a loss. "I wish we had put that car on the road and not Tesla," confided a senior engineer at Porsche, not a brand typically prone to technological envy. "We have to earn money at the end of the day though."
[...] Moreover, reputational problems may catch up to it. Allegations have been leveled that Tesla tried to hide suspension flaws in the Model S from the public by forcing customers to sign nondisclosure agreements. More recently, a fatal accident has put its Autopilot in a negative spotlight. Also, when the Model 3 eventually debuts, Tesla will target more demanding consumers, who are not likely to be as forgiving when it comes to the inherent trade-offs of an electric car.
A senior automotive executive at Bosch is convinced that sooner or later Musk will not be able to maintain this startup style showmanship over substance: "At some point as they grow customers won't accept this and Tesla will have to adopt a zero-tolerance approach."
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:05PM
My experience with electric vs combustion is limited to the push lawn mower. And I can say that the plug in electric lawn mower absolutely blows away the gasoline powered kind. The only downside is the cord. In every other way, the electric mower rules. Quieter, starts and stops on a dime, smaller, lighter, more durable, less maintenance, no fumes to choke on while you're working, and less costly to operate.
My plan is for my next car to be electric. The big question is the energy storage. Li-ion batteries? Fuel cells? Fly wheels? I've been holding off, waiting for storage tech to improve and prices to come down while I keep the wheels on my current car from falling off. Yeah, the Leaf is unacceptable for a long trip, and I'm not too sure it's good enough for a longish commute. One trip I make on a weekly basis is 40 miles one way, which the Leaf should be able to do if I can recharge some for the return trip. The Tesla would be excellent if not for the high price tag.
One issue I have with these traditional car manufacturers is just how stupidly conservative they are. Aerodynamics could so easily be greatly improved, but they just won't do it. Exhibit A in their neglect of aero is the underside of the car. Next is the monster grill. They still make huge grills to give the impression of more power, just like they've been doing since the 1940s. Some of that is for appearances, as a close look shows some blocking. Then there's the rear. Where are the vortex generators? Such an easy, inexpensive change, but they won't do that either. Instead, if there's anything at all, there's a non-functional tail fin, and maybe some spoilers, purely for a race car look. Some idiocies have been dropped-- the hood ornament is one. The tone of this article, that experienced car makers will soon catch up and pass the inexperienced upstart Tesla, when they all leave low hanging fruit such as decent aero on the tree, makes me laugh.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:06PM
My experience with electric vs combustion is limited to the push lawn mower. And I can say that the plug in electric lawn mower absolutely blows away the gasoline powered kind.
Yes, but cars and mowers are really different (unfortunately). The mower makers (and their engine suppliers, more critically) are really really backwards. They haven't adopted most of the newer technologies used on cars for decades: EFI, pollution controls, water cooling, intake and exhaust resonators, etc. The tech in mower engines really hasn't changed in 50 years I think. It's ridiculous, and it should be illegal. Modern car engines have ridiculously low maintenance requirements (usually nothing until 50k or 100k miles except oil changes), and are very very quiet (but still nothing like an EV).
Yeah, the Leaf is unacceptable for a long trip, and I'm not too sure it's good enough for a longish commute.
It's not. The range is too short, and the battery life is terrible because lithium batteries have a much shorter lifetime when you discharge them fully. This is why Teslas only charge up to 80% and discharge to 20% by default, and as a result, Tesla batteries are doing extremely well with lifetimes. But Teslas can get away with this because they have comparatively huge batteries, and most peoples' commutes are much, much shorter than the maximum range. Not so with a Leaf. A Leaf would be a great car if you have a really short commute and only use it for that and very local trips, and keep a second car for other stuff.
One issue I have with these traditional car manufacturers is just how stupidly conservative they are. Aerodynamics could so easily be greatly improved, but they just won't do it. Exhibit A in their neglect of aero is the underside of the car. Next is the monster grill. They still make huge grills to give the impression of more power, just like they've been doing since the 1940s. Some of that is for appearances, as a close look shows some blocking. Then there's the rear. Where are the vortex generators? Such an easy, inexpensive change, but they won't do that either. Instead, if there's anything at all, there's a non-functional tail fin, and maybe some spoilers, purely for a race car look. Some idiocies have been dropped-- the hood ornament is one.
This stuff just isn't true. Have you not looked at cars made after the 80s?
First off, new cars *do* have aero panels under the car. My 2015 Mazda is completely covered in them; it's completely smooth. The grills went away in the 90s and early 2000s, and are back, mainly because of pedestrian safety: the low grill-less front ends caused pedestrians to get flipped up onto the windshield, killing them more often. The big, crushable grills give pedestrians lower injuries. Also, newer cars have much, much better fuel economy than those grill-less cars from 20 years ago, so it doesn't follow that they're not aerodynamic; automakers are doing all kinds of aero stuff to improve their economy numbers, and modern cars have lower Cd figures than ever (except for some oddball specialty cars). As for spoilers, I don't see that stuff (except small and actually functional ones) one cars any more except as aftermarket add-ons by teenagers. As for VGs, I did a little reading on those and there's nothing really conclusive about them. They mainly use them on aircraft, but aircraft travel far faster than cars so aerodynamic effects are much more pronounced. From what I found, in cars they're only used on race cars and high-performance cars to aid airflow over the spoiler, which of course is very different from what you want in a regular commuter car (race cars want lots of downforce which comes at the penalty of more drag, but race cars don't care much about fuel economy unlike commuter cars).
The next big thing you're going to see with aerodynamics on regular cars is the elimination of the rearview mirrors. Those actually do have a big effect (and in fact, modern headlights are designed with projections that are basically like VGs to help reduce this effect), and there's a move to replace them with cameras. The problem here is government regulations which don't allow this, but they'll probably get that changed eventually since the government is extremely interested in fuel economy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:39AM
I disagree that they've gotten serious about aero. I am pleased to see some grill blocking being done now, and that's interesting that Mazda smoothed the underside on your 2015 vehicle. That's something, but there's still much more they could do. How about skirts for the wheels? Some cars from the 50s and 60s had them, but people didn't like their looks. That's the crucial problem-- these conservative manufacturers are not going to risk alienating the public by introducing a too radical change in appearance, no matter how much better that makes the car. An added advantage of better aero is that it makes the car more stable, which makes it safer. But they're so afraid of public expectations that they still won't do it. Only car I know of in recent times that had wheel skirts was the Honda Insight. For VG, all you have to do is add dimples like golf balls have at the trailing edges. The Corbin Sparrow had such dimples. Plus, there are other VG designs. Truck trailers could use them. But I know what sticks in the mud some people can be about that. I know one guy who won't even think of using VGs because in his opinion they are ugly. I asked him how could anyone care about the "beauty" of an ugly gray box of a trailer? What does it matter if VGs are added to that? He kept on bleating "ugly". I told him that if it saves fuel without compromising in other important areas, it's beautiful.
Check out http://aerocivic.com [aerocivic.com] for an example of how much more manufacturers could do. This guy modified a 1992 Honda Civic which already had excellent fuel economy, and nearly doubled it. Another car that shows what could be done is the winner of the X-prize for a 100 mpg car, the Edison 2: http://www.edison2.com/ [edison2.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:28PM
?!? In the UK the laws about car shapes are such that pedestrians *do* get scooped up and have a chance to roll across the bonnet and windscreen, losing momentum (i.e. decellerating) slowly, because hitting a vertical grille would simply destroy the entire bottom half of their body in an instant. Crumple zones are for other cars or trees to crumple, not humans.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:46PM
Read:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20120423/OEM03/304239967/european-safety-styled-cars-due-in-u.s. [autonews.com]
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pedestrian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature [caranddriver.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehicle_design [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 08 2016, @10:19PM
and
"when cars have lower bumpers, the thigh and leg rotate together causing the knee to bend less and thus reducing the likelihood of ligament injuries"
That's to do what I said - to scoop the pedestrian up, otherwise you get rotation of the lower leg, and basically mangling of the human. The fact that they're softening the bonnet means *they want the human on the bonnet*. Which is what I said.
And from a quick skim, I didn't see any reference to your "big, crushable grills" at all. Crushable implies less scooping, and less scooping is bad.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:58AM
This, to be quite honest, is why electric cars have never caught on. The vast majority of trips in my car are no more than 10 or 20 miles (~30km) ("perfect for an electric car!" I hear a few of you cry...)
But the thing is, they aren't the story of why I own a car. I also make trips of a few hundred miles/km several times a year. *That's* why I have a car. Most electric cars can't make it that far, and even if they could, here on the east coast of the U.S., there's no charging infrastructure to get back home again.
"Just have two cars, an electric with poor range, and a real one with real range!"
No, I don't want to maintain two cars. That's not sensible nor sustainable. Plus I don't want two sets of taxes and tag fees. I want one car that's usable for transportation. If the best thing you can say about your car is "well, you actually also need another car whose range does *not* suck" then you are doing it wrong.
There are now electric cars with 200+ mile/ 300+ km range (Tesla Model S), and the infrastructure is growing by inches, so maybe there's hope.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:01PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday September 09 2016, @02:10PM
This is not a bad guess, but I usually stay with friends or family. However, for my 200 mile/320 km trip coming up in a few weeks, I will be staying in a motel, so I'll run the (estimated) numbers. Figures in $US.
With my car: Motel, two nights, ~$95; Food and Fuel budget for trip $125 + $30. Total $250 (~ €225).
With rented car: Motel, two nights, ~$95; Food and Fuel budget for trip $125 + $30; Enterprise.com rental car for trip ~$141*. Total $391 (~ €349).
(*This is the absolute lowest price I could find on enterprise.com for my travel dates. I chose enterprise because they have an office very near my home, and I have rented from them before.)
So I guess the answer to "why not" is that it turns a US$250 trip into a US$400 trip. Had I an electric car with sufficient range (it's at the far reaches of the model S) + charging infrastructure to charge while at my destination, it goes back to a US$250 trip, or perhaps less depending on fuel cost vs. cost to recharge.
A problem I have is that I live in a country that is, well, large. For example, were I to drive to visit a friend's daughter (and deliver to her many of her belongings left here, the purpose of the trip), I would be in for a drive of 2982 miles (4799 km) [google.com], requiring many refills/recharges pretty much regardless of power plant. But the longer on a fill/charge the better. Making range both culturally and practically important.