Tesla unveils Model X SUV, wants to be your all-electric crossover
96 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bittorrent;34676739]Electric cars are a novelty. 43km range is bad.[/QUOTE]
The Tesla has a range of about 10 times longer than that
[QUOTE=Sjokolade;34677632]The Tesla has a range of about 10 times longer than that[/QUOTE]
Under specific conditions, at a certain temperature, with a specific load, and holding a specific speed.
Electrics have never been able to get anywhere near what the laboratory claims they will get due to real-world factors out of their control. Battery range fluctuates wildly just from the ambient temperature alone, and then you have weight of passengers and cargo(Protip: using that crossover as a crossover is going to absolutely mutilate it's range), people don't always re-buy the crummy eco-tires they ship with(mostly because those tires suck), they don't factor in headwinds and weather affecting the rolling resistance, and they always test at a speed nowhere near what people actually run.
Real world? Expect 50-65% of what the lab claims. Which comes out to roughly 150 miles. Better than before, but nowhere near where it needs to be if these things are to become commonplace.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34676454]That hasn't been the case for a while now. Modern automatics can shift faster and more efficiently than any human ever could.[/QUOTE]
And the torque converter slop kills your city mileage, which is already bad enough as it is due to all the time spent at lights.
Just because they shift faster doesn't mean they net a lower fuel use. Often, they net more fuel use, combination of torque converter slip in lower gears(Lockup converters don't lock up below 45MPH on average, by the way) and the drag of having to run the hydraulic pump they rely on to function means you drop 3-5MPG city. Also, often, they're geared worse than a comparable manual.
My manual transmission means the difference between the 17MPG I average and the 12MPG people assume I average.
[QUOTE=Saber15;34633506]Electric cars have no transmission or clutch. :v:[/quote]
It falls under the category. You don't have to do anything besides tell it "Forward" or "Backward". From the driver's view it's no different.
And I don't want a PRNDL in my shit.
[QUOTE=edberg;34636163]for the people who say it's a hurrdurr boring electric car, fuck you it gives an srt8 cherokee a run for it's money, find me something faster in that price range (loltestecull)[/QUOTE]I wouldn't touch an SRT8 Cherokee with a stolen pair of hands. Absolute heap of shit. Funnily enough, thanks to Dodge's impeccable engineering, the Tesla would go farther, and be more reliable to boot.
Given the choice of the two, and held at gunpoint unless I chose one, I'd go with the Tesla, but solely on the basis that the damn gearbox won't fall out of it.
[QUOTE=Clementine;34640087]You guys arguing against eco cars are stupid as fuck, all your reasons are a result of a new technology emerging, in due time all problems you guys are mentioning will be fixed, and then what will you bandwagon on? [/QUOTE]
I'm not bandwagoning, so I won't be against them anymore. I still won't buy one, fuck no, but I won't be telling people to not waste their money anymore. Right now EVs are too impractical to be worth buying, and that's mainly because the batteries are heavy and take too goddamn long to recharge for how little real-world range they have.
I'll keep on driving my ICE powered stuff. I've already planned out my next move when gasoline runs out. Likely I'll either swap in a Detroit 4-53T diesel engine running off cooking oil or similar, or perhaps if LPG is still cheap and commonplace I'll keep the existing engine and convert to that using off-the-shelf parts. I could also convert to run on alcohol if I needed to, there's manifolds that would let me mount a 500CFM 4bbl carb on my engine, and those I can obtain in alcohol friendly variants, both ethanol and methanol.
I'm set for a world without gasoline. I could convert my existing engine to renewable fuels for about $750 or so, and I can do the conversion in my driveway with hand tools. Hell, if there were a significant amount of E85 stations in my area I'd have already converted it to run on the stuff. I don't need an EV, and I don't give a shit about how long gasoline lasts. I'll just keep on trucking, literally, while everyone else scrambles to buy an EV or an alcohol/diesel ICE powered car.
[QUOTE=Sjokolade;34639110]When/where will you be able to drive at top speed?[/quote]
Top speed? I never said top speed. Just going with the flow is going to neuter the range of that thing. We just simply do not have the right battery tech to make an EV feasible. If we did they'd be as commonplace as ICE power.
[quote]It is a step in the right direction. It is good enough for daily commute[/quote] And nothing more. As things stand right now if you want to venture to the store on the way home from work or an emergency comes up your batteries will let you down.
[quote] and if you're on a long journey, 45 minutes is a good time to grab some food.[/QUOTE]
If I'm on a long journey I want to be on a long journey. I want to spend as much of that time rolling as possible. I don't want to be forced to spend 45 minutes sitting there staring at my dashboard while the car charges because the battery technology isn't up to task.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;34639908]Like it or not, Automatics are the future.
I don't care about your stance on what type of transmission is better, manuals are dying out to regular autos, CVT's or even tranny-less vehicles. People are obsessed with money saving and fuel efficiency right now, not performance.[/QUOTE]
If you're obsessed with efficiency the automatic is the WORST idea. Manuals get 3-5MPG better city than automatics do because the input shaft and engine crankshaft match RPM. 100% efficient transfer between engine and transmission, whereas torque converters slip by definition of how they work and waste fuel.
A flappy paddle gearbox as you typically find in, say, Ferraris, is as close as you're going to get to an automatic that doesn't waste fuel, and right now we haven't gotten them smooth enough, cheap enough and reliable enough to put them in daily drivers. DDs still have planetary automatic with TCs, even if they do have the shift paddles on the wheel, because of this.
[QUOTE=Sjokolade;34638253]The batteries are situated at the bottom of the car, which give a very low center of gravity and nearly no body roll. The weight is also very well distributed between the tires which give a very well balanced car.[/quote]
And it's still excess weight. It WILL effect the handling regardless of where you put them.
[quote]Though seriously, who buys a crossover to go fast through a corner at a track. [/quote] I take it you've never had to avoid some fucktard who doesn't know what the side windows are for and pull out onto your street without a care in the world. The better handling your vehicle is the less likely you are to ram them.
[quote]This is a great car because of it's practicality.[/quote] For electrics, anyway. It's still curbstomped by ICE powered ones because of how much more convenient it is to fill them up and how you get so much more distance out of each fillup.
Face the facts: Batteries just aren't where they need to be for these things to be practical. We need batteries that recharge in 3-5 minutes and give 300 miles or so of REAL WORLD driving in order to be practical for use in cars. Right now we can barely get 300 miles out of batteries in the lab, and charge times are absolutely abysmal right now.
[quote] On normal roads you'll barely get up to 80 mph, and thats only in certain states. 60 and 70 mph is the normal maximum speed limit for most of the states.[/QUOTE]
LOLWUT?! You've never been on an American interstate then. The speed limit is the [i]minimum[/i] speed you must run in order to not get flattened. In my area, it's 70. The 'flow', which you're well advised to go with lest you cause jams, goes at about 75-80. On top of that, every time I see some sort of 'eco' car, Priuses are the most common, I see them fucking hauling ass in the hammer lane going 90+.
People buy these things and assume it gives them a blank check to drive like Micheal Schumacher or something.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34677859]Under specific conditions, at a certain temperature, with a specific load, and holding a specific speed.
...
Electrics have never been able to get anywhere near what the laboratory claims they will get due to real-world factors out of their control.
...
Real world? Expect 50-65% of what the lab claims. Which comes out to roughly 150 miles. [/QUOTE]
Wow, you must be an experienced EV driver. Source?
[QUOTE=TestECull;34677859]I take it you've never had to avoid some fucktard who doesn't know what the side windows are for and pull out onto your street without a care in the world. The better handling your vehicle is the less likely you are to ram them.[/QUOTE]
I take it your truck handles much better. The thing is that by driving vigilant and reading traffic well you can easily avoid these situations. You can't assume that everybody on the road is suitable to drive. And if you first come in such a situation, your well handled sportscar won't help you if there is oncoming traffic.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34677859]Top speed? I never said top speed. Just going with the flow is going to neuter the range of that thing. We just simply do not have the right battery tech to make an EV feasible. If we did they'd be as commonplace as ICE power.[/QUOTE]
The Model S is stated at 300 miles at 55 mph. The usual average speed of a car with mixed urban and highway driving is usually no more than 20 to 30 mph, believe it or not. (Of course this depends on where you live).
I think you got some good points in your post, but you seem to have your mind set on one opinion. If you are to give believable arguments, sources will help you a great deal. It seems that you assume alot.
Good points on the manual/automatic transmission-thing, though on the EV's manual just isn't an option :/
And I haven't been on an American interstate, but I've driven on a Norwegian highways with the incredibly high speed limit of 100 km/h (60mph) (irony). The flow drives at about 110-125 km/h, and I follow it of course. I'm just seeing this from a legal point of view.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;34630630]Those gullwing doors are practical and don't look completely stupid.[/QUOTE]
bfahaha - Practical? Have you ever tried close-parking with those, or what if the car flips over - you're fucked then.
[QUOTE=Clementine;34640087]You guys arguing against eco cars are stupid as fuck, all your reasons are a result of a new technology emerging, in due time all problems you guys are mentioning will be fixed, and then what will you bandwagon on?
And seriously, that "batteries are hurtful!" shit is so typical, even if it is, it probably isn't as hurtful as driving gasoline.[/QUOTE]
no, batteries are far worse, to make them the parts are shipped across multiple continents, not to mention its far more harmful to the environment to mine all the minerals used in the batteries then it is to drill for oil, and they are almost impossible to safely dispose of.
Also the modern car has fewer emissions then a lawn mower
[QUOTE=viperfan7;34679624]no, batteries are far worse, to make them the parts are shipped across multiple continents, not to mention its far more harmful to the environment to mine all the minerals used in the batteries then it is to drill for oil, and they are almost impossible to safely dispose of.
Also the modern car has fewer emissions then a lawn mower[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.treehugger.com/cars/heres-what-happens-to-a-tesla-electric-car-battery-at-the-end-of-its-life.html[/url]
Nope.
Tesla batteries are free from almost all environmentally hurtful materials, are manufactured in Japan, where there's strict environmental control, they're RoHS certified, and they're recycled at the end of their lifetime.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;34679445]bfahaha - Practical? Have you ever tried close-parking with those, or what if the car flips over - you're fucked then.[/QUOTE]
The whole point of them is that they are supposed to open up easily if you're in a tight spot.
[img]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full0.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full12.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full18.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full25.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full40.jpg[/img]
(They're double hinged on the top)
Also, the front doors open normally.
[QUOTE=KorJax;34644195]On average, for the lifetime of the car a toyota prius produces more pollution and contributes more toxic materials to the environment than an H3 in it's entire car lifetime, mostly due to the high production and disposal/salvage pollution costs, not to mention the highly toxic batteries they carry. Many hybrids also use nickle-based batteries, which involve carcinogenic metals that are very dangerous to mine for.
So no. My gas engine geo metro is 5x better for the enviornment than a Prius or your average battery-dependant car, and yet I still get the same gas milage that the prius does.
Though electric cars are a nice idea. They just need a way for people to instantly refuel them without having to charge (but still have the option of charging), so they can be used on long trips, and our infrastructure needs to be heavily nuclear/thorium based so we can keep up with the demand of a pure-electric car country. And of course, because Nuclear produces no pollution except the waste (something that Thorium aims to solve), we'd pretty much have zero carbon footprint on driving or producing electric cars.[/QUOTE]
This has been disproven. It's a ridiculous argument based on terrible science and data manipulation:
[url]http://www.evworld.com/library/pacinst_hummerVprius.pdf[/url]
Hell, even the firm that put out that H3 > Prius study has since conceded that it's not actually true.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.