i really need one of these.... best mod i have seen in a while

[Cale_Hagan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy5rkw4SeP4

[x88x]

Hahaha, love it! :D

...seriously though, lose two of those wheels. Saves you some weight and makes it hella more fun. :D

[billygoat333]

sometimes, 2 stroke engines > electric motors haha. and Petrol vs. electric? hah. I love the idea of electric motors, but they have a long way to go. Maybe Hydrogen cell tech will solve this.

[x88x]

sometimes, 2 stroke engines > electric motors haha. and Petrol vs. electric? hah. I love the idea of electric motors, but they have a long way to go. Maybe Hydrogen cell tech will solve this.

It's not the motors that are the problem, it's the energy density of the batteries. Always has been. Even with that, though, I could build an electric version of that thing that would put the 2 stroke to shame. ;) It'd probably cost more because of the current state of tech and supply/demand, but it's definitely possible. And even the battery tech doesn't have nearly as far to go as you may think. ;)

....and don't even get me started on how ridiculous, overblown, and truly pointless hydrogen fuel cells are....or maybe do, but in a different thread. :whistler:

[billygoat333]

Alright... I will challenge you... Why are hydrogen fuel cells pointless?? where are you going to get the energy for your batteries when fossil fuels go, for no better term, the way of the dinosaur?

EDIT: mods, split this thread if you will, and x88x, I deem you no ill will... I just am really curious what your points are against hydrogen fuel.

[x88x]

Haha, ok, sure, I'll meet that challenge. ;)

Let's see, first we'll look at hydrogen fuel cells.
1) They have been promised for literally decades as the solution to all our problems, but they are still a finicky technology that last I looked into them was nowhere near ready for market in terms of durability and longevity, and didn't provide any improvement in energy density over batteries (if even on par).

2) Infrastructure and Safety. First, let's look at how the hydrogen is generated. According to my research, last I looked into it, there are two main ways that hydrogen has been generated for the stuff that's been done to date. Either electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen) or as a byproduct of the crude oil refining process. Either route you go, if you generate it at a central location you have to then transport the hydrogen to somewhere where people will actually use the stuff. Much the same problem we have now with transporting gasoline to fueling stations, but instead of a volatile liquid fuel, you have an incredibly highly compressed, even more volatile, fuel. One of the biggest problems that fuel cell product manufacturers have had is designing fuel tanks that will actually provide some modicum of safety in the event of a breach...that's kinda hard to do when you have such a volatile gas compressed to the levels that you have to have it compressed to in order to get a usable energy density. As a side note, speaking of the crude oil refining process, according to recent estimates it takes ~6kWh of energy (http://gatewayev.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline) to refine the necessary crude to generate a single gallon of gasoline. Granted there are other products of that refining process, but we'll use 6kWh as a rough estimate. The Tesla Model S (used as an example since it is a production car and I like it, even if it is a bit of an energy hog) uses ~300Wh of energy to go 1 mile. So from the energy it takes to refine one gallon of gasoline, the Model S could go 20 miles. Ah, you may say, but that's 20mpg! That's pretty bad! But you would still have the crude oil that you started with to do with what you want...put it back in the ground as far as I'm concerned. :P

3) Efficiency. No matter how you generate the hydrogen, it is, and always will be (for these purposes), an energy storage medium. This means that you have to expend energy putting the energy into said medium (electrolysis/etc), and then you have to expend energy transferring that stored energy into a usable form (in this case, electricity). There is always going to be an efficiency loss at each of these stages, and in the case of hydrogen generation and hydrogen fuel cells, it's a pretty big loss (can't remember numbers atm, sorry). Still a hell of a lot better than ICE, iirc, but still quite large.

4) The main reason though, and the reason I say that they are truly pointless, is very simple. Batteries.

The level of progress we have seen in battery technology over the last couple decades is amazing. If you look at the energy and power densities of cutting edge batteries 15 years ago and compare them to what we have today, the change is phenomenal. Hell, look at the Tesla Model S. 85kWh battery pack, enough to go 300 miles on a single charge (depending on driving style, of course, but how much does you range vary when you thrash your ICE vehicle? ..hint, about the same...you just don't notice because we already have a quick and easy refueling infrastructure) and recharge from empty to completely full (given the proper hookup) in 45 minutes. Now, before you pick at the 45 minute charge time, answer me this: How frequently do you travel more than 300 miles at a shot and not want to stop for at least 45 minutes? Plus, there are batteries currently being demonstrated that can fully charge in less than 6 minutes. That's right at the point where recharging time is indistinguishable from the time it takes to fill up a tank of gas (basing my time estimate for filling a tank of gas on the 11 gallon tank in my car). All that being said however, seriously; how often do you drive more than 300 miles in a single day? Hell, how often do you drive more than 100 miles in a single day? If you could recharge at your home, your place of business, etc, etc, would you ever even need to consider charge time except maybe on the occasional long trip?

The only case for hydrogen fuel cells was ever that they would (theoretically) provide a higher energy density and quicker 'refueling' time than batteries, allowing further range in a smaller package that could be replenished more quickly. The problem with that is that the progress in fuel cell tech has (as far as I have seen) pretty much stagnated, whereas battery tech has improved by leaps and bounds. Hell, the only reason batteries hadn't improved as significantly in the century prior was because cheap oil made it difficult to justify sinking large amounts of cash into R&D for a product for which you could not see short term mass market appeal. Now that there is short term mass market for improved EV-grade batteries, there is huge development in that area. Looking just at current products that I know are in the works, I would not be surprised at all to see a 400-500 mile range on the Tesla Model X (slated for next year). And looking at the current trends in the tech market, I fully expect to see a 400-500 mile range, sub-5-minute charge time, economy (sub-$15k) battery electric car, price-competitive with its ICE counterpart, with performance that will put the ICE to shame and a battery that will last longer than the vehicle, within 10 years....maybe within 5 if things speed up more than I am expecting.


where are you going to get the energy for your batteries when fossil fuels go, for no better term, the way of the dinosaur?
....look, I know you're an intelligent person, so I am really sorry if this comes across as condescending, but....really?...we can make electricity from practically anything....and we already do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
That's actually the point; move our biggest energy usage onto a dynamic grid that we can put any kind of source we want into.
Running out of electricity period is one thing that I am not worried about in the slightest.

Besides, it takes electricity to generate hydrogen too (assuming electrolysis or similar, and no matter what method you use it still uses energy of some sort), and as I already stated, it's a pretty inefficient process, so you end up with less energy at the motor than if you had just put that electricity straight into batteries.

[Cale_Hagan]

how bout tesla roadster vs lotus elise? bout same size, same look.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

http://www.lotuscars.com/en/lotus-elise-specification

you tell me which one you like better, yeah? :whistler:

tesla beats lotus hands down, but for practical reasons, such as energy density in the batteries, only reason i would ever pick the lotus over tesla roadster.

[Cale_Hagan]

Haha, ok, sure, I'll meet that challenge. ;)

Let's see, first we'll look at hydrogen fuel cells.
1) They have been promised for literally decades as the solution to all our problems, but they are still a finicky technology that last I looked into them was nowhere near ready for market in terms of durability and longevity, and didn't provide any improvement in energy density over batteries (if even on par).

2) Infrastructure and Safety. First, let's look at how the hydrogen is generated. According to my research, last I looked into it, there are two main ways that hydrogen has been generated for the stuff that's been done to date. Either electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen) or as a byproduct of the crude oil refining process. Either route you go, if you generate it at a central location you have to then transport the hydrogen to somewhere where people will actually use the stuff. Much the same problem we have now with transporting gasoline to fueling stations, but instead of a volatile liquid fuel, you have an incredibly highly compressed, even more volatile, fuel. One of the biggest problems that fuel cell product manufacturers have had is designing fuel tanks that will actually provide some modicum of safety in the event of a breach...that's kinda hard to do when you have such a volatile gas compressed to the levels that you have to have it compressed to in order to get a usable energy density. As a side note, speaking of the crude oil refining process, according to recent estimates it takes ~6kWh of energy (http://gatewayev.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline) to refine the necessary crude to generate a single gallon of gasoline. Granted there are other products of that refining process, but we'll use 6kWh as a rough estimate. The Tesla Model S (used as an example since it is a production car and I like it, even if it is a bit of an energy hog) uses ~300Wh of energy to go 1 mile. So from the energy it takes to refine one gallon of gasoline, the Model S could go 20 miles. Ah, you may say, but that's 20mpg! That's pretty bad! But you would still have the crude oil that you started with to do with what you want...put it back in the ground as far as I'm concerned. :P

3) Efficiency. No matter how you generate the hydrogen, it is, and always will be (for these purposes), an energy storage medium. This means that you have to expend energy putting the energy into said medium (electrolysis/etc), and then you have to expend energy transferring that stored energy into a usable form (in this case, electricity). There is always going to be an efficiency loss at each of these stages, and in the case of hydrogen generation and hydrogen fuel cells, it's a pretty big loss (can't remember numbers atm, sorry). Still a hell of a lot better than ICE, iirc, but still quite large.

4) The main reason though, and the reason I say that they are truly pointless, is very simple. Batteries.

The level of progress we have seen in battery technology over the last couple decades is amazing. If you look at the energy and power densities of cutting edge batteries 15 years ago and compare them to what we have today, the change is phenomenal. Hell, look at the Tesla Model S. 85kWh battery pack, enough to go 300 miles on a single charge (depending on driving style, of course, but how much does you range vary when you thrash your ICE vehicle? ..hint, about the same...you just don't notice because we already have a quick and easy refueling infrastructure) and recharge from empty to completely full (given the proper hookup) in 45 minutes. Now, before you pick at the 45 minute charge time, answer me this: How frequently do you travel more than 300 miles at a shot and not want to stop for at least 45 minutes? Plus, there are batteries currently being demonstrated that can fully charge in less than 6 minutes. That's right at the point where recharging time is indistinguishable from the time it takes to fill up a tank of gas (basing my time estimate for filling a tank of gas on the 11 gallon tank in my car). All that being said however, seriously; how often do you drive more than 300 miles in a single day? Hell, how often do you drive more than 100 miles in a single day? If you could recharge at your home, your place of business, etc, etc, would you ever even need to consider charge time except maybe on the occasional long trip?

The only case for hydrogen fuel cells was ever that they would (theoretically) provide a higher energy density and quicker 'refueling' time than batteries, allowing further range in a smaller package that could be replenished more quickly. The problem with that is that the progress in fuel cell tech has (as far as I have seen) pretty much stagnated, whereas battery tech has improved by leaps and bounds. Hell, the only reason batteries hadn't improved as significantly in the century prior was because cheap oil made it difficult to justify sinking large amounts of cash into R&D for a product for which you could not see short term mass market appeal. Now that there is short term mass market for improved EV-grade batteries, there is huge development in that area. Looking just at current products that I know are in the works, I would not be surprised at all to see a 400-500 mile range on the Tesla Model X (slated for next year). And looking at the current trends in the tech market, I fully expect to see a 400-500 mile range, sub-5-minute charge time, economy (sub-$15k) battery electric car, price-competitive with its ICE counterpart, with performance that will put the ICE to shame and a battery that will last longer than the vehicle, within 10 years....maybe within 5 if things speed up more than I am expecting.


....look, I know you're an intelligent person, so I am really sorry if this comes across as condescending, but....really?...we can make electricity from practically anything....and we already do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
That's actually the point; move our biggest energy usage onto a dynamic grid that we can put any kind of source we want into.
Running out of electricity period is one thing that I am not worried about in the slightest.

Besides, it takes electricity to generate hydrogen too (assuming electrolysis or similar, and no matter what method you use it still uses energy of some sort), and as I already stated, it's a pretty inefficient process, so you end up with less energy at the motor than if you had just put that electricity straight into batteries.

:banana: :D ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :D :banana:

[x88x]

how bout tesla roadster vs lotus elise? bout same size, same look.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

http://www.lotuscars.com/en/lotus-elise-specification

you tell me which one you like better, yeah? :whistler:

tesla beats lotus hands down, but for practical reasons, such as energy density in the batteries, only reason i would ever pick the lotus over tesla roadster.
Heheh, you think the original Tesla Roadster is good, you should see what they have planned for the next gen. :twisted:

I don't have any numbers, but I have it on good authority that they will be making a new Roadster in the next year or two built on the same platform that they are using for the S and X. Can you say absolutely perfect weight distribution in all three axes with more storage than any sports car in its class? :twisted: If the Model S (85kWh Performance) at ~4,000lb can do 0-60 in 4.4s, imagine what could happen if they knocked >=1,000-1,500lb off that weight. :twisted: