backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by nugundam93.. on Jul 28 at 3:31 AM

LCC debuts its Lightning GT and its fast-charge system

DailyTech last brought you news of the Lightning GT back in March of this year. The Lightning GT, produce by Lightning Car Company (LCC), promised roughly 700 HP from its Hi-Pa Drive all-electric powertrain and was complemented by sexy bodywork.

At the time, however, the only images available of the car were computer-generated and many thought of the vehicle as simply a "hype machine". LCC put at least some of those concerns to rest as they unveiled the actual vehicle this week at the British Motor Show in London.

The vehicle looks just as good as it did in the rendered shots and packs quite a punch. The Lightning GT features a powerful 120 kw electric hub motor attached to each 20" wheel and together provide over 700 HP. LCC says that its all-electric powertrain is capable of propelling the vehicle to 60 MPH in just four seconds.

Perhaps even more intriguing, however, is the 36 kw NanoSafe battery pack and its charging system. Whereas most current electric vehicles need to be charged overnight to top off an empty battery, the Lightning GT will require far less recharging time. LCC's fast charge system allows the battery to charge to 80 percent in two or three minutes. Recapturing the remaining 20 percent will take another 7 or eight minutes according to LCC. The vehicle is said to travel 200 miles on a 10-minute charge.

The only catch is that this fast recharging time can't take place in a residential home -- it can, however, be performed anywhere where there is three-phase industrial power available.

"I'd like to be talking to Tesco about it," said LCC's Chris Dell. "You're never more than 15 minutes from a Tesco in this country, and they've all got industrial power and forecourts. They're innovators - they'd probably go for it."

Dell went on to praise the efforts made by Tesla Motors and its Tesla Roadster. "Tesla have done a good job getting to production - the Roadster is an impressive car. Why's the Lightning better? Because we've got fast-charge technology. It's future-proofed."

All of this technology packed into one vehicle doesn't come cheap -- LCC says that its Lightning GT will retail for £120,000, or roughly $239,000 USD.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uh...
By FliGuyRyan on 7/23/2008 8:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
Will the person with the total range info, please stand up?




RE: Uh...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/23/2008 9:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
This might not entirely answerer your question but...

quote:
Three versions of the GT are currently planned for a 2008 release, - a luxury model, a lightweight sports model capable of reaching 0-60mph in less than four seconds and an extended range model designed to travel up to 250 miles on a single 10 minute charge.


Source: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7486/

I don't think the company has released ranges on the luxury/sport editions yet, but <250 mi is a safe bet...


RE: Uh...
By mdogs444 on 7/23/2008 9:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and an extended range model designed to travel up to 250 miles on a single 10 minute charge.

Even at $250k, I dont think there is any technology capable of doing that - outside of having an ICE involved. 10 minute charge, and 15 gallons of gas, perhaps.


RE: Uh...
By rippleyaliens on 7/23/2008 10:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
3 Phase power hmmmm...
i believe in the USA, that is 60 amps.
1- only few places i know of in my job, in which i could even think about getting the power outlet.. per say.
The true challenge, is not the 200k for the Car.. But getting an infrastructure in place, that is readily avaliable. (Hundreds of Billions)...

And then the COST!!! How much in POWER will this cost.. $10 per charge? $5 per charge?

WE all forget that electricity is not Cheap... It appears Cheap- But infact costs.. I myself am curious on the total cost per mile, in just electrical power. AND DOHHHHH i guess with an electric car, i have to give up my 2kw Stereo system.. ugggg


RE: Uh...
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 11:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Is 3-phase different in the states to the UK?

I know that household outlets are but I have no idea about transmission and industrial standards.

With oil at the price it is now, electricity is probably cheaper, but not free as you point out. Nor is it as clean as the the lighting car's website would like to think it is.

The infrastructure shouldn't be too much of a problem for a country like the UK where there isn't much of a gap between towns but I can imagine that there will be a lot places in countries like the USA where there are long roads with nothing much in-between, being hard to provide for.

Perhaps for touring cars there will be an option for a big trailer full of batteries?

Alternatively, perhaps they could put peddles in the car so you can charge as you drive and maybe get a little fitter too? =D


RE: Uh...
By jamdunc on 7/23/2008 5:46:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yes we have a different voltage in the UK (and the EU) than in the US. The last time I checked (when I did my 16th Edition Wiring Regulations last year), the US used 110V compared to our 230V (EU regulations). Although if you actually check the UK voltage it will be closer to 244V (all to do with tolerances).

The UK households all just tap into 1 phase off the electricity mains which is 3 phase. So houses 1, 7 and 13 would be black phase. 3, 9 and 15 would be brown phase and 5, 11 and 17 would be grey phase (again changed from red, blue and yellow to come into line with europe.) A household has a single 100A main fuse on the incoming supply. A 3 phase supply at a big commercial site usually has multiple incoming supply's, each carrying upto 250A (on the sites I've worked on), so the power is there!

So it wouldn't be much effort to add these charge stations to Tesco's as he has planned. Might cost a bit but if he could get this technology to other car makers and it became more common, I think it's a possible reality.

Just need more Nuclear Power Stations to get 'cleanish', 'cheap' electricity.

Hope that helps explain it more!


RE: Uh...
By ali 09 on 7/24/2008 4:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
I might be very very wrong, but three phase power isn't uncommon in Australia. In my house (it is very large) we have 3 phase power coming in for our ducted air-con and our bore. So would that mean I would be able to charge the car at home?


RE: Uh...
By SiN on 7/24/2008 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
the tolorance is more like 240 +/- 10 giving you the 230-250v range, marketed as 240v.

If anyone reading these forums will care to check there laptop brick you will see a 100-240 volt variant "input". If you have a desktop, your PSU will have a switch (mass production) giving you the same but manually variable, usually glued into 1 of their 2 selections (110v or 240v) you can blame marketing for that.

On EU member country building sites we use 110v for power tools, usualy provided by an on site generator.

The last site i worked on we had the incoming line catch fire for some unbeknown reason, probably bad sheething and it got too hot or a crossover. All i know is i had nothing to do with it ;)

It really wouldn't be hard to get these stations up and running, all your talking about is re-routing some of the power from the board to some metered charge stations on the courtyard. its about a 5 days work, with the right team per courtyard without problems.


RE: Uh...
By jamdunc on 7/24/2008 5:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
In the past the Uk had 240V and Europe had 230V. They then wanted commonalities to help with the freedom of movement in the jobs market, so an electrician could move from one country to another and do his job safely.

So they ratified new standards and the voltage in Europe is now classed as 230V (+10% -6% for tolerances). These tolerances were added so that we in the UK would not have to refit all our power plants and transformers for this.

As for 110V on building sites, it's usually done by a transformer from a 240V supply and is also the same offshore on decks. This is because the transformer has a centrally tapped earth which means if a fault occurs, someone getting shocked would be hit with 55V. This has all been worked out so that the current you get shocked with in the case of a fault is not enough to kill you. Quite clever really! The main thing is this centretapped earth.


RE: Uh...
By Samus on 7/25/2008 4:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
3-phase probably means 440-volts (industrial connection) where as almost everyone has two-phase power (220-volts) and usually only use one phase per circuit (110-volts)

To get 220 volts from 110 volts, you take the opposite phases and combine them on a single side of the electrical outlet, leaving the neutral on the opposite side (if you look in your fuse box you'll see a zig-zag pattern, each fuse in each row is on opposite phase of the one next to it)

440-volts is 4-prong, not 3-prong like traditional outlets. It combines two phases to get 220-volts and the third phase is an additional 220-volts. So you have two prongs that are 220-volts each, plus a neutral, and of course like all properly installed electrical connections, there is a beefy ground so a short isn't absorbed by the neutral (pretty dangerous to send that much juice through a lonely neutral)

My concern is the amount of heat the AC/DC conversion will produce when dealing with 60-amp/440-volt power?

Remember, 60-amps at 440 volts is something like 300-amps of 110-volt power, and of course is even more efficient than 220-volt which is already 10-15% more efficient than 110-volt.

Industrial power is serious electricity :)


RE: Uh...
By Mutz1243 on 7/23/2008 11:55:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
3 Phase power hmmmm...
i believe in the USA, that is 60 amps.
1- only few places i know of in my job, in which i could even think about getting the power outlet.. per say.
The true challenge, is not the 200k for the Car.. But getting an infrastructure in place, that is readily avaliable. (Hundreds of Billions)...

Hundreds of billions of dollars. Your kidding right. 3 phase power is already in place in the US and everything that is industrial uses it. There would be no problem getting 3 phase charging stations at a regular gas station. The pumps at the gas stations probably already use 3 phase power. Also power is rated by the voltage supplied, not the current.


RE: Uh...
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 12:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the pumps do or maybe they don't.

They could do the job quite nicely on regular 220VAC wich is not three phase power at all. Looking at the motor size in the pumps, and the average GPM of them, I would doubt that they use anything but 220VAC.

That does not mean that a gas station does not have three phase power on hand. (If they have a shop they might.)
But gas pumps are no more power hungry than your AC unit.


RE: Uh...
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 12:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
Missed something in your post.

You don't know much about power if you think that power has nothing to do with current.

Power = Voltage * Current (AC is more complicated but generally this works.)

Less amps plus higher volts equals more amps less voltage.
To know why we use high voltage power. look it up somewhere,but as a hint it has to do with heat loss in power lines.


RE: Uh...
By Mutz1243 on 7/23/2008 2:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
I actually know a lot about power but a power connection is not rated by the current. The voltage in a given line is always constant while the current is changing depending upon the load at that given time. You don't have to give me any hints to anything I was just trying to keep it simple so a normal person would understand me. Also 3 phase can come in multiple different voltages. 3 phase just means that there are 3 seperate ac currents being transmitted each 120 degrees apart from each other. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you don't know much about electricity.


RE: Uh...
By maverick85wd on 7/23/2008 6:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was just trying to keep it simple so a normal person would understand me.


right...

you must be new here.


RE: Uh...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 2:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much spot on. 3-phase power can come in multiple voltages. There's 120v, 240v, 480v, etc.

Anyways, there are more and more server farms using 3-phase 120v power pushing 70 amps. Transmission power lines all over the US are 3-phase. It wouldn't be hard to add a 3-phase power line at 70 amps to any gas station.


RE: Uh...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/23/2008 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Voltage times current = power in watts.

You need to know both voltage and what the delivered current for that voltage is to know how much power you are getting.

Different electric appliances that use the same voltage input, can have pretty different power consumptions.

Think no further than a PSU on a PC. All of them have 5v and 12v rails, but to know if a PSU can support a certain configuration running off of it, you need to know the supported current in each voltage and the combination of both gives you the rated wattage of a given device.


RE: Uh...
By Oregonian2 on 7/23/2008 2:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Voltage times current = power in watts.


Even in a typical PC power supply that isn't entirely true. It'd only be true for a resistive load, (which isn't the case usually -- maybe incandescent light bulbs, water heaters, electric ovens, and toasters but not much else). Actual "wattage" will be lower. In PC's the ones with power factor correction have the equation above being closer to being true. This is particularly noticeable on things like UPS supplies one can buy for one's PC which have really high VA ratings but usually MUCH lower wattage ratings for the load one can put on them.

Point being that the usable wattage to charge batteries is even less than the voltage and current available. But that said, high power devices will have compensation circuitry to reduce the difference -- but it'll still be there.


RE: Uh...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/23/2008 3:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
100% true, I just wanted to give the guy above a simplified explanation, as he just suggested that power = voltage, which is even less correct than what I've said. :D


RE: Uh...
By mikepers on 7/23/2008 4:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
So I am not an expert but this post by rippleyaliens seems to be complete crap.

In the US residential electric is generally two phase and rarely, but sometimes, three phase (maybe for a very large house).

For instance I have a 2 phase 200amp panel in my house. As does most everyone I know.

Commercial electricity connections are generally 3-phase when talking industrial commercial.

However, for the corner gas station I'm not sure what type of service they would have. If it typically is 3 phase then it would be pretty easy to offer a "3 phase pump" with minimal hassle.

Either way I don't think the cost to a business to upgrade to a 3-phase circuit would be terribly expensive.


RE: Uh...
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 5:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way I don't think the cost to a business to upgrade to a 3-phase circuit would be terribly expensive.
I think you can just get a converter. I think for a home it would cost a few thousand for just the converter.


RE: Uh...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 3:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why bother? The way power is done.

3-phase power at tens of thousands of volts are pushed around for transmission.

3-phase power is dropped into a power grid transformers and dropped to much lower voltage for distribution.

3-phase power is pushed along the grid and along the way power taps will drop it from 3 phase to 2 phase to 1 phase. Depending on the requirements of the area.

A typical home will get 1 or 2 phase power. The transformer dangling off the powerpole will convert the thousands of volts (like 7000 volts or something) to 240v and pump that into the house. Yes, power going into a US home is 240v.


RE: Uh...
By hubajube on 7/24/2008 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is there another transformer that takes it down to 110? Also, is it just a simple panel change to get to 3 phase in the home? I read we'd need a converter but that was just two sources.


RE: Uh...
By winterspan on 7/23/2008 8:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
Electricity per mile IS WAY CHEAPER than gasoline/"petro" or diesel in developed countries that don't heavily subsidize fuel.

Calcars is an California collective advocating plug-in hybrids. They provide Toyota Prius modification kits. Anyways, I pulled some numbers from their website at http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/458.html :

"....the author's car actually gets 44 miles per gallon as measured over the last five years. A modified Prius developed by CalCars running only on battery power requires about 11,400 watt-hours of electricity vs. one (1) gallon of gas to travel the same 44 miles. "


So, I'm going to write out the calculations here. Electricity in the United States costs between an average of six to ten centers per kilowatt-hour depending on the state. Off-peak hours (nighttime) is cheaper than on-peak. I'll use 8.8 cents for the calculation. The writer of the article used 11.4 Kw-Hr to travel 44 miles in a modified all electric Toyota Prius. Using the normal stock Prius mixed mode of Gasoline + regenerative braking, he got 44 miles per gallon:

11.4 kilowatt-hours * ($0.088 USD / killowatt-hour) = $1.003 USD / 44 mile
$1.003 USD / 44 mile = $0.0228/mile
= 2.3 CENTS PER MILE (USD) for all-electric

1.0 Gallon (3.79L) * ($4.00 USD/gallon) = $4.000 USD / 44 mile
$4.00 USD / 44 mile = $0.091/mile
= 9.1 CENTER PER MILE (USD) for conventional Prius drive

4X cheaper is great, but what about a conventional car, say a Honda accord or similar car without any type of hybrid electric system (less-efficient):

1.0 Gallon (3.79L) * ($4.00 USD/gallon) = $4.000 USD / 25 mile
$4.00 USD / 25 mile = $0.16/mile
= 16 CENTS PER MILE (USD)


RE: Uh...
By winterspan on 7/23/2008 8:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to label the 16 cents per mile as being for a typical 25MPG sedan, which is probably close to the average MPG for consumer cars in America.

So, overall (not including hardware costs), for the 95% or more of America with vehicles that get less than ~40MPG, electricity will be 6-10x cheaper per mile.

The benefits are there. What we need now is to scale up large scale production and recycling of advanced battery technologies, like Lithium nano-phosphate, etc. Then we need to upgrade the power grid to be more robust to handle the additional load (although night-time charging will help balance the system).

Then we need to bring online a variety of large-scale renewable energy sources:

* Solar-thermal plants in the southwestern states,
* Next-gen Wind turbines in the south and midwest plains
* Tidal power on both coasts and along rivers
* Geothermal projects in different areas
* Next-gen nuclear plants

In the shorter term, we can ween off gasoline/diesel by using pumped natural gas for long-distance trips. Conventional gasoline engines can be easily and cheaply modified to run natural gas. Down the line as technology improves, we can use
different fuels or a combination thereof or hydrogen, natural gas, ethanol, or other hydrocarbons developed from bio-mass/bio-waste, engineered algae, or electro-chemical processors like decomposing H20. Whatever it is, I'm sure we'll continue to come up with excellent technology that keeps the environment clean and healthy and keeps transportation prices low.

The "energy crisis" doesn't need to be one.


RE: Uh...
By Jedi2155 on 7/23/2008 11:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Living in Southern California, electricity is only that cheap if you are within your baseline rate. Living in my family of 6 in a 1400 sq. ft house , we typically are charged at about 70% above baseline rate (baseline being about 300 KWhr a month) which is around $0.17/KWhr and goes even higher as I've heard of about $0.25/KWhr from friends who were around 150% above baseline.

For electricity at those rates, the economic befits of driving an EV versus Prius significantly drops. IMO this just means we need more renewable/nuclear plants :).


RE: Uh...
By Jedi2155 on 7/23/2008 11:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I just got some real numbers as I wasn't sure of them, but if you look at the pricing here, they are much higher than some people would think...

http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/E5916BBD-C7E8-4772...

Tier 5 would cost an astonishing $0.28/KWhr which would be reached in my neighborhood with just a consumption of over 900 KWhr/month in my area.

Adding a EV..say a Tesla Roadster for easy numbers..with a 50 mile a day commute (250 Mile range/ 56 KWhr battery = ~4.5 Mi/KWhr), we would be using about 11 KW a day alone for the single vehicle. That adds up to over 300 KWhr for each vehicle easily bringing it over the base line for most areas.

An addition of EV vehicle would certainly upset electric bills of more people than they think unless there is a significant restructuring of these costs.

Being a long supporter of griddable PHEV's I hope they do :).


RE: Uh...
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 12:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent post!!! I figured it would cost more but I think it would be that much. That's pretty significant. I imagine that CA will subsidize something to bring the costs down, meaning we will ALL get to pay for electric cars whether we drive or not. Since most of us drive out here, it will just shift the bill to our state taxes. I think I'd rather just pay the extra cost in electricity each month rather than a "lump sum" once a year.

Oh well, I'll be an Arizona resident by the time this all comes into play anyways. Good luck to you guys.


RE: Uh...
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 12:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Crap!!! I meant I DIDN'T think it would cost that much.


RE: Uh...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 3:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
We can take the fossil fuels we aren't using in cars and burn them for electricity and even it all back out.


RE: Uh...
By theapparition on 7/24/2008 12:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, even after the higher Tier 5 level, you'd still be paying half that of a Prius.


RE: Uh...
By oab on 7/27/2008 6:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's not "petro" it's "petrol"

And gas is much higher than $4usd per gallon. For me, it's closer to $5 (4.8 usd) which makes electricity even more favourable except....

electricity is usually subsidized by the local power authority (if it's state/province run) or sold at a maximum price dictated by the government (large industries have separate arrangements usually)


RE: Uh...
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 9:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
Just out of interest....

What is the range off 700 Bhp petrol car with a full tank?

Will be interesting to see what the figures are for this electric car.

Omitting the range figures is a pretty poor show however. Are the manufacturers hiding something?


RE: Uh...
By mdogs444 on 7/23/2008 9:32:38 AM , Rating: 3
While true - I'm fairly certain that anyone buying a $250k car could care less about its range. its more of a sunday cruiser than anything else.


RE: Uh...
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 9:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
Range mite not be such a problem anyway as charging shouldn;t be too much of a problem.

Ff all that is needed is a 3 phase supply, then most industrial/commercial estates across the land have such power available to them.

In exchange for a few notes anyone could set themselves up as a charging station?

Though having to do this often mite get a tad annoying.


RE: Uh...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 10:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
mi GH t. Not mite. A mite is typically a microscopic or nearly microscopic organism much like a tick.


RE: Uh...
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 1
lazy text typing again, but thanks for pointing it out.

I often have to go through work e-mails and change them to something approaching correct English, but I don't normally bother for these sorts of things as I didn't think people were that petty and have to type quickly when I can.

I'm glad that that was the only error that you found in the previous comment.

If you want to go through all my comments and correct them please do, but I warn you, it will be a full time job. =D

Most people seem to understand what I mean, but it is lazy of me I guess.


RE: Uh...
By Spivonious on 7/23/2008 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think it was because you misspelled it twice.


RE: Uh...
By Spivonious on 7/23/2008 12:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind, I misunderstood "text typing."


RE: Uh...
By FliGuyRyan on 7/23/2008 2:54:43 PM , Rating: 1
Even if you had the funds available, would you drop a quarter-million on a car that would go, oh... 100 miles or so? If so, I might question your worth as a human being.

One can buy a lot of good with a quarter-mil...


RE: Uh...
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
would you drop a quarter-million on a car that would go
People that have a 1/4 mil to spend on a car aren't waiting till the next paycheck to get more money. If you have that kind of disposable income, you already have a TON of other things taken care of.


RE: Uh...
By maverick85wd on 7/23/2008 6:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
not so sure, if I had an electric car I'd drive it everywhere... but, surely I'd like to get a little further per charge no matter what the case.


RE: Uh...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 1
Getting a Corvette to 700hp isn't too hard and you can still get over 25 mpg highway when doing it. Have seen a 600 hp supercharged Corvette getting 35 mpg (different computer settings at the track and on the road).

18 gallon tank * 25 mpg = 450 miles

Even if it was 20 mpg thats still 360 miles.


RE: Uh...
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
On the highway, lots of large engined cars probably get quite good MPG I suppose.

I would have thought that combined MPG is much more use-full. You don't buy a sports car to trundle up and down the M1?

The article has no mention of range at all let alone the what conditions or circumstances they would measure range in though.

How is range measured for electric vehicles?

Is it affected by temperature as I seem to recall that it can have an effect on batteries, tough that could be older batteries that I'm thinking of?

Do they provide a highway, urban, combined range like you get with MPG figures?

Can't say I've seen any.


RE: Uh...
By Spuke on 7/23/2008 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would have thought that combined MPG is much more use-full.
In an urban environment, maybe, but where I and most Americans live (in rural areas), combined isn't accurate. Highway mileage is closer to our reality. My car is rated at 28 mpg highway and I get all 28 mpg and then some.


RE: Uh...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 1
In my daily commute I average 29-30 mpg. Have even gotten 32 mpg. My car is rated at 24 city and 32 highway. I drive 8 miles to work on a combination of city streets and a very short highway trip (less than a minute). Its a good day when I don't hit any lights. Of course traffic going the other way isn't so lucky.


RE: Uh...
By eye smite on 7/23/2008 10:34:11 AM , Rating: 4
Aside from all the hype, they certainly made it a nice looking car.


RE: Uh...
By Sulphademus on 7/23/2008 10:47:57 AM , Rating: 3
Looks like Aston Martin CopyPasta to me.


RE: Uh...
By FliGuyRyan on 7/23/2008 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Although it does indeed look the part of a $250K car, I would have to agree with the Aston Martin duplicate... I think someone in their design studio has some "CTRL+C" tendencies.


RE: Uh...
By FliGuyRyan on 7/23/2008 3:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
On second thought... I believe Photoshop was involved with some alcohol when someone saw a picture of 007's car and a TVR poster.


RE: Uh...
By awer26 on 7/23/2008 11:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Or a BMW Z8


RE: Uh...
By BruceLeet on 7/24/2008 3:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
I see what you did there, you see what he did there?


RE: Uh...
By someguy743 on 7/23/2008 10:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
I read that this car will get close to 200 miles of range and the battery will be very durable. More likely 130 miles or so if you drive it hard. They say it will last 12 years easy. For us non-gazillionaires, this car represents hope that the battery manufacturers and car companies can get "economies of scale" and get these kinds of cars under $100,000 someday. Maybe in 2020.

This Lightning GT looks like THE state of the art in electric cars. It will probably be competing against the Tesla Roadster and cars like the SSC Ultimate Aero EV ... if and when it comes out. Jay Leno has a gasoline powered version of this car. This electric SSC car sounds pretty crazy to me. It might have 1,000 horses of all electric power! Imagine the torque. Jeez. 0-100 mph in 5 seconds? You might need to wear a G-suit going around sharp curves ... like the fighter pilots have. :)

http://www.shelbysupercars.com/news-071208.php

Who knows what this "revolutionary power source" is that SSC is talking about. It might even be real and not just marketing hype. Never know these days. The technology in the world is changing faster and faster every year. What we used to think of as science fiction seems to become reality sooner these days. I'm sure a few billionaries will get one for $400,000.

I'm looking forward to seeing these high end electric cars on video on the open road when they come out. Even better would be an electric car race on a Formula 1 track. Since these cars can quick charge, they could still do the 500 mile races. I bet it won't be long before we start seeing electric car races. They'll might call it Formula E racing or something.


RE: Uh...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Pit stops with tires and fuel are generally in the 20-25 second range. If you had to pit for a few minutes to recharge your battery you'd be last every race.

And a 100 mph race would be pretty boring. Since I think even the Tesla can't do much over 100 mph. They might make it on some auto-x races speed-wise, but that's about it. But still the battery wouldn't last long enough. Those 150, 200, 250 mile distances you hear about aren't at full throttle constantly.

Electric car racing is quite a ways off. Now diesel racing is here and quite competitive. It will probably be the next generation. Quieter cars, long stints on the track, and more torque for accelerating off corners.


RE: Uh...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 3:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
2-3 mins for 80% charge. Hell of a long amount of time. Enough to swap out tires, gas up, and replace the rotors, calipers, and brake pads, all the while adjusting the onboard computers for track conditions.

Electrics would get decimated by their gas guzzling brothers.


RE: Uh...
By Fusible on 7/23/2008 11:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
It looks like a freaking Aston Martin!


RE: Uh...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/23/2008 1:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
And I will want to charge this at a Tesco's? Phffff, if I had US $250K laying around, I wouldn't be caught dead at a Tesco's. I would still want the car, perhaps, but I would want to at least take it to a commecial power station without the stigma.

BTW, with batteries, it is: Long-Range, High-Speed, Low-Cost - choose any two.

I think they didn't pick low cost.


Safety First
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 9:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
Are they going to have to fit speakers playing "car noises" to these things to make them safe?

I am assuming that this thing will be pretty damn quiet, accelerating from 0-60 in 4 seconds in silence is surely a bit dangerous for pedestrians as it probably gets to 30 in no time at all?

Maybe fit a microphone and speaker system so the driver can make their own brum brum sound effects?




RE: Safety First
By Motoman on 7/23/2008 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 3
...The $300k Deluxe version comes with a pack of playing cards you can stick in the wheel spokes. And a tinfoil hat to protect you from the government brain-control waves emanating from the huge Tesla coil hidden in the car by the NSA.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 10:35:02 AM , Rating: 1
Ironically , the muffler and the exhaust from ICE cars will now be turned into a horn with a build in speaker :).

I agree, these cars will need to make noise or they will be dangerous.

However, making your own custom sound takes "pimp my ride"
to another level. :)

I am happy to see more electric cars are coming. And i am very happy to see they use hub motors. That should increase safety too. You have essentially 4 wheel drive all the time. Put some electronics to control those wheels and you are driving a tank in all weather. All though with the weight and all i am sure it is needed. How is the weight distributed in these cars ?

I sure hope they start to think seriously about rubbiatrons now. Because when these electric cars (and it will happen) get's mainstream we need a lot of power.

Rubbiatrons are until fusion becomes a reality the only way
to go to an all electric sociëty.

When you want to charge batteries with such storage capacaties in short time you need a lot of electrical power. Nothing is for free.

And these batteries are just new technology and will improve technologically over time. I am sure the burden on the electrical grid will get more and more as storage densities increase.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 10:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
A DSP recalculating a wav sample. You can select the sample or upload a custom one from your laptop. :)

Use the gaspedal electrical signal not only to control the electric motors but use as a midi pitch control and a midi volume control to control the sound as well.

It will be a feature used by the marketing department. :)

I would not be suprised if bose and roland or yamaha jumped in. :)


RE: Safety First
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't putting a speaker making gas engine noises in an electric car be considered rice? Unless it's mandated by the state or the fed, my car will NOT have any speakers except for the stereo system. If I run over someone because of it, we made our bed and it's time to sleep in it.


RE: Safety First
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
They shouldn't have gotten in the way.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 5:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if i look at that car and it would sound like an electric train, that would be kind of sad. I would rather have a fake exhaust making jaguar sounds. I guess because of the way the power to the electric motors are controlled they would make noise anyway but it would sound more like a modern electrical train. It's not going to sound like a jet engine. I guess it sounds more like an audiotone sweep generator.


RE: Safety First
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 6:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would rather have a fake exhaust making jaguar sounds.
Yeah, that would be really cool. An electric car that sounds like a gas engined one. /sarcasm

All of you guys want electric cars. Why don't you accept that part of that ownership experience will be hardly any sound coming from them? If you want a car that sounds like a gas engined one, cut out the middleman and buy a gas engined car. Otherwise, quit being a poseur and accept electric cars as they are.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 6:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
It is for the same reason people buy classics but upgrade those classics with modern electronics, modern injection systems. It is still a classic just improved.

Why can an electric car not give the feeling like i want it to be.

If i want a T ford model but completely electric and upgraded to modern style i think it should be possible.

I am not polluting. I am just driving into something i like and makes noise like i want but is within legal boundaries.

And i can garantuee that electric cars will make noise.
espicially if you want a lot of torgue.
The law of lorentz applies here and those coils will always move a little. Also the way the power to the electric motor is controlled is bound to make some nice harmonic sounds in the audio range.


RE: Safety First
By hubajube on 7/24/2008 12:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also the way the power to the electric motor is controlled is bound to make some nice harmonic sounds in the audio range.
I never thought electric motors sounded nice. When I think electric motor, I think industrial workhorse not exotica. Sorry, none of them can compare to even Ferrari's most basic gas engine.

Once gas engines are gone, the beautiful sounds they made go with them. You guys can talk yourselves into thinking electric motors somehow sound good but I will live in reality and focus on other aspects of a car or just forget about cars entirely and move on to something else.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 4:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is not like ICE cars would dissappear immediately.
It will be another 50 to 100 years before that happens.
You can always have your classic.

For example if the ICE cars have become a serious minority the pollution is not that much of a problem. And every person with common sence would not stand people a hobby in the way. It's like the classics we have now. We can drive them too without worries.

Drive your electric car to work everyday. Drive in you ICE car on alcohol at the racetrack at the meetings :).
Or take it for a spin on a nice day.

quote:
Once gas engines are gone, the beautiful sounds they made go with them. You guys can talk yourselves into thinking electric motors somehow sound good but I will live in reality and focus on other aspects of a car or just forget about cars entirely and move on to something else.


For short trips it is fun to hear the engine. But for long trips i rather have a relaxed drive and not have to turn up the volume of the radio because of the engine.

I never said that electric cars sound good.
That's why i came up with the "turn the muffler and exhaust into a horn with a speaker" to have at least some other sound.

I am personally very fond of the sounds of gasturbines.
I would not mind if my future electric cars sounds like that :).


RE: Safety First
By hubajube on 7/24/2008 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example if the ICE cars have become a serious minority the pollution is not that much of a problem. And every person with common sence would not stand people a hobby in the way. It's like the classics we have now. We can drive them too without worries.
I would like to think that it would be no problem but with the outrage people express over SUV's, I think a gas engined car in a sea of electrics would irk the crap out of people in the future.

Who knows. I probably won't even care by then.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/25/2008 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
SUV's. We call them rich man's tractor . :)


RE: Safety First
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 3:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
am happy to see more electric cars are coming. And i am very happy to see they use hub motors. That should increase safety too. You have essentially 4 wheel drive all the time. Put some electronics to control those wheels and you are driving a tank in all weather. All though with the weight and all i am sure it is needed. How is the weight distributed in these cars ?


I really don't preceive safety when I see a sports car. Made to go fast and slam into a wall fast. Also what's the likeliness that the batteries will catch fire in an accident? Will regular water put out these fires if they do happen or will it actually create more of a hazard?

4 wheel drive? Already plenty of cars, trucks, SUVs, and CUV/XUVs with such. Probably a whole lot safer as they've been doing it for years and refining the traction control of these systems.

quote:
And these batteries are just new technology and will improve technologically over time. I am sure the burden on the electrical grid will get more and more as storage densities increase.


That or they will make more efficient motors. Ones that create more hp using less energy. Maybe add on some solar panels or wind turbines onto the car to collect available power in it's surroundings.

Wish the states would invest more into nuclear power plants. Then any waste create from such would be dumped into these big empty oil wells that we drilled into.


RE: Safety First
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 4:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Every car can catch fire. Why would an electric car suddenly not catch fire ? There is a lot of volatile energy stored in a small space. That is always a risk.

quote:
4 wheel drive? Already plenty of cars, trucks, SUVs, and CUV/XUVs with such. Probably a whole lot safer as they've been doing it for years and refining the traction control of these systems.


I agree, and sooner or later we will have electric trucks too.

quote:
That or they will make more efficient motors. Ones that create more hp using less energy. Maybe add on some solar panels or wind turbines onto the car to collect available power in it's surroundings.


I do not know if they can make the efficiëncy of electric motors higher. It already is at 90 percent or more depending on the version.

And solarpanels would work only if the efficiëncy of these panels would go dramatically up and windturbines would not help. A windturbine must not be earodynamical because then the blades would not turn. Therefore because nothing is perfect in nature it would cost more juice then it would deliver.

The only reason a windturbine would be handy if you have a empty battery in a storm. Build up the windturbine to charge your battery when you are stranded :).

quote:
Wish the states would invest more into nuclear power plants. Then any waste create from such would be dumped into these big empty oil wells that we drilled into.


Iam not going to say it again. I must restrain my self...

RRRR.. RRuu.... Ruuub..... No I MUST NOT !.


RE: Safety First
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 7:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every car can catch fire. Why would an electric car suddenly not catch fire ? There is a lot of volatile energy stored in a small space. That is always a risk.


It was a rhetorical question on whether it has or doesn't have a higher risk of catching fire in an accident.

quote:
I do not know if they can make the efficiëncy of electric motors higher. It already is at 90 percent or more depending on the version.


Yes, of current electric motors. An internal combustion engine of the past is vastly different than one of today. Even though they both use the same concept.

quote:
And solarpanels would work only if the efficiëncy of these panels would go dramatically up and windturbines would not help.


I'm not saying to completely run the car from solar panels, but if you can drop power consumption or decrease amount of times you'd need to stop to recharge, it helps.

If your car is sitting in a parking lot of a large mall and you'll be in there for an hour or more, why not let it charge away?

quote:
A windturbine must not be earodynamical because then the blades would not turn. Therefore because nothing is perfect in nature it would cost more juice then it would deliver.

The only reason a windturbine would be handy if you have a empty battery in a storm. Build up the windturbine to charge your battery when you are stranded :).


A car isn't completely aerodynamic anyways. Just look at the front of this car. Notice that nice non-aerodynamic location in the front? Yes, you won't make more power than you're using to move, but you are at least retrieving some of it.

What's better? Buying a $1000 TV or buying a $1000 TV with a $300 mail-in rebate?


RE: Safety First
By Fridayalex on 7/23/2008 5:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
People get hit by cars now, I don't think electric cars being quite is a big safety issue. Plus you always have your horn.


RE: Safety First
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 5:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
People are already gearing up for potential lawsuits over this in CA. It's been on the local news at least twice now. It wouldn't surprise me CA tries to mandate a noise maker on electric cars.


So...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 9:14:15 AM , Rating: 1
They need the equivalent of 700hp to do what the current Z06 does with 505hp? And the Z06 makes its peak torque around 5000 rpm while this thing makes its peak torque at 0.

Either they didn't know how to drive or this thing is mega heavy. And as others said, whats the range on this thing?

At $239,000 it doesn't really matter. Only the extremely rich can afford it and they could care less about gas mileage to begin with. They'll buy it to say they drive a hybrid.




RE: So...
By Moishe on 7/23/2008 9:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'm betting it's insanely heavy.

The range doesn't sound that great. With 250m being the top for the extended range, the "fast" one will probably get in the 150m range. That's not nothing, especially with the fast charge feature... but if I had to drive a couple of states away in this thing it would be fairly annoying to have to stop for ten minutes every 150-250 miles. I'm wondering if the fast charging reduces battery lifetime.

Really, it sounds to me like the fast charge feature is the only really innovative thing about the car. That's what they've got that makes em stand out. Too bad so few can afford it.


RE: So...
By Topweasel on 7/23/2008 9:41:07 AM , Rating: 3
My range on my 32-33 MPG (rated at 36 but I will never get that) Neon R/T is about 330 miles. My Bladder also has about a 200 Mile range. Stopping every 3-4 hours for a piss and a charge at a rest stop isn't really that bad and honestly a 10 minute stop every 4 hrs is actually probably really good for your back and legs.


RE: So...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 10:18:36 AM , Rating: 1
I get the rated mileage out of my car on the highway...


RE: So...
By ChronoReverse on 7/23/2008 12:26:49 PM , Rating: 1
I get better than rated on the highway...


RE: So...
By plinkplonk on 7/23/2008 3:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
well done you


RE: So...
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 10:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
You'd probably have to give yourself 10-20 miles of play since you'd have to find somewhere to charge it.

And I'd bet that the fast charge does affect battery longevity.


RE: So...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 4:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's not nothing, especially with the fast charge feature... but if I had to drive a couple of states away in this thing it would be fairly annoying to have to stop for ten minutes every 150-250 miles. I'm wondering if the fast charging reduces battery lifetime.


I don't think it'd be that bad. Stop at a truck stop/rest area and charge up while relieving yourself. I don't know about you, but I drink a lot of coffee/caffeine drinks on the road and it's got me taking a leak every hour or so. I'm making those 5-10 min stops anyways.

Still wouldn't want an electric car though. I like my cars being small and lightweight. Makes them a hella maneurverable.


RE: So...
By jRaskell on 7/23/2008 12:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They need the equivalent of 700hp to do what the current Z06 does with 505hp? And the Z06 makes its peak torque around 5000 rpm while this thing makes its peak torque at 0.


The Z06 is able to take advantage of a 6 speed transmission, where this car has direct drive and essentially only a single gear.

People believe a multi-speed transmission isn't necessary with electric cars, since they have constant torque and don't need to 'idle'. While that may be technically true, a multi-speed transmission is a substantial benefit from a completely performance standpoint, whether you have an ICE torque curve, or the constant torque of an electric motor.


RE: So...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 4:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, if we get off our dependence of fossil fuels, these oil nations will lose money. Then we'll have new terrorists that are pissed that we don't buy their oil and we'll still get blown up.


RE: So...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 5:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
whoops. Replied to the wrong comment.


RE: So...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 4:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
And both of them have to make 700 hp or 505 hp to not be anywhere near the Impreza WRC, which can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 secs on road, dirt, snow, ice, etc with just 300 hp.

Course comparing these "cheap" cars to a 750k pound (1.5 mil USD) race car is unfair.

The Group N spec is much cheaper at 80k pounds (159k USD) and could still easily own the two.

Or just go cheap and get a 2008 Impreza STI and be at/near/above/below the same 0-60 mph numers (it all changes depending on who happens to be reviewing the cars).


RE: So...
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 5:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Subaru Impreza sigh...

I would not mind to have one...


RE: So...
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 5:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Torque is what matters when getting up and going. And it's fast 0-60 because its got AWD and extremely tall gears. It's not a street car. And neither is the other rally car you mention. Do we want to compare your rally car to a C6R?


RE: So...
By afkrotch on 7/24/2008 8:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
The Impreza WRC and Group N's gears are changed depending on needs. It's both tall or short gears. The STI road car is kind of inbetween, but the gears are taller than the older GC8s though.

Can I really compare the Impreza WRC to the C6R? So far, hands down on 0-60 mph, seeing as the WRC maintains a constant for any road conditions, I'd give it the win.

Also the fact that the Impreza WRC also has to remain road legal, has cruise control, and has heat. Add in the additional space of it being a 4 door hatchback sedan.

Another amazing fact is the amount of extra components that are placed within the car during a rally race. Because often than not, they will be repairing their car alongside the course. They carry a specialised wheel jack, a wheel brace, electric impact wrench, a selection of sockets, spanners, engine sensors, allen keys, nuts and bolts, hose clips and blanking plugs to fresh engine oil, a spare alternator belt, backup communications equipment, tools to adjust dampers, differential pre-load and tyre pressures, spare tire(s), and let's add in a whole 2nd person (co-driver) when they race.

Sorry, but a C6R just doesn't compare either.


RE: So...
By jRaskell on 7/24/2008 11:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
The C6R wasn't built to do 0-60mph. It was built to operate around professional closed circuit racetracks at average speeds WELL over 100mph. RWD will always be at a disadvantage from a standstill. From 60mph and up, that C6R will walk away from any rally car.

Truth is, you put a rally car in the C6Rs intended environment, and the C6R will lap it repeatedly. Put a C6R in a rally cars intended environment, and the rally car will leave it in it's dust. So, when you ask "Can I really compare the Impreza WRC to the C6R?", the real answer is NO. Neither is better than the other because both were built for expressly different purposes.


They should make a V12 model too...
By wingless on 7/23/08, Rating: 0
By nugundam93 on 7/23/2008 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
oh no. then we'll have to accept those ricey noisemakers you install under the hood (usually on NA cars) that produce sounds like a real BOV. ROFLOL.


By acejj26 on 7/23/2008 10:44:08 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure anyone really disagrees that coal is kind of dirty, but producing power from coal is more than twice as efficient as a modern fuel-efficient gasoline engine. That being said, are you aware of the energy costs and environmental impact of producing all the steel necessary for making inefficient windmills or solar panels?


RE: They should make a V12 model too...
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
The rubbiatron actually uses the nuclear waste we created the last 50 years. And uses a fuel source more abundant.
And uses the nuclear fuel almost completely up. Much higher efficiëncy then an ordinary nuclear fission station.

I think it is the best way to go. Use sustainable energy to start the rubbiatron going and then let the rubbiatron power it self.

But unfortunately nuclear is a dirty word thanks to those
green peace people.
If it was up those greenpeace people we would go back to living in cages again.

I totally agree with them about saving distinct animals and forests. But they should leave nuclear energy alone.


By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 10:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
Thorium was the abundant fuel.


RE: They should make a V12 model too...
By someguy743 on 7/23/2008 11:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard that electric cars like the Volt will require about as much electricity as a dishwasher. They won't require as much juice as you think. Maybe less than those big plasma TVs which are energy hogs ... unlike LCD TVs.

If everyone buys the LED and OLED lights that are coming out in the next 5 years, we will dramatically reduce our electric power consumption from that alone ... maybe 20% once everyone throws out their incandescent bulbs. They ought to stop selling those incandescent bulbs in 2012 or something. They are HUGE energy pigs.

We also need to transition everyone over to super efficient hot water heaters like GE has coming out next year. One of GE's new water heaters will run on HALF as much power as todays models. There will probably be a huge push by lots of electrical appliance makers to reduce their power consumption.

They might be requiring that all appliances reach minimim standards like "Energy Star". People with old energy hog appliances are stupid to keep them. Much cheaper in the long run to just take them to the nearest Salvation Army or the county dump.


RE: They should make a V12 model too...
By pdelagarza on 7/23/2008 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 3
746 watts = 1 horsepower, so unless you have a monster dishwasher, this cars will consume far more than anything you have in your house, hell even more than your entire house, a plasma tv should consume less than 500 watts at most.

if the volt has a 20 hp electric motor, well, do the math... and for this car to have 700 hp, well it will be really a energy hog, good to see the green heads can sleep at nigth thinking thay are actually doing something towards the enviroment. hahaha

now the truth is that electric motors are much more efficent than a ICE, and that large scale power generation are also more efficient, and if we use the power at nigth when the demand is at it lowest, well it can be good, but once everyone has an electric car and everyone start charging it at nigth it will be the other way around.

Instead of GE super efficent water heaers, you can use solar water heater, it uses a free resource and can heat the water quite a lot, and the prices are not that expensive.


By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 3:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Tim Allen probably has a dishwasher with that much power.

*man grunt*


RE: They should make a V12 model too...
By Oregonian2 on 7/23/2008 2:41:38 PM , Rating: 3
Note that most LCD TV's take the same power whether the screen is pure black or pure white -- a black screen has the backlight fully on and is just being masked out by the LCD. Plasma TV's are spec'd with a full screen of bright white. If the screen goes dark the power consumed drops. IOW they typically take less than spec (when white) and take even less with "real" video. Still more than LCD's but the difference isn't as much as one might think looking at TV specs.

New LCD's will have power lowering schemes, but plasmas (like the newgen ones that Panasonic is working on) will have dramatically reduced power consumption as well.


By hubajube on 7/23/2008 3:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
New LCD's have LED backlights.


Come on...
By ctodd on 7/23/2008 9:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
I like looking at these cars as much as anyone else, but what real effect will an expensive electric sports car have on the environment or our dependence on oil. I'm sure it will make some rich guy happy... for a week or so.

I guess you can look at it this way. They have to target the rich for stuff like this, because if it fails prematurely, they're the ones more likely to write it off as last weeks toy or is rich enough to get it fixed.




RE: Come on...
By mdogs444 on 7/23/2008 10:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
what real effect wil an expensive electric sports car have on the environment


None. Its a "feel good" thing. You can decrease emmissions all you want, but as population expands, and more people buy cars, the emissions will still be there. Whether its from cars, or manufacturing production, etc. Anyone who targets emmission free world is living in fantasy land.


RE: Come on...
By ctodd on 7/23/2008 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think that was the point I was trying to make. It is nothing more than a "feel good" thing. It is an expensive piece of art that 1 thousand people will get to enjoy and the other 6.5 billion will be jealous of.

I don't think I mentioned being emissions free, so I won't include myself as a citizen of *fantasy land*. The “real effect” I was talking about was more about having this technology targeted at the middle-class like myself. 1M units has a greater impact than 1K units. Duh, it won't be emission free because it will still have to get energy from somewhere else, but it will be more efficient than jamming 20 gal. of fossil fuels in a tank.


RE: Come on...
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Feel good! People are only doing this because they're afraid of getting blown up while sipping on their friggin lattes. The Sheeple figure that if "we" don't piss off the Arabs or if we don't get involved in their issues (because of treaties, agreements, etc.) then we can happily ignore their problems and continue to drive our Escalades on douche dubs.

The enviromentalretardeds also support only local oriented stuff. They don't believe in trade, sharing or anything else outside of one's neighborhood unless they're poor then "we" are obligated to give everything we have to them. They don't believe in visiting relatives or taking vacations. If it were up to them, we'd shoot "strangers" on sight and we'd be holed up in caves eating bowls of grapes and broccoli.

The "West" is the root of all evil, the Great Satan, the Grand Puba. Until everyone stops believing they're inherently evil because they've been blessed, "the beatings will continue".


RE: Come on...
By MarcLeFou on 7/23/2008 10:08:25 AM , Rating: 3
All new car tech starts off in the luxury segment and trickles down to the "average" consumer space over time.

Granted this is perhaps a bit more "high end" than ususal but if this sees success you can bet its going to be on BMW and Mercedes on their new platforms refresh. And downward from there. (obviously talking about quick charge here)


Lovely looking.
By PaxtonFettel on 7/23/2008 9:04:12 AM , Rating: 3
Aside from maybe the back, but does anyone else think that's how a modern Jag should look?

Also, I'll third the calls for range numbers.




RE: Lovely looking.
By Cheapshot on 7/23/2008 9:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
Fourth

Agreed about the Jag comment as well. Possibly the next Bond Car.


RE: Lovely looking.
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 9:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually its nearly a direct rip off of the Aston Martin DB9.


RE: Lovely looking.
By Dribble on 7/23/2008 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
Makes me laugh it's got that huge engine bay but the motors are in the wheels.


Is the battery spec
By dickeywang on 7/23/2008 9:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
36kw or 36kwH?




RE: Is the battery spec
RE: Is the battery spec
By dickeywang on 7/23/2008 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

by Brandon Hill on July 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM
http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/files/Lightni...


huh.. so basically it only tells u how many batteries they need to provide the 700hp, but we still don't know how long the battery would last before you need to recharge it.


RE: Is the battery spec
By theapparition on 7/24/2008 12:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
Right with ya.
Trying to find more data on this myself. What is the total power storage.

My guess is when trying to utilize all "700hp", the batteries drain excedingly quick. My estimations are under 5 minutes.


sounds alot better than Tesla version
By phxfreddy on 7/23/2008 4:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
is it too good to be true???? If the information in the arty is correct its very notable. Recharging at this rate / range is huge




RE: sounds alot better than Tesla version
By Spectator on 7/24/2008 4:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
the article states 120kw motor at each wheel.

so 480kw if use all 4 at the same time maxed out. id guess there is room for efficiency in traffic dont need all 4 wheels powered at all times.

and 36kw battery. so some electrical engineering person could work something out from that?

Spectator.


RE: sounds alot better than Tesla version
By theapparition on 7/24/2008 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
Simple math really.

IF the battery is 36kWH , (they only say 36kW??
), than it's just 36kWH/480kW*3600sec/hr. 4.5 minutes at full power. Not too good.


By oab on 7/27/2008 6:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
Which is full-throttle. You never run a car with your foot to the floor all the time (unless you are a drag racer).

The Bugatti-Veyron only has its tank last 16 minutes or so at full power... and it's a huge 55 gallon thing or something.


Profiler
By werepossum on 7/23/2008 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably not going to make much difference about the exact range and charging particulars, since these are likely to remain a rich man's toy for some time, to be bragged about in interviews and driven a few times a year while still using the "family" SUV or Lincoln Town Car for day to day travel, but this company doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. That's a fairly small, sleek car, so I'm guessing maybe 30 kW (40 hp) would keep the car moving at perhaps 90 kph. If that's a reasonable assumption, then you'd need a minimum energy capacity of around 140 kWH stored energy for a 400 km range, requiring about 12 kWH per 36 kW battery pack if twelve were used (which would be 480 hp.) This isn't unreasonable if the "NanoSafe" (there's a gimmick name) Altairnano battery is comparable to other advanced design Li-Ion batteries.

For a 10 minute charge, you'd need a 840 KW (840,000 watt) source. If your voltage is 480V 3-phase, then a 1,000A "receptacle" would allow full charging in 10.1 minutes. Damned few service stations have that much total power and could thus charge even one car, even with everything else turned off. (Just for fun, at 240V 1-phase you'd need a 3,500 amp connector!) And a 480V 3-phase, 1,000A pin-sleeve connector would probably be over a meter long!

Sorry, but I think there's a reason the energy storage capacity isn't referenced anywhere - it's because there's a big dollop of bullshit here.




RE: Profiler
By tleeds on 7/23/2008 5:55:06 PM , Rating: 3
Never mind the kind of wire you'd need to deliver that much current that fast. That being said, they're short on the details. eeStor's capacitors are said to require a charging current in excess of 3500v. If the car requires a specialized charging station that charges at extremely high voltage, it would probably be possible to move that much power over relatively average size wire. (After all, look at the amount of power that goes over the mains wire on a power pole. That wire is only 2 gauge aluminum, but it can move a great deal of power due to the very high voltage and reasonable amperage)

The power coming from a generating station is generally three phase in nature. (Commercial generators are set up with 3 sets of contacts, 6 in total, thus 1 phase for each 60 degrees of rotation of the generator shaft). The most common 3 phase seen in North America is a 480v. The actual input to the transformer outside the building is many thousands of volts higher.


range
By nosfe on 7/23/2008 9:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
so how many kilometers/miles will this be able to do on a single lightning strike?




RE: range
By nugundam93 on 7/28/2008 3:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
hahahahahaha i can imagine a new racing series...

"lightning series" where the cars race only during lightning storms and are sporting tall antennas to get their charge while running around the track.


Stig It
By kelmon on 7/23/2008 9:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
I wait to see what sort of time this thing posts around the Top Gear test track. Not that I'll be able to afford one, but then the same can be said of pretty much everything that goes around that track (excepting the Reasonably Priced Car and the Ford ASBO).

Regardless of the price and, to a degree, its range, the fast recharge time is starting to make electric cars actually look practical. That said, I wonder how much Tesco would charge for a charge...




RE: Stig It
By pauldovi on 7/23/2008 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
This car would not perform well. Chances are it is very heavy and with 120kW electric motors in the wheels the unsprung mass is ungodly high. It may be fast in a straight line, thats it.


0-60MPH in 4 seconds...
By Motoman on 7/23/2008 9:47:07 AM , Rating: 1
...100MPH in 9 seconds...150MPH in 20 seconds...battery dead in 25 seconds.

...they should put a Bender-like antenna on the top of the the thing so that you could drive through a storm and attract lightning strikes to replenish your battery. LCC not liable for incidental damage to biological contents of the car during lightning-recharging events.




RE: 0-60MPH in 4 seconds...
By jgk95 on 7/23/2008 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Great looking car from all sides except the back. They need to clean the lines up on the rear window / trunk setup. To the earlier commenters, yes, this car does have the English look as in Jaguar & Aston Martin cab back long hooded configuration.


Yay?
By Schrag4 on 7/23/2008 9:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Fast charge. YAY! High price. BOO! Range?




Range?
By bildan on 7/23/2008 9:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think they answered it - "0 - 60 in 4 seconds and then you charge it for 10 minutes on a 3-phase grid connection".

Maybe it's the 4- wheel equivalent of the Killacycle electric drag bike.




Cost
By MovieDirector22 on 7/23/2008 11:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
People paying 250,000 dollars for a car probably aren't worried about current gas prices. Until these cars become cheap or cheaper than current gas-guzzlers, I don't see this happening on a large scale.




Sigh, no one rememebrs the
By soxfan on 7/23/2008 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well...
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/23/2008 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Its new developments like this that make think it would be foolish to invest (ha, thats a funny word for a car purchase) any more than the bare minimum into my next car purchase. The advent of cars like these is bound to push almost all standard gas engine cars' resale value through the floor. I'm glad I sold my wife's SUV when I did, because it would have fetched less than 1/2 what it did just 5 months later. I just have this feeling I'm going to encounter this again within the next 4 years with any other car I buy.




cost
By Screwballl on 7/24/2008 10:03:36 AM , Rating: 2
this is one of those type of cars that these hypocritical rich bastards will jump on (like Gore)... while ONE of their homes use more electricity from the grid in one day than a typical american household does in a month.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki