Electric Car Faster Than A Ferrari or Porsche 741
jumpeel writes "CNN's Business 2.0 has photos and video of a Silicon Valley-made electric car with a 0-60 acceleration rate that's faster than a Ferrari Spider and a Porsche Carrera. From the article: 'In fact, it's second only to the French-made Bugatti Veyron, a 1,000-horsepower, 16-cylinder beast that hits 60 mph half a second faster and goes for $1.25 million.' The X1 is built by Ian Wright whose valley startup WrightSpeed intends to make a 'a small-production roadster that car fanatics and weekend warriors will happily take home for about $100,000 --a quarter ton of batteries included. The X1 crushed the Ferrari in an eighth-mile sprint and then in the quarter-mile, winning by two car lengths.'"
Interesting, but not new (Score:5, Interesting)
Any engineer worth his salt can tell you that electric motors put out a hell of a lot more torque than gasoline engines. Gasoline engines are restricted by the tolerances of their mechanical parts, even if the engine is capable of producing more horsepower under load. That's why raw horsepower figures are often a poor indicator of a vehicle's acceleration.
Diesel Locomotives [wikipedia.org] were making use of this fact long before the electric sports car showed up. By transferring the power from the Diesel Engine to an electric transmission, modern locomotives are able to smoothly apply power curves of well over 300KW without any of the slippage or rough starts associated with the Steam Engine.
Honestly, this entire story isn't anything new. The TZero [forbes.com] was trouncing expensive sports cars long before the X-1 was introduced. The only difference I can see here is that the owner of the X-1 appears to be looking to build a replacement for Formula-1's rather than creating a slightly more practical Porche type of vehicle.
More info on TZero [wikipedia.org] (The article has links to the TZero outaccelerating several fancy sports cars.)
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:4, Informative)
There is really no reason why even a less racy looking EV could not be as fast as a Ferrari or Porche, even more pedestrian EV's are quite peppy.
The problem is range and battery performance. A range of 100 miles is mentioned, but this does not mention driving style or ari temperature (sure to be nice and hot, since it is a permanent convertable).
Here is an interesting video blog by a guy who owns a small EV and drives it around London." [dannyscontentment.net] He gets free parking down town and pays no congestion charge. [wikipedia.org] Other good things mentioned is the durability of the car and the fact that is very cheap to own and operate.
The problem is, his range becomes very limited, especially in the winter he can only do 25 miles. Another problem is the 16h equalization charge he has to do every month. These could of course be because of the specific battery technology used in his particular model of car, but I'm sure similar problems exist with other EV's.
I guess these are the reasons that EV's never really caught on.
Beat a Ferrari Spider? Big Deal... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, so's an electric drivetrain. The big difference is the torque curve. An internal combustion engine at 0 rpm stalls out, providing absolutely 0 torque, so you need some way to couple non-rotating parts (red light!) to an engine that has to idle at some minimum rpms. And then the engine delivers more torque as you spin it up.
Electric motors deliver their maximum torque at 0 rpm, and then it drops off as mechanical friction starts acting as a parasite. And since you don't need to worry about mating non-rotating to rotating parts, your drivetrain can be more efficient overall, since you can get out some of the lossy linkages.
You're right. This is nothing new. I saw a video online of an all-electric car beating a Ferrari off the line years and years ago (And not just beating, dominating). But at the end of the quarter-mile it needed a recharge. There are a lot more obstacles to electric cars replacing IC cars than just performance.
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Informative)
That second part is not true. As the motor speed up it generates back-emf which reduces the current thru the motor. Motors are current flow operated devices. This also limits the maximum motor rpm with no load.
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Interesting)
This is stupid. For a couple reasons. How many upper-middle class folks are environmentalists or gadget obsessed geeks? Dozens!
How many upper-middle class folks are car nuts? Judging by the number of performance package BMW's I see running around, lots. A lot more than there are environmentalists, by a fac
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, and people look back to when they thought the earth was the center of the universe and think that is silly now.
They make 350Zs and NSXs. And, yes, they both are killer cars.
However, hybrids are doing well, despite the fact that you don't want one. Take a look at http://www.greencarcongress.com/sales/index.html [greencarcongress.com]
Hybrids are good cars, and getting better. I've heard of people using their Prius as a quiet and efficient generator after a massive
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding? All you need is an office by a window and a long extension cord. Just like free gas!
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Interesting)
The racing car he built would cost 100 grand. That isn't the price of the commuter model he wants to build, which I assume would be around the cost of a new gasoline-powered car.
Give it thought: an electric car would have almost no moving parts in the drivetrain. No oil pump, no coolant, no fan, no radiator, no valves, nothing, nada. Motors are sealed and located in the wheel hubs, or just inside the car with transaxles linked to the wheels. The real cost
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is the case.
I would love to see a credible link to prove me wrong though.
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:4, Insightful)
OK so far...
Exxon-Mobil holds the patents to the nickel-metal hydride battery, so there's why the price for NMH for cars is so damned high.
You want to know why pure-electric cars are incredibly unlikely to become popular? Answer: it's not possible to get a full battery charge in 2 minutes. When you run out of gas, you can fill up again in 2 minutes. Travelling cross-country, it simply is *not* acceptable to have to sit around for 3 hours at the gas station waiting for your car to get enough juice to continue. Nor is it likely to be possible to improve on this, until someone invents some radically new battery technology - no existing battery technology will allow charging at this kind of speed without the batteries exploding.
So we need a new battery technology which will, at which point Exxon-Mobil and their battery won't matter a damn. The world and their brother is working on that, bcos everyone knows that whoever gets better tech is going to be in the money big-time. Trouble is that nothing's coming along - the best bet so far is fuel cells, and we're back to fossil fuels again (or hydrogen, which will be produced and distributed by the same folks anyway).
Grab.
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need a new battery technology. Just build batteries so that they are standardized in some form of rack or enclosure that can be swapped out. You pull into the "gas" station an automated device pulls the battery rack out of your car, gives you credit for any remaining charge, loads in a new rack of already charged batteries, and charges you for the difference in energy between the two packs. If properly designed, the enitire transaction could happen much faster than filling a 24, or even 10, gallon gas tank.
The issues come in where someone figures out a scam of pulling in with "bad" battery packs from the junkyard, and pulling out with brand new, fully charged packs.
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:4, Insightful)
The present generation of hybrids suffer the problems of both gas and electric vehicles. Gasolene engines can be very efficient if run at a single load and speed, so you build a car in which that is all the engine does: recharge the batteries while running at its most efficient load/speed combo.
Maybe there is some good reason why this does not work, but it would seem to have a bunch of advantages, including elimination of the transmission, more efficency, etc..
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Informative)
Conversion losses. Everytime you switch between mechanical and electric power, you're losing some of your energy in the process. As a result, hybrids are designed to accept losses only in power requirement profiles where the gain outweighs the loss. e.g. Acceleration is often handled by the more efficient electric motors while the gasoline motor is reserved for crusing.
As it so happens, alternative engines such as Stirlings [intelligentblogger.com] work much bett
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Informative)
You would not have to charge the battery as an intermediate step.
Also you could use a small diesel or gas turbine engine in place of the petrol engine which had further advantages.
I want it, I dream of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Informative)
toshiba 1 minute 80% charge batteries [physorg.com]
on the new toshibe batteries(actually its been over a year now, wonder where we can buy them, i've got a few projects they'd be useful in :
- my 2KW mini mini scooter (looks like a little kid push scooter, weighs less than 7 kg, goes like hell (not yet finished)
- my busking portable power source, currently use SLA batteries cos I already had them, but damn are they heavy to lug roun
similar to another well-known adage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting, but not new (Score:3, Informative)
Seen it before (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seen it before (Score:2, Interesting)
The funny thing that the article fails to notice is that with a 100 mile range and only 4.5 hour recharge (if this guy hits his targets) means this car would be practical as a daily driver for virtually everyone.
No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if you look at the pictures this is actually just an electric Ariel Atom [arielmotor.co.uk], which is also faster than a 360 Spider or Carrera GT.
Don't get me wrong -- this is cool. It's just not nearly as revolutionary as the article writer thinks it is, and it certainly won't "save the planet--fast!"
300 miles per charge (Score:2)
Re:300 miles per charge (Score:2)
Re:300 miles per charge (Score:2)
Because it's fully electric you can use anything which can produce electricity. Hell, you could have a wood powered steam engine powering the generator on the trailer and cut down trees as you go. Run electric and piss off the environmentalists at the same time.
It's actually quite an elegant idea, modular power generation and it means the car itself should be serviceable for the forseeable fu
Re:300 miles per charge (Score:2)
No it isn't, the power generation isn't going to be very efficient and this shit'll never scale large enough to provide a real-world solution.
I do have to admit that on the individual level it could be fun, but it won't work for the masses.
Re:300 miles per charge (Score:2)
For electric cars to work we'll need better infrastructure. something like those propane tank exchange thingies would probably do nicely.
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuel cells aren't very heavy or bulky, but they still don't put out as much power as batteries (and they don't even approach ultracapacitors). Thus, an ideal situation would have fuel cells charge batteries or ultracapacitors, producing electricity faster than it's used at cruising but slower than it's used during acceleration.
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to break it to you, but the Hydrogen car is not about the environment. Sure, it's a nice side-benefit (large power plants are more efficient, hydro and nuclear help reduce pollution, etc.), but the real reason is economics. Oil is quickly approaching a price point to where it is no longer economically feasible to power our transportation infrastructure off it.
Shifting to hydrogen would change the economic equation, and free our infrastructure from a costly choke point. All the power would be consolidated at the power plant level where the government can more easily regulate the infrastructure and provide incentives for companies to provide cheap power.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but economic considerations tend to apply a lot more pressure than the toothless protests of environmental protection groups.
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:3, Insightful)
I really think that Hydrogen is simply a back-door to bring nuclear power in, after electricity prices start to rise, centralized cheap power will be needed. What will he suggest to fix that? Something where his cronies can still get rich, so it has to be centralized and not easily implemented by consumers...hmmm.
Personally, I think nuclear power can be safe, but NOTHING is ever safe in
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
Hum, no...
FTA, emphasis mine :
"With $8 million in funding, he says, he is convinced he can put a consumer version of the X1 into production that meets federal safety standards, has a 100-mile range, and recharges in 4.5 hours."
IOW, given that money he thinks he can achieve an autonomy of 100 miles.
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
Electric motors generate peak torque at 0 RPM. Yes, they can accellerate like mad, but they use a ton of juice to do it. Then they are spent. Anyone could do this at any time. It's not news.
So it can do a quarter mile fast. Ask anyone who does open wheel racing (formula 1, etc), and they will tell you, "drag racing is for pussies". Anyone can slam down their foot and go a short distance in a straight line. N
TUTORIAL: why electric cars will never replace gas (Score:5, Insightful)
The batteries in hybrid cars are only used for acceleration in city driving and short periods of excess speed on highways. They are NOT used for anything else because ultimately 100% of the average power comes from the gasoline.
Thus the sole benefit of hybrids is that it turns city driving inefficiency (stop and accelerate) into the equivalent of highway driving since the engine can run at a constant, efficeint, tuned point almost continuously. For people who actually stop and leave the engine running for long periods, the hybrid can save a few sips by shutting down the engine. Also the hybrid can make use of engine type not associated with sexy car performance, like diesel.
But anyhow it cant avoid getting 100% of the energy from the gas.
What about charging the batteries off the grid? That will not work if everyone tries to do it.
If you wanted to be able to pull your car into gas station and gas it up in under 10 minutes to a range of 300 miles like you can with gasoline then the gas station would have to deliver power to your car at a rate of a megawatts. Besides the absurdity of delivering that over the powerlines, any practical battery would explode when charged that fast.
Okey you say, well what about trickle charging it overnight or while you are parked for a long time at work. Well that would work, for you. But if everyone else in your neighborhood did it, then we are back to delivering many megawatts to every neighbor hood. that simply is impossible until we have underground superconduction transmission lines in every city in america.
Thus electric cars re nice show pieces but cannot replace gasoline on a large scale at this time.
Thus the only way to charge an electric car is to have distributed power production or distributed chemical fuel delivery.
So this can mean: 1) hydrids that burn fuel like now. 2) hydrids that burn hydrogen like fuel cells (make the hydrogen at nuclear plants and ship it as chemical energy not over wires)
or charge batteries at nuclear plants and ship them in trucks to refueling stations where you swap batteries.
Thus you can only transport the power needed for typical driving as chemical energy.
30 HP = 22,371 watts
300 miles @ 55 Miles/hour = 19,636 seconds
30hp for 19636= 43,9285,090 joules
delivering 24 mega joules in one minute requires
7,321,418 watts from "pump" at gas station to recharge one car.
If a gas station was a busy one and was processing one car per minute all day long then it would have continous feed of 7 megawatts.
The total capacity of the US for power production is 300 terrawatt hours. so that would mean that if we doubled the entire electrical capacity of the US we could build less than 10,000 gas stations, ignoring all the transmission problems.
A mild correction (Score:3, Insightful)
None of the currently available hybrids use a setup where the gas engine can run at constant RPM.
The benefits of the current drivetrain designs are as follows:
1. Your engine is the same total power, but now has two pieces. You can turn half of it off when both are not needed, such as when c
Re:No Shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
Not a valid comparison (Score:2)
Instead they use coal, which is far more readily available in the United States than petroleum is. In fact I believe we are entirely self sufficient as far as coal goes and may even be exporting significant amounts of it.
This matters to me why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake me when they are affordable and widely available will you?
Re:This matters to me why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever been in a Prius? They're surprisingly roomy. Yes, they're over 20k, but when you look at the features that come standard (just ignoring the efficiency), and the sort of warranty you get, there's not that much of a hybrid surcharge; you'll easily make it
Re:This matters to me why? (Score:2)
Re:This matters to me why? (Score:2)
Re:This matters to me why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriousely. Those people that get 15 to the gallon raise the global demand by consuming far more than they need to. They drive up the price of gas.
They should pay more and the rest of us that are responsible people that give a damn should not have to subsidize their selfishness.
SUV's should flat out be banned. Trucks should be restricted as work vehicles or heavily taxed for personal use.
There is absolutely no reason why you cant get away with every personal use vehicle getting at min 25 to the gallon. I just bought a brand new corolla. 41 to the gallon, just a standard, rather roomy vehicle. There are tons of cars that use regular gasoline that get great mileage.
There is no reason to be buying SUV's other than to look retarded (SUV's are rather ugly)
Either ban those vehicles or make them pay $5 a gallon. Let the rest of the country enjoy lower prices because we act responsible.
Woah, Self-Righteously Indignant Much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Con
Re:This matters to me why? (Score:2)
Because if so how the hell did you manage to post this?
but what about... (Score:2)
Re:but what about... (Score:2)
So get one of these http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/06/08/smart -car-plus-gsxr-equals-smartuki-a-very-smart-car [thekneeslider.com]
Enough "weirdness" factor to satisfy most slashdotters.
Ariel Atom? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ariel Atom? (Score:2)
Sounds fast than the ~3second claim for the electric car as well...
Not that I don't think a fast electric car is cool, but the mis-placed bragging certain detracts from the coolness a lot...
AC Propulsion did this years ago - Tzero (Score:4, Informative)
The original lead acid version was even earlier than 2003.
The Obligatory Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Electric Car: "I'm an electric car, I can't go very fast, or very far.. and if you drive me, people will think you're gaaayyyyy...."
Warning - does not come with roof (Score:2)
They're comparing this vehicle to complete passenger cars (although ultimate luxury sports cars). It would be more appropriate to compare it to something like a 7, or an Ariel Atom [arielmotor.co.uk], which is faster than the Veyron 0-60 anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, and plan to convert my own some day, but don't compare apples-to-oranges, article.
-JesseNice (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this may be feasible by using a spare battery charging during the day and swapping (in smaller-than-500lbs increments).
I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a 600cc sportbike.
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:2)
It goes fast, what about far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, as an obligatory point... Where are they getting the electicity to run this thing? Most of the US still get's it's power from Gas run power plants. It's good to see improvement in the tech though, so when we do have other methods of power generation we'll be ablt to take full advantage of them.
Re:It goes fast, what about far? (Score:5, Funny)
I see your point about then paying for electricity. I think I will just hook mine up to my gas generator and bypass that problem entirely.
Acceleration Range (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution allows at least 350 highway miles per charge and can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less.
As far as I know, no current or on the horizon electric-only system can do this. Hydrogen / fuel cell are close, but that is something that just cannot be done with chemical batteries in the mass market (I have heard of research into areas of fast charging, but I know I don't want to have to stand near an electric supply that is transferring at over 6 MW (10 gallons in 3 minutes of gasoline is just over 6.3 MW equivalent energy transfer).
Re:Acceleration Range (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're being a bit unrealistic here. What you describe is the typical characteristics of a gas powered vehicle. However, how many people need to drive for 6 hours and then refuel in 5 minutes (so they can drive another 6 hours)?
Most people drive less than 100 miles a day commuting and have all night to recharge. This car meets these specs just fine.
If you're driving cross country, rent a gas car.
Re:Acceleration Range (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Acceleration Range (Score:2)
I think you could solve the charge problem by having multiple battery packs.
Then it's just a matter of how fast you can change the battery.
Still have a range problem though, and there's also the cost.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Re:Acceleration Range (Score:2)
But you really need to have a hard shell around it, and all the usual safety features that people like.
And one strategy for 'fast charging' is to have lightweight batteries that you can easily swap out.
Why 5 min refuel? (Score:3, Interesting)
The 5 minute charge seems to just be a requirement left over from mandatory trips to the gas station. Most people, I
The extremist in me applauds ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Mmm, VW (Score:2, Troll)
* 25 year old pasty white geekboys dressed in black with "WARDRIVER" window stickers
And how is this surprising? (Score:2)
Most people seem to have forgotten that, prior to WWI, and the improvement to the internal combustion engine, there was a lot of debate between which engine was the best. Internal combustion won, because it offered longer range, not necessarily better performances.
DOA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DOA (Score:2)
Instant torque (Score:5, Informative)
The best work truck you can get right now is a Dodge "Contractor" model with a 6 cyl cummings diesel and four electric motors. Instant torque combined with the long haul power of a diesel. It gets 24mpg and has an internal 20Kw generator that can power four 3000 sq ft homes. It can run on Biodiesel too. Now THAT is a hybrid.
Re:Instant torque (Score:2, Interesting)
This would tow your boat (Score:2)
Re:Instant torque (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be nice would be offering a 4-cylinder version of the Cummins (simple math gives 3.9L displacement for such a beast) in the 1/2-ton Ram and Dakota (their compact pickup). Such an engine would both ou
From the article: (Score:5, Funny)
$100,000+ is not "Available for the masses" (Score:2, Insightful)
Not impressed (Score:2)
Electric engines have a huge amount of torque, which helps you get off the line faster. I would be impressed if this car could do this, and still be usable later.
It impresses no one if you race someone at a light, then have to pull in to a station for a recharge.
Plus, it looks like this thing is just an Ariel Atom [google.com]... which I believe already beats those other cars anyway
Electric vs. Top Fuel dragsters? (Score:2)
A car that could save the planet--fast (Score:3, Interesting)
BAHAHAHAH...
"II. Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles are incapable of replacing more than a small fraction (5 or maybe 10%) of the 700 million internal combustion engine powered cars on the road due to the limits of battery technology. Dr. Walter Youngquist explains:
. . . a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8 pounds has the same energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage batteries. Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour . . .
Some promising research into new battery technlogies using lithium is being performed, but even the scientists at the forefront of this research admit, "We've got a long way to go."
Assumming these problems away, the construction of an average car also consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water. Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. Scientists are already warning us to get ready for massive "water wars."
Thus, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids or electric vehicles is to seize control of the world's reserves of both oil and fresh water and then divert those resources away from the billions of people who already rely on them.
Even if were willing to undertake such an endeavor, the problem will still not be solved due to a phenomenon known as "Jevon's Paradox," whereby increases in energy efficiency are obliterated by corresponding increases in energy consumption.
The US economy is a good example of Jevon's Paradox in action. Since 1970, we have managed to cut in half the amount of oil necessary to generate a dollar of GDP. At the same time, however, our total level of oil consumption has risen by about fifty percent while our level of natural gas and coal consumption have risen by even more. Thus, despite massive increases in the energy efficiency over the last 35 years, we are more dependent on oil than ever. This trend is unlikely to be abated in a market economy, where the whole point is to make as much money (consume as much energy) as possible." - http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.ht
Re:A car that could save the planet--fast (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's battery technology is the main obstacle to electric cars. There's no question that batteries will improve, the only questions are how much and how soon? And there are alternative technologies. . . Supercapacitors look promising. The newest ones, in the lab, are achieving energy density similar to b
Ahahahaha to you, my friend (Score:3, Interesting)
The combustion scheme went further than it was capable due to the fact that the governments and big money can control oil production and distribution - whereas any weirdo with the right equipment can produce electricity enough to charge a car - profit los
Re:A car that could save the planet--fast (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, who could forget those?
And when the sun ducked away, we continued the fight inside, soaking every piece of furniture and carpet, nearly drowning the kitten.
Then our mother returned from work and broke our water guns.
But I'm ready.
How long... (Score:2)
is its power cord?
Replace F1 racing? (Score:2)
I suspect you'd have to put speakers in the cars to make the Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeowwwwww noises or it just wouldn't be acceptible.
The Tango (Score:5, Informative)
I want one. (Score:2)
Re:I want one. (Score:2)
Irrelevant (Score:2)
How about a 500 mile race (Score:2)
Re:How about a 500 mile race (Score:2)
For the first 450 miles, anyone named Andretti. Then Tom Carnegie utters those four most famous words in auto racing: "Andretti is slowing down".
(Sorry, but it is May.)
Whatever (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:2)
A much bigger challenge for an electric versus gas would be 60-90, highest top speed, or a
Power to weight (Score:2)
This power to weight ratio also makes electric motors attractive for helicopters - they simply can't get off the ground unless they exceed a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1. The length
Gas vs Eletric (Score:3, Funny)
*electric bill for $400 arrives* Ah fuck.
Gas turbines! (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrysler's A831 turbine cars (early '60s) produced 130 horsepower and 425 ft/lb or torque at zero rpm. Their fifth-generation turbine (1981) only made 105 hp but got 22 mpg in EPA fuel economy testing.
Now all we gotta do is figure out some way to clean up the exhaust from 'em
Re:Gas turbines! (Score:3, Informative)
A gas turbine produces peak torque when the output shaft is turning at zero rpm.
they conveniently leave out... (Score:3, Insightful)
The X1 is good as a track car and that's about it. That's definitely not the market bugatti is aiming for.
Re:That's not a car (Score:2)
wear a helmet?
Re:Fuel comparisons? (Score:2)
Well, depending on the size of your boat, a Ford Escape Hybrid [wikipedia.org] should do the trick. 155HP may not sound like much, but the torque advantages of the electric motors should help offset that. (Seriously, how many people *really* run their engine at 200+ HP?)
Re:Fuel comparisons? (Score:2)
Re:Fuel comparisons? (Score:2)
Yes I could provide links to prove this, but that would make life a lot less interesting
Re:Fuel comparisons? (Score:5, Informative)
Automobiles aren't very fuel efficient at all. Car engines waste in excess of 30% of the energy from gasoline (http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/
Re:Batteries! Pffttt (Score:3, Funny)
One step closer to true bumpercars....