and some more eestor news

jlumartinez · Post by **jlumartinez** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:47 pm

Another electric car using ultracapacitors ( 10 mins to be fully recharged and travel 200 miles, maximun 700 hp : 0-60 mph in 5 secs)

http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/nanosafe.php

http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/el ... petrol.php

What I have read suggest that these batteries -ultracapacitors- also use new nanotech based on titanates

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:52 pm

I posted this somewhere else already. From what I understand these are not ultracapasitors, but LiIon batteries that have this increased performance thanks to the the Nanosafe nanotechnology.

Edit: Here is the link to the thread:
viewtopic.php?t=814
(the other item of news in there is about another nanotechnology that converts radiation into electricity).

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:28 pm

One more comment on the earlier discussion in this thread.
If everyone here is right and I am making an unfair statement about electric cars, then how come I have not seen a single electric SUV yet, not even a concept, or a design study?
IMHO this is because the bigger the car gets the less the savings in transmission and engine size can outweight the heavier battery.
The thing is though, if you built it very lightweight and small a gasoline car can also be quite fuel efficient.
So please someone can come up with a better battery? The one by Altairnano sounds great, but it is veeeery expensive. Not something that the average Joe sixpack can afford ("hay I'll keep draiv'n ma ol' trouck, cuz theit electric sheit is someth'n foa tha riach peepl").

tombo · Post by **tombo** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:10 pm

Nor even the average Joe Skipjack!

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:17 pm

How about this one? Tesla to build a luxury $60,000 SUV
http://www.gizmag.com/tesla-to-build-lu ... -ev/10087/

93143 · Post by **93143** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:35 pm

Skipjack wrote:If everyone here is right and I am making an unfair statement about electric cars, then how come I have not seen a single electric SUV yet, not even a concept, or a design study?

That's probably because modern batteries don't charge fast enough and don't have good enough energy densities. The incentive is thus to wrap the car as tightly around the battery pack as possible, both geometrically and mass-wise, to avoid wasting energy and losing range. Gains from reclamative braking notwithstanding, a bigger car does require a bigger power pack, and is thus more expensive and takes longer to charge.

Besides, the main incentive right now for people to switch to electric is energy efficiency. People who still want big SUVs are not the target market.

With EEStor hypercapacitors, or even substantially improved lithium-ion cells, the size disadvantage diminishes, and if the cost can come down to the point where people can afford to buy electric SUVs, companies will start manufacturing them.

As an aside, I don't really think it's fair that SUVs are used as shorthand for vehicles that get bad mileage. A lot of them (particularly the smaller Japanese ones) are actually pretty good. Now a Suburban, on the other hand...

93143 · Post by **93143** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:37 pm

Aero wrote:How about this one? Tesla to build a luxury $60,000 SUV

That's a sedan. Moving up from the roadster, but not there yet.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:14 pm

Oops, my bad. I Picked up on the V and read what I wanted to see. It is a $60,00 luxury EV, a sedan, not an SUV.

But, in my opinion, I would bet that there is a market for plug-in electric SUVs already, even with the premium price they would demand. Who, after all is more environmentally conscious than soccer moms, and who is more competitive about showing up the neighborhood ladies than soccer moms? And who drives the "not at all inexpensive" big SUVs to the soccer games now? I'd even speculate that the percentage price increase for an plug-in electric SUV would be less than the percentage price increase for a plug-in electric subcompact. Although since the battery pack is a big cost driver, maybe not.

jlumartinez · Post by **jlumartinez** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:46 pm

Altairnano Nanosafe batteries will power Lightning Electric Car ( 200 miles range and 700 hp. Recharge time = 10 min. with a 480 V and 400 A connection). Here is and interview to their CEO telling some of the advantages of this new type of hyperbatteries:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/07 ... n-gotcher/

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:25 pm

93143 wrote:
Also remember that higher vehicle mass = better collision safety.

Sorry, but this is not true. There is some corrolation between mass RATIO in an accident, but are the drivers of two Abrams tanks colliding at 60 mph any safer than two Civics at the same speed?

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:03 am

KitemanSA wrote:Sorry, but this is not true. There is some corrolation between mass RATIO in an accident, but are the drivers of two Abrams tanks colliding at 60 mph any safer than two Civics at the same speed?

Inapplicable. The front of an Abrams is made of heavy armor, meaning it's less likely to crush under the weight of the decelerating vehicle, so the deceleration would be faster.

Suppose you hit something that wasn't a car? Like a dumpster? Electric dumpsters aren't any heavier than gasoline-fueled ones...

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:38 pm

Sorry, but this is not true. There is some corrolation between mass RATIO in an accident

Yes, but everyone else is driving something of a certain mass, and we could average that. Above that average, you are generally safer, below it you are less safe. If I drive an M1A1 Abrams to work I am not likely to encounter anything else nearly as heavy.

It's sort of a free rider problem. You can make others safer with a lighter vehicle, but only at the expense of your own safety.

So, in other words, you should all go buy electric cars, especially if you'll be driving nearby me.

clonan · Post by **clonan** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:37 pm

TallDave wrote: Yes, but everyone else is driving something of a certain mass, and we could average that. Above that average, you are generally safer, below it you are less safe. If I drive an M1A1 Abrams to work I am not likely to encounter anything else nearly as heavy.

Not really. There are two primary dangers in accidents. The first danger is the sudden direction change which could lead to whiplash and other similar injuries or getting thrown out through the windshield. Of course the other danger is getting squished.

Danger one is minimized by by head rests, seatbelts and airbags.

Danger two can be minimized in two seperate ways. #1 make the vehicle stronger (and by necessity heavier). #2 Make the vehicle smaller and therefore bounce.

Remember, when a heavy thing hits a light thing the light thing tends to bounce off of it rather than get crushed.

The curb weight of a vehicle is not a good estimation of the protective capability of the vehicle. Since beefing up the strength of the frame tends to add weight there is a coorelation but it isn't very strong.

When you actually look at survivability of the driver/passangers, small cars are equally safe as large cars. The number you are thinking of is the survivability of the CAR itself. It is very true that an SUV vs a Civic, the SUV could be repaired but the Civic would be totaled. However everyone would still probably all walk away.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:57 pm

#2 Make the vehicle smaller and therefore bounce.

Bouncing is not good for the stuff inside, which wants to keep moving in the original direction and has to somehow absorb some very nasty and sudden delta-v. I mean, it's better than being crushed obviously, but it's also better to be the bouncer than the bouncee.

When you actually look at survivability of the driver/passangers, small cars are equally safe as large cars.

Not when they hit each other, all else being equal. I don't know if crash tests take this into account. They usually seem to run them into a wall in the videos you see.

clonan · Post by **clonan** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:03 am

TallDave wrote: Bouncing is not good for the stuff inside, which wants to keep moving in the original direction and has to somehow absorb some very nasty and sudden delta-v. I mean, it's better than being crushed obviously, but it's also better to be the bouncer than the bouncee.

Which was danger number one in my original post. These dangers are minimized and essentially eliminated through head rests, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones etc. Essentially, so long as you are wearing your seat belt you don't need to worry much about delta-v for the velocities we are talking about.

TallDave wrote:Not when they hit each other, all else being equal. I don't know if crash tests take this into account. They usually seem to run them into a wall in the videos you see.

The bouncing effect applies in every case that the smaller vehicle does NOT get pinned. Therefore anything less than a Mack truck will push the smaller vehicle out of the way without causing significant injury to passengers (a Mack truck will squish SUV's as well).

All I can suggest is to compare the survivability statistics of various vehicles. In the US the regs are so tight that I am perfectly happy driving in a car with the lowest safety rating so long as it still passes. The difference between the top and bottom is so small as to not worry about it.