-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
mnx
2018 M3P
I thought I remember reading 400hp somewhere, could have been a back of the envelope calculation that someone did much like yourself though...
- mnx
I hate hyperbole. I'm as much of a fan as the Model S as the next guy, but it's not going to be that far ahead of the market. Anyway, it's C+D, which seems happy with its breathless adolescent tone. Cue pile on!
"Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together." -- Kent Brockman (aka Kenny Brockelstein), The Simpsons
PeterW
Member
While this is humourous, I would back Tesla to achieve this before Toyota. Tesla does not have the infrastucture of an ICE manufacturer. They do not have all that baggage so they can concentrate on EV's. And they are not competing against themselves.
Also God does not make cars :smile:
Toyota, as far as I know, doesn't have much, if anything, planned in the pure-electric, non-plug-in hybrid, arena. They are solely concentrating on Hydrogen fuel-cells with a target of 2015. However according to hydrogenassociation.org there are currently a total of 68 operational and 37 "planned" filling stations across all of America. Just because of the amount of money it takes to build a Hydrogen fueling station that is going to be an extremely tough sell in only five years.
Also, Tesla's target is a 300-mile battery pack but they more than likely won't advertise that number unless the EPA backs it. As others have previously pointed out the 0-60 and charging times are more than likely going to come from the smallest pack available because it's going to weigh the least and take the least amount of time to fully charge.
Assuming the 160-mile pack quick charges in 45 minutes the 300-mile pack should take just under 1:30 to fully charge on a similar "quick" charge.
Not to mention that it seems like most of those H2 refueling station are not scaled for mainstream use, but for a scarce testfleet. I'm guessing it wont be trivial to scale all of these refueling stations to go from 50 cars a day to 5000. And then another one of the "advantages" of hydrogen goes down the drain.
As to recharge time and accel, Tesla has earlier said that the 230miles and 300 miles pack will weigh the same. They'll use expensive highdensity cells on the 300 pack and cheaper more common cells on the 230 pack.
Cobos
As to recharge time and accel, Tesla has earlier said that the 230miles and 300 miles pack will weigh the same. They'll use expensive highdensity cells on the 300 pack and cheaper more common cells on the 230 pack.
Cobos
That sounds more correct to me. According to this ABG article posted about two weeks ago 15 vehicles is actually too many for the UC Irvine station that was created in 2007. The money it took to make the refilling station could easily provide recharge spots around campus for more than 15 electric cars. :biggrin:
The point I failed to make in my previous post was that even in the unrealistic and perfect scenario were all of the 68 listed "Hydrogen stations" were open to the public and able to fill as many cars as a typical gas station on any given day that's all they've got across all of America and Canada.
Because of that I just don't see how Toyota believes people will be able to fill a Hydrogen car in five years, aside from home-filling stations, which you can already do with an electric car, if they live outside California where 38% of the stations are currently located.
Ah, I forgot about that. I could see the acceleration being the same if they weigh the same but the charge time would still be increased in the 300-mile pack when charged at the same rate compared to the 230-mile pack since it's storing more energy.
Tdave
Member
But if you drive both cars together on a driving loop and return for a charge, they will both charge in the same amount of time because they both traveled the same distance. One may have longer range, but the charging rate is the same.
Drive both cars 15,000 miles per year, and they will both spend the same amount of time charging during that year. The charge time for both cars is the same.
Go on a cross-country trip, and you will spend the same amount of time charging both cars. You'll just need to stop more often with one compared with the other.
I think you get my point.
Last edited:
But with the longer range, and less need to make as many stops one would be more inclined to take the 300 mile range version on such road trips. Besides there might not be enough charge spots along the way to do it in a "lesser" vehicle, so the 300 mile vehicle may well be driven more miles.
Another case would be to support those with longer commutes not possible in the shorter range vehicle.
In any case the "time to charge" number is about how long it takes to go from empty to full in one "sitting", not trying to find ways to say "my partial charge is equivalent to your full charge".
Also time to charge is important when comparing vehicles of different efficiencies. If you can cover the same distance in a smaller, more aerodynamic vehicle using a smaller capacity pack and end up at a public charge spot with fixed power output, you could appreciate that you would "refill" quicker and get back on the road sooner to continue your trip. On the other hand, lets say a Model S and Aptera are taking the same trip and the Aptera does it using half the energy, but can only recharge at half the current, then the time becomes moot, and it is just a matter of having a bigger "footprint" and spending some extra dimes on more "juice".
(But you could bring up passenger-miles per kWh if you are taking more people along for the ride in the Model S compared to the Aptera.)
Also time to charge is important when comparing vehicles of different efficiencies. If you can cover the same distance in a smaller, more aerodynamic vehicle using a smaller capacity pack and end up at a public charge spot with fixed power output, you could appreciate that you would "refill" quicker and get back on the road sooner to continue your trip. On the other hand, lets say a Model S and Aptera are taking the same trip and the Aptera does it using half the energy, but can only recharge at half the current, then the time becomes moot, and it is just a matter of having a bigger "footprint" and spending some extra dimes on more "juice".
(But you could bring up passenger-miles per kWh if you are taking more people along for the ride in the Model S compared to the Aptera.)
I think we're on the same page now. I believe you are saying "Drive them the same distance and they take the same amount of time to charge."
However, my original point was supposed to be in a scenario where you don't drive the same distance, like this: The car with the 300-mile pack went 290-miles on a loop and the 230-mile pack went 220-miles on the same loop. If you then simultaneously hookup both cars to a charger that is outputting the same amount of current to both cars the 230-mile pack will get done charging first.
I believe other than those that need a bigger pack because of commute reasons the only ones who may "bite" at a bigger, more expensive, pack are those that have range anxiety because they haven't actually calculated how many miles their commutes are and assume 160-miles isn't enough.
True, but with the higher energy battery you could overlap a greater fraction of your charge time with sleeping. With the Roadster battery, for instance, you can only charge for 5-6 hours/night (at 50A) and the rest of the potential charging time is wasted. With batteries up to something over 100 kWh, you could be taking on electricity the whole time you're plugged in.
Similar threads
- Question
