-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Fisker Karma
- Thread starter vfx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles fail Fisker karma
That's not like saying such absurdities at all. A bike and an EV? That's a silly analogy. In no way are those drivetrains fundamentally similar. Please divorce emotion from fact - we may have differing opinions on style, handling and other subjective topics, but some topics are objective. Drivetrain taxonomy is one such topic (perhaps I'm missing something in your comments above, so please elaborate if that's the case). The Karma is fundamentally an EV - electric motors ALWAYS turn the wheels. That is the fundamental concept behind "EV." There is no mechanical connection to the ICE. In that way, the Model S and the Karma are IDENTICAL. You can strip out the generator and replace it with more batteries if you're so inclined and the Karma operates in the same way. One difference is that the Model S can only get its juice from a plug - and the juice that flows through that plug can come from the sun ("gallons of light"), moon/Earth (hydro/wind/geothermal), or dead dinosaurs (coal/oil). But it has to come through that single plug. And those sources energy must be transformed into electricity elsewhere. The Karma can get its juice in exactly the same way also (it too has a plug and the attendant batteries), but has the added benefit of also being able to transform energy into electricity on the fly, on its own, via a gas tank/generator. It can take electricity as well as gas. Think of the ICE as a 600 lb mini 'gas-fired' power plant that the Karma keeps under the hood.
I take issue with this - because at extension, what you're saying is that weight = safety. That is most certainly not the case. Check out the NHTSA safety ratings - they do not correspond with weight. It is true that as safety standards in the US increased since the 1970s, the average weight of a car sold in the US also increased (there's a cool graphic I saw which shows this trend, if I can find it on the web I'll add link here). However, while airbags, rollover bars, ABS, traction/stability control and seatbelts have added weight to cars, a substantial proportion of the weight increase is due to creature comforts (mechanized/heated seats, AC, infotainment systems) and performance enhancements. Steps can be taken to mitigate these bloats - BMW is using CFRP in their upcoming i-line, McLaren employs a CF monocoque which provides incredible safety at extremely light weight, Ford and BMW are using smaller, lighter aluminum ICEs that deliver much more power per unit of weight, etc. My point is that we can get there - drivetrain is only part of the solution, the other part is reducing weight/moving less stuff around. Reminds me of an analogy one of the guys on my team relayed to me about fitness. When he was younger, he was a chubby kid and wanted to play soccer. So he thought 'man, i really need to add more muscle' so asked his dad to help him strength train. At the first training session, his dad had him wear a backpack with 30 lbs of stuff in it and made him go up and down the stairs a few times. He was easily out of breath and borderline exhausted. His dad then told him to drop the backpack and run up and down the stairs, and afterwards asked him, 'how was that?' to which he replied 'MUCH easier'. 'Great' his dad said, 'things are easier when you're 30 lbs lighter.' More is not always better.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true. For going back and forth to work, I use something like 30 miles of range. If I had a Karma (and the engine didn't kick on), I would be producing the same emissions as the Model S.
All of that is a bit moot IMO, as I don't think the masses who adopt these cars will do it because they're tree-hugging hippies (so to speak).
That is factually correct, but about 57% of US electricity comes from coal (Coal - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)) and if you are one of the 36 million Americans who live in Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, then 81%-93% of your electricity comes from coal (Keep Our Fuel Mix Diverse: What's The Fuel Mix Where I Live?).
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
Not in 2012. The Coal mix dropped to about 38% of generation. Shale gas is killing coal.
Electricity from coal is way lower than 57%. As of 2011, it's 42% across the USA.
Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
I stand corrected - the 57% stat was in a couple of online electricity articles and blogs I read. Upon further review, that stat was a late 1980s/early 1990s number. According to data published by the EIA in January 2013, coal-sourced electricity accounted for 45% and 42% in 2010 and 2011 respectively (see data tables: Electric Power Annual 2011 - Energy Information Administration)
That precipitous drop has made every EV cleaner to drive in just a few years. Gasoline can only derived from world sourced oil. The EV has 7 ways of making the energy needed to propel the car. Some generation can be done at home.
To bring this back on topic... If you're going to consider how much coal or other fossil fuels are in the electricity generation mix, you should also consider the efficiency of the car. As far as I can tell, the Karma is the least efficient plug-in available on the market. Roughly half as efficient as the Volt (on electricity or on gas).
Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So not all miles driven on electricity are equal.
Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So not all miles driven on electricity are equal.
Precisely - and needless to point out, the Karma too benefits from the greening of the electrical grid. EVers h - ave the same two letters as EVs - and the all important extra letters 'er'.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think anyone here was saying the Karma is as efficient as the Model S (its heavier for one, and for two, its styling means less cone-like and thus less aerodynamic). We are simply saying that both are EVs/utilize EV drivetrains. Anyone who is in this game purely for efficiency should consider other cars like the Ford Focus EV (105 MPGe), Honda Fit EV (118 MPGe) - both are notably above Tesla's 85/95 MPGe rating (and much cheaper to boot). Yet somehow I think most MS owners wouldn't trade their Teslas for either of these. MPGe isn't everything.
@SoCalGuy, @AnOutsider - You're both misunderstanding my point; perhaps I stated it unclearly.
My phrasing "different driving experience" refers to the entire package of the vehicle not just the basics. I'm not saying that they are different as a stick figure (an EV motor connected to wheels). I'm talking about the experience for the driver. Put in more general terms, the Karma and the Model S are significantly different driving experiences -- just like the Roadster and the Model S. Does that make the Karma or the Roadster "bad"? No. I was objecting to "you have the exact same benefits as a Model S owner" which is clearly incorrect for those carrying 5+ passengers, like the open cabin, appreciate the 17" interface, etc.
@SoCalGuy - Regarding weight and safety... my point was that your post (as I read it at least) was that it was diminishing the balancing effort required to produce a complete and compelling vehicle. Safety was just one example of an investment that often costs weight.
My phrasing "different driving experience" refers to the entire package of the vehicle not just the basics. I'm not saying that they are different as a stick figure (an EV motor connected to wheels). I'm talking about the experience for the driver. Put in more general terms, the Karma and the Model S are significantly different driving experiences -- just like the Roadster and the Model S. Does that make the Karma or the Roadster "bad"? No. I was objecting to "you have the exact same benefits as a Model S owner" which is clearly incorrect for those carrying 5+ passengers, like the open cabin, appreciate the 17" interface, etc.
@SoCalGuy - Regarding weight and safety... my point was that your post (as I read it at least) was that it was diminishing the balancing effort required to produce a complete and compelling vehicle. Safety was just one example of an investment that often costs weight.
Fisker Said to Weigh Bids From Suitors Including Dongfeng - Bloomberg
Does that mean they value the entire company at only $412M
Does that mean they value the entire company at only $412M
dennis
Model S Plaid
Since they are receiving bids from multiple suitors, I doubt that the valuation they end up with will be that low. But it is nice to see that, if the Bloomberg rumor is true, at least one company is willing to put in enough capital to restart Karma production and finish the Atlantic development and get it into full production.
Funny if Dongefeng buys them:
-Jan 26, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-26/volvo-to-invest-in-truck-making-venture-with-china-s-dongfeng.html
Let me get this straight: the American tax payers fronted the money and now the Chinese get to own the company for less than what our tax dollars are in?
That ain't right.
dennis
Model S Plaid
If they end up as the majority owner of Fisker, they will still be on the hook to pay back the $193M DOE loan + interest. A better outcome than Solyndra. Also a better outcome for the US than for the VC's/private equity guys who invested $1.2B.
Yup. They were approved for $530 m but only drew $193.
They better pay back every damn penny.
Similar threads
