×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New World Record For Electric Car Speed: 204.2 MPH

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the electric-moment dept.

Transportation 99

Dupple writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "Drayson Racing Technologies has broken the world land speed record for a lightweight electric car. Its Lola B12 69/EV vehicle hit a top speed of 204.2mph (328.6km/h) at a racetrack at RAF Elvington in Yorkshire. ... The previous 175mph record was set by Battery Box General Electric in 1974. Drayson Racing is not the only electric vehicle-maker hoping to use motorsport to spur on adoption of the technology. Last week Nissan unveiled the Zeod RC (Zero Emission On Demand Racing Car), which can switch between electric and petrol power. The firm intends to enter the vehicle into next year's Le Mans 24 race saying the competition would act as a 'challenging test bed' for technologies that could eventually find their way into road cars." This video from last year introduces the Lola; Drayson's YouTube channel has plenty more footage, too.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

99 comments

202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44113803)

That's not fast. the tgv has already done 574 kph. (360mph) Electric engines are capable of MUCH more.

Re:202 ? (2)

Nutria (679911) | about 10 months ago | (#44113835)

The TGV doesn't have to carry it's own power source.

Re:202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44113991)

>The TGV doesn't have to carry it's own power source.
so ? should cars be limited in that way ?

Re:202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114109)

so ? should cars be limited in that way ?

Trains can only go where the tracks go.
Cars don't have that limitation. So yes cars will always need to carry their own power source.

Re:202 ? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114185)

BS. 99.999% of cars don't go offroad for more than 75% of the time. these cars can have a small battery and be charged via either overhead cables or induction http://inhabitat.com/wireless-induction-charging-for-electric-vehicles-to-be-tested-on-german-buses/ [inhabitat.com]

Re:202 ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114375)

these cars can have a small battery

In other words every car needs to carry in own power source.

Re:202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44115443)

I dare you to take out the battery in your car.

Re:202 ? (4, Funny)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 10 months ago | (#44115915)

I dare you to take out the battery in your car.

I did. We went to dinner and a movie.

What happened afterwards is too shocking to tell.

Re:202 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116507)

When I was young and poor I had my car's battery die and had to wait for my paycheck to clear before I could afford a new one. I had to push start my car for a couple of days, parking it on hills and such.

Though it wasn't that big a deal, really.

Thank the FSM it had a manual transmission.

Re:202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116459)

The roads in your city must be in much better repair than in mine.

Re:202 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44118593)

I've never taken my car offroad, but I've certainly taken it on trips that involve a lot of time going down country roads far from major towns, paved or not. While induction and electricfied roads would work for many daily commutes, there would still be a huge gap between "off-road" and "roads providing power." You might as well complain "Well, 99% of people are not camping in the wilderness 75% of the time, therefore they are always withing cell service..."

Re:202 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114565)

It doesn't have to carry extra apostrophes either. That helps.

Re:202 ? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44114583)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bus [wikipedia.org]

I'll let you figure out why we haven't replaced personal vehicles with these.

Re:202 ? (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 10 months ago | (#44117795)

Slightly off-topic..

Between people's desire for individual freedom, lack of a proper transit network, and the popular opinion that buses are not something you want to be found on for cited security and hygiene reasons, at least people in DC don't seem to need much of another reason.

Which is a shame, really, and here's why.
I'll be visiting DC (IAD, technically in VA) and have to go to, say, Charlotte Hall in MD.

Cab: $150
SuperShuttle: $160 (no longer does shared rides that far south)
SupremeAirportShuttle (shared ride): $135 (fluctuates - their site is a mess)
Rental car: $6.35 for gas (assuming 2012 Ford Fiesta), oodles more for rental+insurance (remains cheaper than the above for the first 2-3 days or so).
Bus (5A to Rosslyn and 909 down south): $10.35

If buses were held in higher esteem (and Dillon's seems a perfectly good commercial operator, but not many people seem to actually review bus service over there), made more stops (there's just a few along that entire route, though local transport including taxis may be viable from there), and drove a little faster, I'd say buses would be a great option there.. electric or otherwise.

( I was disappointed to find that the railroad tracks there are only used for goods, and not for people movers. Unless I missed something. )

Re:202 ? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114783)

The record is for an electric car under 1000 kg.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/113062659310/drayson-racing-breaks-world-speed-record-for-a-lightweight

A TGV is not lightweight by any imagination.

Re:202 ? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 months ago | (#44118781)

That's not fast. the tgv has already done 574 kph. (360mph) Electric engines are capable of MUCH more.

Yes, but electric motors can do even more.

Nope (5, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#44113847)

Can't drive for 8 hours without a recharge, can't charge in less than 500 microseconds, doesn't cost less than the shittiest Ford = piece of shit.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44113885)

Yes, let's go for a long cross country journey in a drag racer

OH WAIT that would be RIDICULOUS

Re:Nope (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#44115435)

Yes, let's go for a long cross country journey in a drag racer

OH WAIT that would be RIDICULOUS

That's not a drag car, this [plasmaboyracing.com] is a drag car.

FYI, drag racers are operated on 1/4 mile strips, not full-on racing tracks.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114095)

There is currently no gas driven car with emissions so low that they are long term viable in large cities.
We also have to start manufacturing new oil soon, do you have a solution for that?

Yes, the current EV might be considered pretty shitty, but the alternatives are even worse.

Re:Nope (3, Interesting)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 10 months ago | (#44114359)

There is currently no gas driven car with emissions so low that they are long term viable in large cities.

I don't get this at all, in what way? Viable according to whose standards? in what way? I mean, cars nowadays pretty much only output CO2, which is the same thing we output.

Also, cars are bigger than people, we won't be able to fit enough cars into a dense enough city space to make them unviable in that sense.

We also have to start manufacturing new oil soon, do you have a solution for that?

You can manufacture as much oil as you like, we've done it for a long time, the problem is that it is expensive compared to what you can get out of the ground, that it is limited to specialty areas (e.g. synthetic car oil). For Fuel we can manufacture hydrocarbons, although not (yet) in the amounts necessary to totally replace what is drilled out world wide.

In Europe, fuel costs are so high (due to taxes) that they are almost reaching parity with manufactured fuel in cost, which I suspect may well be the long term politicians goal (i.e. they can switch us all over and it would not cause a massive price shock).

In fact, from the point of view of alternatives, I still think *biofuels are better than EV, at least in the short/medium term. Batteries wear out quickly, are expensive, and have no reached density parity with chemical fuels.

Of course, you don't have to burn said fuels, perhaps fuel cells with electric traction would be the most efficient.

*I don't mean the ass-backwards thing in the US where you use corn to make fuel, but sugar cane, algae, grasses, hemp and others, which are far better suited to this without affecting the food supply.

Re:Nope (2)

keytoe (91531) | about 10 months ago | (#44116307)

In Europe, fuel costs are so high (due to taxes) that they are almost reaching parity with manufactured fuel in cost, which I suspect may well be the long term politicians goal (i.e. they can switch us all over and it would not cause a massive price shock).

Except for the massive price shock in terms of how much less money the government would collect without that tax in place...

Re:Nope (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 10 months ago | (#44116899)

Personally, I'm getting ready to buy a big block old 70's muscle car, something with a 455 4-speed. 10mpg....ahh, the good old days.

I've got a decent job and can afford the gas. So many people seem to forget that cars should also be FUN too....

Re:Nope (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 10 months ago | (#44117089)

I'd love to take one of those beasts and put an electric engine in it. Or better yet something truly anachronistic like a late model Silver Ghost and trick it out with all the latest high tech gadgets.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117199)

I'd love to take one of those beasts and put an electric engine in it. Or better yet something truly anachronistic like a late model Silver Ghost and trick it out with all the latest high tech gadgets.

http://www.lincvolt.com/ [lincvolt.com] Neil Young's big electric cruiser...

Re:Nope (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44118059)

You know, you could just get as much output or more out of an LS4 or something like that. It would cost you more, but you'd be able to pass a gas station.

Re:Nope (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 10 months ago | (#44121133)

You know, you could just get as much output or more out of an LS4 or something like that. It would cost you more, but you'd be able to pass a gas station.

Yeah, but there's something to be said about nostaltic. And I always wanted one as a teen like a friend had.....

I'd thought about getting a high end camaro, but while you do get performance, they all look so alike, and everyone and their goat has a new camaro.

And old '75-'76 TA 455 4-speed is a bit of a head turner. And with a few mods, the suspension can be modernized, and with only freeing up that air flow in them, a slightly more aggressive cam...you can get up in the 500 HP range on them.

I only live a short distance from work, so wouldn't be cost prohibitive to be a daily driver, and fun!!!

Life's too short not to indulge from time to time.

Re:Nope (2)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 10 months ago | (#44120401)

Except for the massive price shock in terms of how much less money the government would collect without that tax in place...

They worked that one out already, GPS tracking and black-boxes in every car, and you get get charged per mile driven. So once they switch us over we will just get taxed based on how far we drive.

They are already rolling out the above, by mandating all new cars from 2013 have said black boxes in them, with permanent internet connection.

Not that I like the idea, I find it abhorrent (I'd rather they just checked the odometer every year and charge you based on the difference traveled since the last measurement), but I can't fault them for not thinking ahead.

Hopefully my old car would be exempt, or I might just up and leave the EU to an area with more personal freedom, like Russia (irony of ironies that).

Re:Nope (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#44117037)

Also, cars are bigger than people, we won't be able to fit enough cars into a dense enough city space to make them unviable in that sense.

Ever tried to park? Parking spaces sell for big bucks now, even without a house attached.

Re:Nope (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44114525)

There is currently no gas driven car with emissions so low that they are long term viable in large cities.
We also have to start manufacturing new oil soon, do you have a solution for that?

Yes, the current EV might be considered pretty shitty, but the alternatives are even worse.

it's plenty viable since it's been in use for a long time.. though of course in really big cities nobody drives because there's so much traffic - electric cars or not. soon has been soon for a long while.. depending who you ask from. for the short term future the only reason to manufacture oil from say, coal(because that's economical) is if your country is cut off from any oil selling nations and you don't have any oil of your own.

What I want to know is what made it necessary to go to these great lengths to go "just" 200mph? I mean, what's the technical reason standing in the way of stripping a nissan gtr(or a lotus elise or what have you - point being a car that doesn't break apart before 200mph) - dropping in some electric motors and some fast discharge batteries and doing the run? why do you need a lemans lookalike made out of carbon fiber?

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44115345)

Weight class and type. Set the speed record for that particular class, but no mention of that here. There are faster electric cars.

Buckeye Bullet [wikipedia.org] still has a good 100MPH on it, but that Boneville Flats racer tends to stretch the definition of "car" more than something styled after a LeMans prototype racer.

As for designing the Drayson as a track car? It's much more streetable than something built specifically to go fast in a straight line. You could take a hard turn in it around 30+ MPH and not worry about it rolling over. Engineering around that form factor means whatever developments you come up with may have more practical applications.

Re:Nope (1)

tilante (2547392) | about 10 months ago | (#44116805)

"in really big cities nobody drives because there's so much traffic".

Have you actually thought about that statement? If no one drives, what exactly is all that traffic? Or do you believe that there are millions of driverless cars wandering around on the streets out there?

Top recorded speed of a Nissan GTR: 195 mph (Nissan estimates 193 mph top speed). Top speed of a Lotus Elise: 148 mph. Also, note the phrase "The firm intends to enter the vehicle into next year's Le Mans 24 race" in the summary. It looks like a Le Mans car because that's what it's meant to be.

Re:Nope (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#44114345)

To the moron who modded me flaimbait: I was joking, parodying the typical Slashdot reaction to any electric vehicle. I'm actually a big fan of them.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114581)

Because the typical internet user is also immune to sarcasm, even if it is blatantly obvious.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114845)

It would make sense if it wasn't so stupid. The idea that electric cars are currently able to replace gas cars in laughable. They can currently replace bicycles with their range and do better than them on speed.

Re:Nope (3, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44115151)

It would make sense if it wasn't so stupid.

What is "it"? Being a fan of electric vehicles? One can be a fan by recognising their potential, while still recognising their (current) shortcomings. If we all took your attitude to emerging technology we'd still be living in caves and cleaning our teeth with chewed sticks.

Re:Nope (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 10 months ago | (#44115909)

I normally drive about 30 miles a day {all in town} in a gas car which sits in the garage at home for 12 hours a night an electric cars range and recharge time would not be a major problem for me. Sure there are rare occasions where I actually drive more than 80 miles in a day once maybe twice a year. Since mine is a two car family there is no reason I couldn't have a hybrid and an all electric car, or just rent a car for those long trip days.

I don't care about 202MPH. (0, Troll)

Nutria (679911) | about 10 months ago | (#44113869)

I need 303 miles of range from a EV the same size and cost as a minivan.

They don't care that you don't care (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114087)

They're not trying to sell you this car. It's a proof of concept whose purpose is to dispel the myth that electric cars can't be made to perform well.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114207)

All this car will prove is the fact that electric cars are pieces of shit when it comes in last place over and over again.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 10 months ago | (#44114227)

I thought Tesla already proved that? At least they did in my mind. 0-60, 300 mile range, only $100,00. Far out of my price range, but I if I was in the market for a Porsche or Lambo, I'd consider the Tesla.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 months ago | (#44118819)

Actually, the Model S is cheaper to buy than all of its gas competitor, and MUCH cheaper to run, as well as outperforming them.
The Model S does NOT compete against a porsche or lambo (though interestingly, the performance version can take them on). It competes against full size Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Mercedes, etc.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (2)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 10 months ago | (#44114481)

I don't think their performance was ever challenged. I mean, their torque curve alone shows that it would be faster off the mark then a IC car of the same curb weight.

Everything I've gathered about EV's not performing well had little to do with performance, but more to do with energy density, recharge time, exotic materials, and the fact the batteries wear out a lot faster than a fuel tank.

(incidentally, all of the above (minus exotic materials) would be solved by using fuel cells in an EV car, if they can get them to not gunk up after a while and bring down the cost).

Re:They don't care that you don't care (1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about 10 months ago | (#44116457)

(incidentally, all of the above (minus exotic materials) would be solved by using fuel cells in an EV car, if they can get them to not gunk up after a while and bring down the cost).

My impression of fuel cells is that they aren't very energy efficient when you take into consideration the energy required to make them and/or the electrolyte they use. They are just compact and light weight for special applications, such as near earth space craft. For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen. It's more efficient to just directly use the energy that would have gone in to producing the hydrogen. Fuel cells have been around since the early 1800's. If they were such a great primary energy source, wouldn't they be in use everywhere after 175 years?

Re:They don't care that you don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117547)

For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen. It's more efficient to just directly use the energy that would have gone in to producing the hydrogen.

Efficiency is irrelevant. Portability and refueling time are the only thing that matters.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44118629)

For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen. It's more efficient to just directly use the energy that would have gone in to producing the hydrogen.

Unless you are using a long extension cord, then some sort of conversion is going to happen anyways, whether it is electrochemical because it is being stored in a battery or at least involves voltage/current conversion for recharging.

Re:They don't care that you don't care (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 10 months ago | (#44120441)

My impression of fuel cells is that they aren't very energy efficient when you take into consideration the energy required to make them and/or the electrolyte they use

And how much energy is required to make the batteries for an EV? Will not even include the energy required to produce all the advanced electronics for the thing to work (because a fuel cell EV car will need those too). Also, take into account that unlike a normal car, fixing the above will be pretty much impossible unless you are a specialist, and will probably involve just replacing things when they break (compared to a normal car, where any decently specced garage/machine shop can pretty much produce any part you need).

They are just compact and light weight for special applications, such as near earth space craft.

And cars/other vehicles. Trust me, weight is critical for cars as well. The lighter the car, the shorter the stopping distance, the better the fuel economy, the better the handling, the less kinetic energy == less deadly accidents.

For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen

Which is why I wasn't talking about hydrogen. It makes a lousy fuel, worse than batteries, because it is expensive to generate, and bloody impossible to store in a car-sized tank under any decent density. I was referring to ethanol/methanol fuel cells, which are liquid (high density), can be used with existing infrastructure (sometimes with minor modification), and can be burned in IC cars as well as fuel EV's, allowing for a transition period and/or peaceful co-existence between piston-heads and the rest of the world who only want a car to get them from A to B.

Fuel cells have been around since the early 1800's. If they were such a great primary energy source, wouldn't they be in use everywhere after 175 years?

So were batteries, yet only now, 170+ years later, we have people trying to make them work for cars (note, people made electric cars back in the time before the Model-T, they never took off for the same reasons that we are dealing with now). The world is primarily driven by economic factors, not technical excellence. Fossil fuels were so cheap that there was no point investing research effort into the alternatives (including man-made fuels, like butanol, which actually pre-dates the use of petrol in IC engines).

The Lola? (3, Funny)

cellocgw (617879) | about 10 months ago | (#44113871)

Something something how can a car without a tranny be a Lola?
(yeah I know electric cars have a transmission but they don't have a gearbox, which is what most people refer to as transmission)

Re:The Lola? (1)

polar red (215081) | about 10 months ago | (#44113949)

yeah I know electric cars have a transmission

NOT necessary: you can mount each wheel with its own motor.

Re:The Lola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114461)

His joke has gone completely over your head.

Re:The Lola? (0)

timothy (36799) | about 10 months ago | (#44114913)

Not necessarily; he *could* be arguing in his spare time.

  - - -- - - -

(b'dum, psshh.)

Re:The Lola? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#44116907)

His joke has gone completely over your head.

According to the song, something else is completely over his head, too.

I walked to the door
I fell to the floor
I got down on my knees
I looked at her and she at me
And that's the way that I want it to be
I always want to be that way for my Lola
Lo lo lo lo lo lo Lola

Re:The Lola? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44113975)

Something something how can a car without a tranny be a Lola?

I though most people named Lola were trannies.

Go to kitchen! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44113893)

What a time wasters. I bet they nothing else to do. Send them back to the kitchen to wash some dishes.

Can't wait... (1)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | about 10 months ago | (#44114165)

Can't wait to see the pit stop times for this thing. Do those stopwaches measure in hours?

Re:Can't wait... (2)

Joshua Shaffer (2895571) | about 10 months ago | (#44114409)

Tesla already has prototypes for swapping batteries out in less than 2 minutes.

Still too long for a pit stop, but they already use specialized equipment there to refuel quickly (compared to gas stations) so something similar for electric cars isn't unfathomable if the actually catch on in this type of environment.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#44115409)

Tesla already has prototypes for swapping batteries out in less than 2 minutes.

How long does it take when you get to the battery station in Nowheresville and they've run out of batteries?

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Joshua Shaffer (2895571) | about 10 months ago | (#44116027)

What happens when you get to a gas station in Nowheresville and they've run out of gas?

Also, you trade batteries, they never "run out". Though potentially you'd end up getting batteries that have less than a full charge (and all they have to do to fix that is to have more batteries spare for swapping as demand increases).

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about 10 months ago | (#44117247)

Tesla already has prototypes for swapping batteries out in less than 2 minutes.

How long does it take when you get to the battery station in Nowheresville and they've run out of batteries?

Much, much less time than it takes to refuel when you get to the gas station in Nowheresville and they've run out of gas. You just plug the car in and wait 3 hours, instead of waiting 24 hours for the next tanker truck, oh wait! It's Saturday. 48 hours no gas for you.

I can also make up other ridiculous scenarios that could happen to people with bad luck or poor planning skills.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116293)

Actually Tesla just showed that they could swap 2 batteries in the same time it takes to fill a 1 gallon tank. They did a live demo of it just last week.

posting anon to save mods in thread

Re:Can't wait... (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 10 months ago | (#44120517)

Just to be clear - the capability is present in every Model S. If by prototype, you mean the machine that does the battery swap, then I agree that's correct.

However, Better Place, notwithstanding their bankruptcy, has been doing battery swap for a while and Tesla's tech seems scarcely any different.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114527)

Telsa just did a automated battery swap demo it took 90 sec. I bet the racing industry could make it half that.

Re:Can't wait... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44115177)

A 45 second pit stop is still half a minute too slow.

Here is an example of a slow pit stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilJ5qxhBbaI

Heres an example of a fast pit stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_A89Tv5Rl4

Re:Can't wait... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44115741)

Le Mans pitstops are usually around 55 / 60 seconds for just refueling stop, and around 80 - 85 seconds if it's a tire/driver change/refuel. Usually drivers do anywhere from 2 to 4 driving stints and are changed when the tires need changing.

(btw, Le Mans 24h was last weekend, my observation stems from watching the race)

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117425)

(btw, Le Mans 24h was last weekend, my observation stems from watching the race)

Then you weren't paying attention.

Here is a Le Mans pitstop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VNsiTMg2I

Refueling takes ~21 seconds. Notice in those 21 seconds, they didn't change the tires. The rules state that you cannot work on the car, ie. change tires, change a wing, etc... until after the refueling jig is removed. So a 45 battery swap would still be too slow.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117673)

You're the one not paying attention, I'm afraid. Pit stops in Le Mans are counted from the moment the transponder crosses the pit lane entry line, and the clock only stops when the transponder crosses the pit lane exit line. The winning car (#2 Audi driven by Kristen/McNish/Duval) stopped 34 times during the race, averaging just a little over a minute per pit stop.

Other ACO rules: at any one time no more then 5 mechanics may work on the car in the pit lane. The engine must be shut off before refueling. The car must be refueled before any other work can be carried out (even if the car is to be retired to the garage for collision repair or any other mechanical problems, it must be refueld all the same). Only one mechanic is allowed to refuel the car. If changing drivers, the outgoing driver may help the incoming driver (adjust the seat mould, buckle the seatbelts, connect the comms cables, connect the drinking hose, change telemetry storage cards, etc)

(Yes, I've been to Le Mans every year since 95. I also do at least 3 endurance events in the VLN championship every year in a 1988 BMW M3).

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44118041)

You clearly have brain damage. So I will explain this in simple words because nothing you said has contradicted anything I have said. It only enforces that you haven't been paying attention. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about which is not surprising since you have the IQ of a race car driver.

Pit stops in Le Mans are counted from the moment the transponder crosses the pit lane entry line, and the clock only stops when the transponder crosses the pit lane exit line.

Which is irrelevant to the amount of time it takes to refuel.

The winning car (#2 Audi driven by Kristen/McNish/Duval) stopped 34 times during the race, averaging just a little over a minute per pit stop.

So that minute is filled with driving to the pit box, fueling, changing tires/working on the car and driving to the end of pit lane. Lets say each segment takes 15 seconds. A 45 second battery swap will increase the refueling portion by 30 seconds. Your 60 second pitstop now takes 90 seconds in a battery powered car.

The car must be refueled before any other work can be carried out (even if the car is to be retired to the garage for collision repair or any other mechanical problems, it must be refueld all the same).

The "refueling" now takes 45 seconds with a battery swap. The battery powered car will take, 45 seconds minus the time it would have taken a petrol car to refuel, EXTRA time. Plus it ruins pit strategy all together. You cannot do a splash and go in battery powered car. The weight of your car is constant, in contrast to the traditional car, meaning your tires will wear out faster. That means you have to stop more often, which is compounded by the fact that your stops will take longer as well.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44118655)

Refueling takes ~21 seconds. Notice in those 21 seconds, they didn't change the tires. The rules state that you cannot work on the car, ie. change tires, change a wing, etc... until after the refueling jig is removed. So a 45 battery swap would still be too slow.

And how many cars intended for consumer use are refueled in 21 seconds or less? When you have to consider being used as a daily drive and needs some basic practicality and aesthetics while not gaining much by shaving a few seconds off the refuel time, you might end up with something a bit slower than if designed from the start for pure speed. The batteries in some electric drag cars I've worked on were pretty easy to swap out, and could easily be made to be swapped out in less than 20 seconds if that was a particular need. But since they only needed to be swappable in a couple minutes, they instead took more like a minute or two to open and remove a couple screws that could been replaced with latches.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Cederic (9623) | about 10 months ago | (#44124651)

The racing industry can change all four tyres on a car in under three seconds.

A 45 second recharge isn't impressing me.

Top Gear drove this (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 10 months ago | (#44114205)

It topped out at 24 mph.

Re:Top Gear drove this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114691)

It topped out at 24 mph.

And it exploded and killed Jeremy Clarkson's dog. It was hilarious. You had to see it.

Re:Top Gear drove this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117307)

link?

This is the Future (4, Interesting)

sidevans (66118) | about 10 months ago | (#44114721)

I am sad I don't have any mod points to give negative shit right now, especially with all the people drinking haterade and talking shit about electric cars - this is a subject I hold close to my heart.....

Yes we are behind on tech, a 1911-1916 Detroit Motors electric car was doing ~80 miles on a charge, with the best test being 211 miles (340 km) from a single charge - however with small scale wind and solar systems we can manage 90% of consumer and urban driving requirements without relying on a single drop of oil from the middle east. I am from Australia - its 3:10am here (yes I've had a drink) and personally whatever happens over there doesn't affect us apart from catching the flu when America sneezes - but this type of technology is what will make the world free one day.

Brand new Electric cars are $100k, but for $20k you can buy an old can and convert it to electric with 200km "down under" range (~120 miles) and it will consume a hell of a lot less overall energy than a combustion motor - you guys in the USA will probably get the most expensive part - the batteries - cheaper than we would in Australia and your currency is now stronger.

Electric cars will always have more instant torque and power than unleaded, ethenol, DIEsel or Gas (LPG, Natural Gas) - and they will kick ass when the time is right. Look up "White Zombie EV" and "EV West" cars for some real education on what is available on the market already.

If anyone disagree's, you suck and I don't care.

Re:This is the Future (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 10 months ago | (#44115649)

I live in a small Mid-Western US town and there are close to a dozen electric cars running around town not to mention a flood of hybrids. I am thinking about getting an all electric car for my self and a hybrid for the wife {that way we have a car that we can drive on that vacation we take once a decade}. I'm not saying there are no over sized SUVs here there are plenty of those also.

Re:This is the Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117627)

Yup, I am converting a pick up truck to electric. It is a good challenge, and just like building a computer from parts, but bigger and you can drive it after it is completed.

Re:This is the Future (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44118085)

Brand new Electric cars are $100k, but for $20k you can buy an old can and convert it to electric

Or for $2k I can buy a pretty good used gasser. I spent less than $4k and got a turbo-diesel sedan which gets 26 mpg (real-world, in hill country on diesel. I'd love to own a small EV but it just doesn't make economic sense.

Not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44114787)

I'm not impressed until they make a solar-powered car that can go 200mph.

620kW with 20kWh Battery = 2 Minutes full throttle (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 10 months ago | (#44115251)

Ok fine. A racecar won't go full throttle all the time on the racetrack. But still at least 50%. That roughly enough energy for a grant total of THREE laps ... on a really short racetrack.

Sorry, but this is a stunt and in no way practical whatsoever. That's because it runs on batteries and batteries have crappy energy density. It's just the wrong kind of technology for this purpose. Stop kidding yourselves.

This may work with fuelcells - but those require much more electricity to make and store the hydrogen and generate electricity from hydrogen than simply charging a battery, which you can do with some 95% efficiency, rather than about 33% for hydrogen/fuelcells. So the hydrogen gambit may work, but it's an even greater and more idiotic waste of energy, which isn't exactly what the purpose of this whole thing was in the first place.

Lola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44115379)

No one made fun of it yet but Tata gets laughed at by loads of you Brits within a few posts.

I declare bullshit (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 10 months ago | (#44116049)

I think in order to claim you can drive 202 mph, you should be able to drive at that speed for an hour. Otherwise you are really getting far less actual miles per hour when you have to stop every 5 minutes and charge for 10 hours.

Really, its speed is more like 202 miles/week.

Just a reminder, before you slam me, scan for sarcasm first.

Re:I declare bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116657)

Most cars that can go "200+mph" can only do it for short bursts.
The bugatti Veyron, with a top speed of 250 mph, can only go that fast for about 10 minutes.

Re:I declare bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117419)

Yeah. The Brits are also making a car that will do 1,000 mph. They ought to make that run for an hour as well.

Of course, finding a straight track several thousand miles long might be a bit of a problem. I've heard that there's nothing in the middle of Australia...

Re:I declare bullshit (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 10 months ago | (#44119107)

Yeah. The Brits are also making a car that will do 1,000 mph. They ought to make that run for an hour as well.

Of course, finding a straight track several thousand miles long might be a bit of a problem. I've heard that there's nothing in the middle of Australia...

We have rocks, Kangaroos, Wombats, Koala Drop Bears, land sharks and backpacker murders.

Everything on this fucking content is trying to kill you.

Oh Bollocks. (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 10 months ago | (#44119117)

I think in order to claim you can drive 202 mph, you should be able to drive at that speed for an hour. Otherwise you are really getting far less actual miles per hour when you have to stop every 5 minutes and charge for 10 hours.

Really, its speed is more like 202 miles/week.

Just a reminder, before you slam me, scan for sarcasm first.

Most cars wouldn't be able to maintain 300 KPH for 1 hour without refilling. Hell, most cars wont reach 200 KPH let alone maintain it.

Doing 300 KPH for 1 hour is nothing like doing 300 KM per week as:
1) You'll be doing 300 at lower speeds, thus using less fuel (gross oversimplification, but a vast improvement over the Parents analogy).
2) You'll also be stopping and starting a lot more.

I track my lightly modified DC5 and at 250 KPH I'd go through 50 litres of RON 98 in less than half an hour as I'm doing 8000 RPM in 6th gear (I can easily see my fuel economy being 100L/100KM). However in normal conditions 50L will last for 550 KM with an average speed of 56.5 KPH using approx 9.2L/100KM. The DC5 is a 2L 4 banger, Turbo's and 6cyl cars are even worse, your fuel economy at high RPM is crap, regardless of if it's petrol or electric.

Now if you wanted it to run for 300 KM at 60 KPH you might have a point. But top speed is not sustained cruising speed.

The ZEOP is still way off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116061)

Emission on demand is just stupid, zero emission on production (of drive power) is the only worthwhile goal..

Units! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116249)

Miles.... Seriously?
Damn you imperialist pigs

Re:Units! (1)

Cederic (9623) | about 10 months ago | (#44124813)

That's right. Proud conquerors of the vastest empire the world has ever seen - and then we gave it back.

We're that good.

low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44116639)

only 200 mph? i find this a bit low, because the world record for electric 1/10 scale is about 120 mph.
So if that little car was full size, it would be going 1200 mph.

Re:low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44117431)

Friction and the other mechanics necessary to make a car "go" do not scale linearly.

However you're not wrong that 200 MPH is kind of slow for an electric car. Even the 1/10 scale record is very low mostly due to the fact that it gets hard to control, not because of the motor.

In theory it should be much easier to go much faster than combustion powered cars because electrics have hardly any moving parts and have no problem spinning at 30,000 RPM and more. As always though the problem is how to store the power necessary for such speeds. Imagine how fast an electric car with a small nuclear reactor could go.

KillaCycle (2)

djlemma (1053860) | about 10 months ago | (#44116757)

I immediately thought about the drag racing electric motorcycle I had read about years back, the KillaCycle. [killacycle.com] Well, apparently those guys designed the battery packs [killacycle.com] for the Drayson in TFA, which is pretty neat. It's also the bike that the inventor crashed while trying to do a burnout [youtu.be] for some reporters... but whatever, still cool.

World Records (1)

Kreegalor (2751567) | about 10 months ago | (#44117769)

World Records are a dime a dozen. 200mph is impressive in an electric but 200mph in an electric has happened a few times in the last 10 years. This is nothing new or that note worthy, just a good hype machine.

they have the wrong idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 10 months ago | (#44118595)

Here's my idea. Don't take all that time and effort making an electric car drive fast. Take a hot wheels car and launch it out of an electric rail gun at about 10,000MPH and then spend all the time and effort convincing the judges that that counts.

When I was a lad... (1)

metaforest (685350) | about 10 months ago | (#44129243)

My mentor and I built a RC model car that on smooth concrete could do 105MPH, and sustain it for 8 - 10 minutes. It had so much torque that 'punching it' off the line turned it into a 'ground-bloom-flower'. Factor in the car's scale MPH (1/12 scale) and it was doing 1260 (scale) MPH.

I used to impress my nerd-friends by 'drag-racing' cars going down the street (at 25 - 30 MPH) and passing them before they had gone 100 meters. That is the car being raced was going 25 MPH and the RC car was going from zero to whatever was needed to overtake the fullsize car before it got through to the end of the block. That wasn't even using the most advanced motor drivers available back then, Back then PWM DC motor drivers were terrible for reliability and performance because FETs were too small and power transistors had more losses than a simple high wattage rheostat driver.

That was with NiCad batteries, resistor-based DC control, and traditional DC motor tech back in the late 70's. If I were to build that RC car now.... it would easily do 205 (real) MPH due to improvements in battery tech, and motor tech in the last 35 years. The only thing impressive about this car is that it is a full-sized Le Mans compliant vehicle.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...