[ds968]

I probably asked this before on some other thread where electric cars were discussed , but don't recall if someone responded to the question ; given the incredible technology in nearly everything nowadays ( just as a mere example, that pocket size smart phone all of us carry contains more computing power and capabilities than the entire computers and control systems of the first generation space shuttle ) , how is it possible that no one has bothered to develop a small surface solar power panel with enough harvesting capability for electric cars which would continually / constantly recharge them so you don't have to plug them into an outlet. And if the answer is, it takes too much power to run those cars and solar power harvesting on a per square inch of a panel basis is not nearly enough, se above comment about a < 1sq" phone chip exceeding the capabilities of what used to be a room size full of computers, lol.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

somebody has.  the fisker karma uses the roof.  while not enough to run the car, it does add to the range.  the efficiency of the panels continues to increase.  it won't be long before the roof and hood surfaces significantly add to range, and provide charging while you are at work.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Sobering comparison and phew, I was just about to order my new Chiron, lucky I saw this , lol ! But I am a bit skeptical re the " 4 seats " capacity claim of the Tesla Roadster - the rear two seats are probably the size of coffee cup holders .

   

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

Lol - that car is so fast, i think you would be too busy just trying to stay in the seat, to even think about worrying about shifting, or engine noise.


As for the extra seats, my guess is that they are using the evora platform. They used the lotus in the last roadster. The back seats are about the same as in the 968 in the evora

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

It's no Tesla ( performance-wise ) and still a hybrid , but for those of you convertible lovers, keep an eye out ( or better said, an " i " out , lol ) as BMW will start selling the new i8 roadster in 2020. I always loved the looks of the i8 , and the roadster version looks damn good - sorry, cannot post a photo of it at the moment , but any search will pull up images for you . Far nicer lines ( IMHO ) than the Tesla roadster, and bigger so unlike Tesla it cannot be confused with a kids' toy car :-)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i like that car, right up until you get to the ridiculous looking wing things on the rear quarters.  that's a non-stater for me.  i don't like wings of any kind, on any car (perhaps because i had the granddaddy of all wings on the daytona).  if they smoothed out the rear quarters, that car would really catch my eye

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Speaking of Tesla ; this story is so bizarre I thought it had to be " fake news " , but it seems to have been confirmed :

https://search.app.goo.gl/9T6E

Does Mercedes not have enough money to BUY a friggin' Tesla for reverse engineering projects ?!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[az968]

And that's not just a rental company's car, its a private individual's car.  That's just astonishing M-B has no more ethics than that.  I hope the couple sues for a brand new car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[az968]

Sorry, Dan.  Looks like someone will have to pry your keys from your cold dead hands.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/california-ban-g...040-740584

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Yes, they will have to .. I'll be pushing 85 by then but still plan to terrorize the community with gas-guzzling, loud and fast cars.

Not a surprising initiative by Kaliforniastan though, it seems they're now hell bent on banning cigarette smoking even in your own home ( if you live in an apartment or a common walls townhomes complex), so this electric car utopia nonsense, is consistent with all the tree-huggers who make up the majority and the votes in our otherwise fine and nearly perfect State .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

AnotherTesla crash today, another huge fire turning the car into a total car-b-q . Single car crash, and lucky the driver got out just in time. Sheesh, these things are blowing up faster than the infamous Ford Pintos.. I'm surprised anyone still buys those cars until Tesla finds a better way to prevent their bombs - err..I mean batteries - from exploding .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

roflmao - time for some fact checking guys.

 

there were 152,300 car fires each year from 2010 to 2016, and 171,500 per year from 2014 to 2016.

 

only 40 teslas have been reported to have caught fire in the entire history of the car, out of the 300,000 of them built, and 7.5 billion miles travelled.  the rate of fires in teslas is only 5 per billion miles travelled, versus 55 per billion miles travelled in petrol powered cars.  as far as fires go, electric cars (at least the teslas) are safer by a factor of 11 times.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Ryan]

Interesting stats Flash....by the way, this is social media if you think about it.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - left unchecked, the downfall of society

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Well, whatever stats you pulled up ( NTSB I presume..) are certainly not the same the insurance industry uses  ; with the sole exception of  "super cars  Tesla is THE most expensive car to insure, and the insurance companies are backing this high rating justification with their own stats / facts supporting their assertion that it's one of the most dangerous of all cars on the road..  Now, of course insurers are looking for any and every excuse to charge higher premiums, but since they're regulated they don't always get away with it - so they must have some credible evidence contradicting the stats you and/or or NTSB uses.. they're not bound by those, they do their own research.. just the same as blue book vs. their own comparable sales research.   Not defending them at all mind you, just indicating the rating they use for Teslas based on whatever data they have on fires, the severity of any given fire, cost of repair or replacement, liability, etc.             

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

insurance companies make decisions based on loss amounts.  our i3 cost more to insure than the targa, and or good reason.  if you wreck an i3, it costs more to fix than the 911.  similarly, if you wreck a tesla, it does a lot more expensive damage than a traditional steel car.    carbon fiber and aluminum are wonderful things, until you have to repair them.  it really has little to do with risk of fire damage.  it has entirely to do with cost of repair/replacement.  the batteries have to be replaced in the event of a crash.  the carbon fiber parts cannot be repaired.  that stuff adds up.  frankly it's the human factor that is the main issue driving the rates.  once we get self driving electric cars out there, the rates will go WAY down.

 

this is a case where assumptions and a tiny bit of information get spun out of reality and cause people to formulate inaccurate opinions.

 

the fact is that the tesla, like most electric cars, are some of the safest cars on the road.  the DOT puts electric cars, as well as other alternative fuel cars, through unprecedented rigorous testing to ensure that they are safe.  by design, electric cars are safer, if only due to the fact that when you let off the accelerator, the car immediately starts slowing down.  further, in an effort to keep the cars light, they use lighter materials, which absorb more impact force.  the argument that they are unsafe, because of a couple of fires, it without merit.  the facts just aren't there.

 

we've seen this before.  something gets some bad press, because somebody didn't like it, or they just need to cause a stir.  the media has to sell advertising.  they can't do it if it's always "72 and sunny".

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

by the way

 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2018/TESLA...2520DR/RWD

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/tesla-mo...ating.html

 

https://www.tesla.com/en_IE/blog/model-3...sted-nhtsa

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

It is true that Tesla has been , and is still is under a microscope so any accident, any fire, etc. will get a lot more media coverage and the criticisms that comes along with it , but the facts are hard to dispute : it is a lot more expensive to fix than most other cars, more often than not any accident results in total loss, so the severity of a loss regardless of frequency vs, other cars, will make a difference . Funny you should mention that deceleration when you let off the gas is a positive safety factor, but good luck arguing that with insurers - the incredible acceleration is construed to be the greater evil, so insurers will ding you for that . As for the fire statistics related to other cars vs. Teslas : most other cars have engine fires ( rarely gas tank ruptures and ensuring fires ) that are usually extinguished in time ..Teslas almost always experience spontaneous combustion / explosion of the battery which consumes the entire car in a matter of a minute of two . I think that's the statistic the insurance companies use to assert that NTSB accident stats are not at all relevant by comparison. Maybe they are and maybe they're not, but I I'll never set foot in a Tesla again.. the risk of a battery explosion from a small fender bender is is as real as it gets ..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

I wonder how they deal with the fire risk associated with lithium ion batteries in Formula E.  Seems like an opportunity for racing experience to improve real-world results.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

sweeping erroneous "chicken little" conclusions are rampant when it comes to the tesla.  in fact, most accidents in them are minor, just as with any car.  battery explosions are extremely rare.  only 40 fires have been reported in the entire run of the car, and i can guarantee you that there have been a lot more accidents involving them.  i can also guarantee that there have been more than 10 times the number of fires in gasoline powered cars.  i would not be surprised if there were not 40 of them this week.  if you are afraid of being caught in a car fire, those are the ones to stay out of.  you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus while talking on your cell phone and drinking your starbucks than you do getting stuck in a car fire in a tesla.

 

insurance companies fear anything new.  they will come around.  once the human element is removed from the equation, rates will really drop.  that is coming, but not soon enough.

 

cloud - good call on the formula E.  i have seen quite a few crash, but so far, no fires.  have there been any?

 

by the way, there is a better compound for the lithium batteries, which does not explode, but it is classified, and won't be released for public use for a bit yet.  there is a plan in the works though, and steps have been taken to bring it to the market.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.