www.gizmag.com/ewolf-e2-electric-sportscar/13107/

That uses miles: 186 which translates to 297.6 km. That I then rounded to 300 km. It is also mentioned in ewolf website in performance - flashgizmo, and there “revolutionary battery technology”. (which one to believe? I think the smaller figure)

Of course this is just vision at this point, I don’t think they have even prototype build yet, so those figures can and will change.

Where did you find info about that battery total weight? I found few German pdf with mention that e1 has 180 kg battery. That sounds more like ordinary battery to me, but I can’t find any info about e2 battery weight (only figure I do find is 84kg which sounds astounding)

I thought you were refering to the E1 since the E1 is listed as having a 300km range vs the E2 at 400km. Also the E1 is 500kg total with 270kg batteries. Couldn’t find battery portion of E2 with 900kg total weight.
I suspect that the E1 has 3 of these 84+kg batteries and the E2 would have 5 or 6. I say 84+kg because the 84kg is just for the cells and there has to be packaging and at least minimal BMS included in the total battery. 90kg total would be 6kg of packaging and battery management electronics. For those unfamiliar with the Batery Management System, it makes sure all the cells in the battery are equally charged during charging and prevents over charging which would destroy the cells. BMS usually includes fuses and other protective features such as shutting down on overtemperature.

To my way of thinking EV and hybrid makers are mentally “stuck” on using the traditional controls of ICE powered vehicles. Another example: Install a hand-brake like lever for regen, rather than associating regen with the brake pedal. Or for that matter a joystick.

So when you’re coasting down a steep hill (like we do daily here in Colorado) you can simply stiffen up on the “handbrake” to achieve regen and control your speed down the hill. The next step from there is a downhill “cruise control” that limits your speed digitally to whatever you set.

Well what about drivers who don’t want to fuss with a new and different control? FINE! A knob on the dash or the nav screen where they can adjust the amount of regen associated with the brake pedal.

These are exciting new cars! Give drivers the knobs and adjustments to customize and enjoy them to the max!

E-wolf E1 is open wheel single seater that weights only about 500kg. Very different car.

## www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1715

Fasinating. That article is a bit overoptimistic, but comments are good.

Here is another article about that that is referenced in your article (or comments about it).

blog.storybridge.org/2009/07/leave-oil-in-ground-drive-electric-with.html

From one of the comments we get this:

151,324,000,000(kWh combined electric & nat. gas equiv.)/5,119,100,000(barrels)=29.5 kwh/bbl, not 140kWh

In that same article both diesel and petrol get only 30 gallons of ICE fuel from 44 gallons of oil. That means only 68 % of that energy figure goes to produce ICE fuels. 68% out of 30kWh is 20kWh/30gallons of fuel = 0.666..kWh/gallon.

*way* less than what evvorld article claims.

Still interesting reading.

“Ionic batteries could multiply battery life by 11″

Link to article here… www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/06/metal.air.ionic.liquid.could.extend.batteries/

The article even references the Roadster.

Company link here… fluidicenergy.com/

Of course that wolf e2 is quite a bit lighter than Roadster (because of those batteries) so it probably is also more efficient, which in turn means that range calculation I used needs some correcting factor. But I’m also quite skeptical about that range claim.

Lets make some “we don’t believe hype without proof” reduction: 187 -> 150 miles. Also increasing weight from 84 kg to 450 kg affects range….lets make some number here…(84 kg battery with casing is about 10% of e2 weight while 450 kg is from 1200+kg 37%, aerodynamics other affect some which doesn’t count here…) guessing 10% loss, which makes that 135 miles for Roadster.

That would give 300/84 x 135 = 482 miles. Roadster has 244 mile range, so that is *STILL* about twice the Roadster current battery tech.

Also if cycle life is better and battery size get doubled (kW), that is *at least* twice the durability in charge/discharge cycling.

For Alfred, even if Tesla gets those batteries, Daimler is probably first major car maker to benefit from them, not Tesla. We might get electric luxury MB:s soon to compete against Type S.

That isn’t necessarily bad thing, but it might be (for Tesla, not for general public).

If Daimler is doing this well in inventing new tech, I wonder what other not-dinosaur-infested-companies like VW is doing.

Approx. 140kW-hr (electicity and natural gas)per barrel of crude to refine 19.5 gallons of petrol

-Chad

This is the Ramp-up System. You simply drive up the ramp which releases your discharged batteries and replaces it with a fully charged pack. The Ramp-up would hold always hold a battery pack or more. The Ramp will be available fro any consumer and also any commercial station. The commericial station version will be more sophisticated with RFID technology allowing you to charge your credit card at the same time. Imagine a charge for a charge. The inboard computer will home in on the nearest station or an individual who wants to make his ramp available for the public. Thus, any individual can be an an Access Point.
Just as the computer industry has flouished with W3C standards and IEEE standards for connectivity (protocols, ports, physical plugs etc.), electric car technology can flourishes with interchanging power packs.

“Each flat cell (the battery has a total of 84) weighs just 1 kg and measures 23 x 18 cm. That means it is only a bit larger than an exercise book. Another important aspect of the Li-Tec battery with CERIO® flat cells is its cycle stability and unrivalled service life (10 years) and range (over 300 km). That makes Li-Tec the spearhead of current flat cell development.”

That is 84kg battery with 187mile range. Assuming same or similar efficiency as Roadster we get 244 compared to 187 = 76.5% range which would mean 54kWh * 76.5% = about 40kWh battery pack. 40kWh / 84kg is 476Wh/kg energy density. HUGE improvement over Tesla current batteries. Can’t wait to see that in Type S. And of course in 2012 Roadster. That range would be over the breakpoint of making ICE permanently obsolete (if it can be made relatively cheap by large scale manufacturing). Over 600 miles with single charge. 10 hours of driving in 60 mph average speed.

If that really is the real energy density of those batteries and they are already in production we can have electric car revolution sooner than even I expected.

I really really hope that this isn’t some overestimate hype of their batteries.

Doesn’t say price, and based on what it claims that is more a race-car than sport-car. 250km/h top speed, 0-100km/h under three seconds, 0-200 under seven seconds, 400km range. Probably also $1M price-tag.

Based on text it uses Li-tec Cerio batteries, and Li-tec has partnership with Daimler (www.li-tec.de/en/company.html) . Does that mean that Type S batteries are same as in that EWolf e2 -car? Sounds promising, OTOH I can’t find any specifics about their batteries. One of the pdf-files I found says something interesting: “developed for Formula One”. That would mean very high power density.

well done

Yes, the climate on Earth is always changing. Before we started burning fossil fuels in large quantities, the Earth was on a slow cooling trend that would have put us into another ice age in about 20,000 years. That trend was discovered in the 70’s and a scientific paper was written about it. The popular media then took that and hyped the heck out of it, telling people we had “global cooling”, while conveniently forgetting to mention the 20,000 year time frame! That’s why you don’t want to get your science knowledge from Newsweek!

In only 200 years, we have completely reversed that gradual climate change and put the world on a sharply increasing temperature trend by greatly increasing the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

You argument that global warming isn’t happening because people still fly on jets is laughable. It do hope you are joking.

By the way, the US spends many hundreds of billions of dollars each year importing foreign oil. Estimates for the next ten years are about $7 Trillion being drained out of our economy. If we drive electrics, that money stays here, in our economy. That’s enough cash to purchase an awful lot of clean energy generation and modernized electric grid.

It doesn’t make sense to remove the engine but leave the cooling system and fuel tanks in the car - you would have to disconnect fuel lines and coolant lines (unless air cooled), with the potential of spills and leaks, and as you pointed out, they are small, so why not keep them together as one unit.

The minor advantage in EV performance that would result from removing the weight of the range extender and extra range from installing it might not be worth the hassle of removing and installing the range extender. It might be more practical (though less elegant) to mount the range extender in a trailer towed behind the car, or just have it permenantly mounted in the car.

Or we could just use more battery capacity for greater driving range, and quick charging during rest stops for those long trips. That is the Tesla Motors plan.

Rather than a 20kW generator, I suggest having a 10kW one. If you start out with a full battery charge, and it takes 15kW to drive at highway speeds, then a 10kW generator running all the time would reduce the battery drain to 5kW, and yield a total of 10 hours of driving (= 500+ miles). Stopping for an hour for lunch (with the generator still running) would add back 10kWh to the battery (another 2 hours of driving).

This could be an extremely efficient engine (or gas turbine). It only needs to run at one speed, with no worries about the torque curve.

For most typical driving trips, a 5kW (or so) generator would probably be adequate. On a typical drive with normal stops, 5kW would give you well over a 400 mile range.

Bill

green.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/

“…and the S has a cd of about .27 vs. the Roadster’s drag coefficient of .35.”

Difference doesn’t sound much, but it is. 0.35 vs 0.27 allows Type S reach same or possibly even smaller air resistance as Roadster, while being quite a lot bigger car. That means that larger losses are result of bigger weight (mass, inertia, whatever) , and in steady highway speed only rolling resistance which is bigger in bigger car causes Type S to lose to Roadster in Wh/mile comparison. All other resistances should be about same. This also means that Type S assumed 300 mile range with 85kWh pack could actually be larger than that in steady highway speed. 85 vs 54 kWh is over 150% bigger battery pack and 300 vs 244 miles is only about 120% bigger range.

Have this been tested in any way? Using Type S prototype and some extra weight simulating extra battery weight and Roadster drivetrain?

We (or at least I) would like to hear progress information about Type S like we had for Roadster. Range achieved, battery chemistry used etc.

Good luck.

If not for driving and charging then smart charger + that kind of generator and stop for charging. You need also around two and a half - three gallons of diesel (if using that engine you linked) for full charge. That would be around 75mpg. Pretty nice. I bet there are better solutions than that engine that are tuned for generator use only.

BTW 65kg isn’t that small for engine less than one liter. I had one old 0.9 liter Fiat engine that engine block was light enough for me to easily carry alone, much lighter than 60kg. Of course that was not full engine it had many parts stripped out (cooling, exhaust, etc.), but it also was _old_ tech.

Full weight of the system could be somewhere around 100 kg (maybe 50kg engine, tiny gearbox for that for getting right steady RPM for generator, fuel and generator itself). You could make that portable enough for carrying it in Type S, but I think that takes too much space for Roadster.

But I must admit I am slightly disappointed with the design… It looks like a Chinese cheap copy of a ‘real’ sportscar. Must you really make it that cheap? The front looks like a mushed in dorky smart car for geriatrics. Its a bit too short. Lights are positioned too close to the windshield and adds a nerdy look. With the roof on it gets even worse. You at least lost me right away as a buyer.

Its storage capacity is large, though, so it might see the light of day.

But it wouldn’t be using the aluminum frame as its metal source! The metal has to be added in small pieces or powder to the solution, or provided in solidified Ga-Al-Si(?) solution form. When exhausted, the residue is a mass of fluffy alumina “foamed” solid on top of the mixture, which must/can be removed for repurification. Which is where the electricity cost comes in, because that’s a very power-intensive step.

www.fram.nl/workshop/engine/smartengine.htm

Weight = engine + gearbox + marine gear = 65 + 14 + 22 = 101 kg. (223 lb)

So the actual engine is 65kg!!!!!!!! wow

an 300-400 cubic engine will be able to produce the needed 15-20 kw of power and I bet it will be probably under 35kg.

Why havent anyone already thought of that. Electric cars are super efficient and we can use that.

I always wondered how efficient are the petrol generators. They are basically ICE engines hooked to a generator to create electricity. Looking at new Peugeot’s diesel engines they achieve astonishing 70 mpg (probably driven at 55)

that is about 15kw power needed to push the car so the ICE must be able to produce at least 15kw for 70mpg at 55 = about 19 KWh/galon

given the 54 KWh battery at the Tesla this means recharging it in 3h (including the losses probably)

Now take note that the diesel engine I am quoting is 2liter. However if you make it smaller (as 15kw is not much power - about 20 hp) probably under 1l very compact engine can produce such power at similar rates. May be even more economical.

Would it be feasible if such generator is made mountable/portable so you mount it in the trunk or something when you go on a long trip. At 55 the tesla is going to do 70 mpg using that ICE to produce the electricity and you wont have to stop, unless you drive over 65.

Given that you will need that ICE probably 1-2 times a year it can be made even rentable.

The thing is , how cheap/small they can make such device and how hard is to make it mountable/portable

I guess if it weights 200 pounds its not mountable/portable. Probably 50-60 pounds at most can be considered portable

autospeed.com/cms/title_Little-Diesels/A_109062/article.html

I think its feasible to produce a 10-15 KW diesel engine using cutting edge technologies and make it so small to be portable.
you can probably leave heat decipation and other items needed , at the car all time, and make only the actual engine block removable, (fuel pumps, reservoir and stuff can also stay at the car at all time as they would be small).

Anyone have any ideas or reasons if this is impossible - why?

Just made some calculations based on my sisters yearly driving (thinking I could buy her a Roadster). Based on that she would save about 12000$ in fuels in five year period. Then noticed that Tesla is offering battery replacement for 10000€ in seven years. For seven years savings would be 12000€. Looking good this far.

Problem is that by that time she had driven battery pack to unusable condition. She drives easily over 25000km / year which is over 15000 miles / year. In seven years that is over 110000 miles. If battery contains only 70% of its capacity after 50000 miles (based on FAQ) then that would approximate 40% or less capacity after seven years. That’s not enough.

Spec sheet says “Battery Replacement (price based on battery replacement 7 years after delivery of your Roadster.
Pro-rated rates available for Battery Replacement before or beyond 7 years.)” What are those “Pro-rates”?

Jacob: The 16.8 Kilowatt rate is the power limit a 240 volt 70 amp electric outlet can provide, it isn’t the charge rate limit of the battery pack itself. But as far as any “range extender” is concerned, it is irrelevant, as the main function of a range extender is to take over the electrical load from the battery pack, not to recharge the battery, and it would partially recharge the battery ony if there was surplus power available. The only limit to a range extender would be set by its fuel supply. BTW, “Kilowatt” is a measurement of power, and “kilowatt-hour” is a measurement of energy, that is, power over a time interval. The total Energy the Roadster battery stores is 53 Kilowatt-hours, but the peak power output of that battery is over 185 Kilowatts!

Jerry Psimer: The cost of solar cells is high, and the power produced is low, especially if shaded or angled away from the sun. Attaching solar cells to the car would add thousands to the cost, but would add less than 5 miles of driving range per day. Tesla Motors didn’t consider it worth the additional cost. That could change if costs drop or power output improves.

If you say that maximum charging rate is 16.8kW then you get infinite range with infinite kWh battery with speed/acceleration that uses less than 16.8kW. Maximum discharge energy from battery is 55kWh, but with range extender energy would obviously be more than that. Maximum discharge rate power is obviously a lot more (about 200kW), and so is also maximum charge power, but that just is not used in usual charging.