Is the XKR a future classic?
#42
09-29-2018, 10:14 AM
Veteran Member
#44
09-29-2018, 10:59 AM
Veteran Member
#45
09-29-2018, 02:11 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Naperville, Illinois USA
Posts: 4,567
Received 1,888 Likes
on
1,282 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Sean W (09-29-2018)
#46
09-29-2018, 04:40 PM
Veteran Member
The following users liked this post:
Sean W (12-07-2019)
#47
09-29-2018, 08:01 PM
Veteran Member
I'd like to correct this a little.
What is really happening is that due to rising regulations the price of cars is also rising to a point more expensive already existing battery technology has a chance to compete.
The battery tech was already there, it just was not cost effective.
Now some of that semantics in that miniaturization of electronics allows individual cell control according to their needs, so this is perhaps the single step.
Battery packaging and control is getting better, but the basic underlying battery cell technology itself has been near to hard limits.
A major difficulty for battery packaging is safety in a moving world.
The single largest issue is the environmental issues that would arrive from mass deployment, especially related to the end result of mining the materials required.
Electric cars should stay as luxury items rather than mainstream. They will still develop and get better as such.
I liked Tesla when they took the "fun car" approach. But once the marketing shifted to "green car", not so much.
The issue batteries face is there is a minimum spacing where you cannot shrink the space between molecules further and still work.
Most of what has happened is costs has risen to where you can use and control a greater number of smaller cells that allow better temperature management.
There are limits to this.
To that in gasoline car talk the transition to smaller cells, is like going to more cylinders for similar displacement. You can rev higher that way, and draw more HP/L as the stress on smaller cylinders is less.
What is really happening is that due to rising regulations the price of cars is also rising to a point more expensive already existing battery technology has a chance to compete.
The battery tech was already there, it just was not cost effective.
Now some of that semantics in that miniaturization of electronics allows individual cell control according to their needs, so this is perhaps the single step.
Battery packaging and control is getting better, but the basic underlying battery cell technology itself has been near to hard limits.
A major difficulty for battery packaging is safety in a moving world.
The single largest issue is the environmental issues that would arrive from mass deployment, especially related to the end result of mining the materials required.
Electric cars should stay as luxury items rather than mainstream. They will still develop and get better as such.
I liked Tesla when they took the "fun car" approach. But once the marketing shifted to "green car", not so much.
The issue batteries face is there is a minimum spacing where you cannot shrink the space between molecules further and still work.
Most of what has happened is costs has risen to where you can use and control a greater number of smaller cells that allow better temperature management.
There are limits to this.
To that in gasoline car talk the transition to smaller cells, is like going to more cylinders for similar displacement. You can rev higher that way, and draw more HP/L as the stress on smaller cylinders is less.
#48
09-29-2018, 08:03 PM
Veteran Member
I do still like electric cars, but we need to not be overly naive about them. Stop calling them zero emissions.
They are very good in places where you have short drives and lots of stops.
They also are useful in places that are geographically challenged for clean air.
They also can be quite fun for no other reason at all. WoooooSHHHH!!!
They are very good in places where you have short drives and lots of stops.
They also are useful in places that are geographically challenged for clean air.
They also can be quite fun for no other reason at all. WoooooSHHHH!!!
The following users liked this post:
andys-GR (09-30-2018)
#49
12-01-2019, 09:42 AM
Veteran Member
Sadly, the electric E-Type conversion is dead for now.
https://carbuzz.com/news/jaguar-pull...lectric-e-type
https://carbuzz.com/news/jaguar-pull...lectric-e-type
#50
12-03-2019, 10:03 AM
I'd like to correct this a little.
What is really happening is that due to rising regulations the price of cars is also rising to a point more expensive already existing battery technology has a chance to compete.
The battery tech was already there, it just was not cost effective.
Now some of that semantics in that miniaturization of electronics allows individual cell control according to their needs, so this is perhaps the single step.
Battery packaging and control is getting better, but the basic underlying battery cell technology itself has been near to hard limits.
A major difficulty for battery packaging is safety in a moving world.
The single largest issue is the environmental issues that would arrive from mass deployment, especially related to the end result of mining the materials required.
Electric cars should stay as luxury items rather than mainstream. They will still develop and get better as such.
I liked Tesla when they took the "fun car" approach. But once the marketing shifted to "green car", not so much.
The issue batteries face is there is a minimum spacing where you cannot shrink the space between molecules further and still work.
Most of what has happened is costs has risen to where you can use and control a greater number of smaller cells that allow better temperature management.
There are limits to this.
To that in gasoline car talk the transition to smaller cells, is like going to more cylinders for similar displacement. You can rev higher that way, and draw more HP/L as the stress on smaller cylinders is less.
What is really happening is that due to rising regulations the price of cars is also rising to a point more expensive already existing battery technology has a chance to compete.
The battery tech was already there, it just was not cost effective.
Now some of that semantics in that miniaturization of electronics allows individual cell control according to their needs, so this is perhaps the single step.
Battery packaging and control is getting better, but the basic underlying battery cell technology itself has been near to hard limits.
A major difficulty for battery packaging is safety in a moving world.
The single largest issue is the environmental issues that would arrive from mass deployment, especially related to the end result of mining the materials required.
Electric cars should stay as luxury items rather than mainstream. They will still develop and get better as such.
I liked Tesla when they took the "fun car" approach. But once the marketing shifted to "green car", not so much.
The issue batteries face is there is a minimum spacing where you cannot shrink the space between molecules further and still work.
Most of what has happened is costs has risen to where you can use and control a greater number of smaller cells that allow better temperature management.
There are limits to this.
To that in gasoline car talk the transition to smaller cells, is like going to more cylinders for similar displacement. You can rev higher that way, and draw more HP/L as the stress on smaller cylinders is less.
As to the concept of Ev's as mainstream transportation, one trip to the continent will provide enough evidence of proof-of-concept.
#51
12-03-2019, 11:18 AM
Veteran Member
In the long run, battery operated vehicles will make a fool out of us, just like biodiesel.
Were the creators so harebrained that they could not see the outcome of using food to make gasoline? cutting down rain-forest to grow the new gold?
The only naive and ignorant ones to the bigger picture were us the consumer.
There is a reason the battery we use in millions of cars today and the last 50 years has been a lead acid, despite the existence of several superior battery technologies.
Were the creators so harebrained that they could not see the outcome of using food to make gasoline? cutting down rain-forest to grow the new gold?
The only naive and ignorant ones to the bigger picture were us the consumer.
There is a reason the battery we use in millions of cars today and the last 50 years has been a lead acid, despite the existence of several superior battery technologies.
#52
12-04-2019, 08:24 PM
In the long run, battery operated vehicles will make a fool out of us, just like biodiesel.
Were the creators so harebrained that they could not see the outcome of using food to make gasoline? cutting down rain-forest to grow the new gold?
The only naive and ignorant ones to the bigger picture were us the consumer.
There is a reason the battery we use in millions of cars today and the last 50 years has been a lead acid, despite the existence of several superior battery technologies.
Were the creators so harebrained that they could not see the outcome of using food to make gasoline? cutting down rain-forest to grow the new gold?
The only naive and ignorant ones to the bigger picture were us the consumer.
There is a reason the battery we use in millions of cars today and the last 50 years has been a lead acid, despite the existence of several superior battery technologies.
between battery manufacturers, and Tesla is no different. Almost all electric cars today use NMC/graphite chemistries, but not Tesla. Tesla (Musk) and physicist Jeff Dahn
developed new chemical compositions, including a new cathode design. Independent studies have concluded the Tesla battery has a 1m mile lifespan, with a lifetime capacity loss of only 10%.
Comparing the electric car of today to the bio-fuel con is a bridge too far. I'm not sure where the scam is?
#53
12-05-2019, 02:01 AM
Veteran Member
Even power tools and cell phone batteries have become incredible.
And batteries will continue to get better at a faster rate than semiconductors that started Moore's law.
Yet in millions of vehicles, even the ones coming off the line today, they use batteries that only last around 30,000 miles from 50 years ago. Because 99% of the world can only afford that- if that.
I am pointing out that there is a disconnect from reality.
Batteries for the foreseeable future will be like gasoline containers that cost $5000. Sure the fuel will be free and ethical, but keep in mind majority of this world can barely afford the gasoline even when the container cost nothing.
The world doesnt even have electricity itself yet. And if we think through that dream, where like today we have a universal infrastructure, and a used car can be passed down to a developing country, the environmental impact of such infrastructure would be devastating.
That's why its like bio-fuel, intended to make individual companies glamorous, but not good for the good of good.
I realize its an unconventional opinion.
#54
12-06-2019, 08:16 PM
I see that. But I just returned from a long weekend in the Netherlands (and a dinner in Paris of course) and electric cars are ubiquitous.I would think more along the lines (no pun intended there), of the cellular industry. The countries and continents who lagged behind North America in line-based networks had the jump on line-less networks. My T-mobile phone of the 2004 would drop out on Madison Ave New York, but perform flawlessly in the middle of the Gobi. We assume the rest of the world will follow our pathway, but they're just as likely to leap-frog us.
China will build the infrastructure. At a Party Conference in early 2000, political corruption and environmental degradation were elevated as the two most pressing threats to the Party. China is now #2 in the world, behind Germany, in solar. They are the world's largest producer, but more importantly, the world's largest buyer of solar panels. A stroll down any commercial street in Guangzhou and you'll get an eyeopener with the number of tiny storefronts with stacks of solar. India will not be far behind given their recent pollution woes. They need to for survival. China is deep into electric cars, and with its new Asia influence India will most likely bend to the East.
And the trend outside the US, is not to build large power generators with a long-distance delivery infrastructure, but smaller and local, sometimes neighborhood generators. The universal infrastructure becomes a collection of small cells, more like a beehive's honeycomb construction.
Of course everyone won't get there, for a variety of reason, but the prices keeping retreating, The Renault is only 25K in pounds, about the price of a Civic in the UK or the Honda E.
Bio-fuel was and continue to be, a generous gift to corporate farms. A small band of very big players scammed the clueless petrified fools who claim they actually represent us. (Think about that some time, who is "repping" you). It was a con, and it's still paying out.
I should, in the spirit of full disclosure, reveal I have a son employed by Tesla, and I had hoped the technology of a small, ICE-sized hydrogen conversion unit would have been a reality by now. Wouldn't do much for rain-challenged locals, but then everyone can't be winner!
cheers
China will build the infrastructure. At a Party Conference in early 2000, political corruption and environmental degradation were elevated as the two most pressing threats to the Party. China is now #2 in the world, behind Germany, in solar. They are the world's largest producer, but more importantly, the world's largest buyer of solar panels. A stroll down any commercial street in Guangzhou and you'll get an eyeopener with the number of tiny storefronts with stacks of solar. India will not be far behind given their recent pollution woes. They need to for survival. China is deep into electric cars, and with its new Asia influence India will most likely bend to the East.
And the trend outside the US, is not to build large power generators with a long-distance delivery infrastructure, but smaller and local, sometimes neighborhood generators. The universal infrastructure becomes a collection of small cells, more like a beehive's honeycomb construction.
Of course everyone won't get there, for a variety of reason, but the prices keeping retreating, The Renault is only 25K in pounds, about the price of a Civic in the UK or the Honda E.
Bio-fuel was and continue to be, a generous gift to corporate farms. A small band of very big players scammed the clueless petrified fools who claim they actually represent us. (Think about that some time, who is "repping" you). It was a con, and it's still paying out.
I should, in the spirit of full disclosure, reveal I have a son employed by Tesla, and I had hoped the technology of a small, ICE-sized hydrogen conversion unit would have been a reality by now. Wouldn't do much for rain-challenged locals, but then everyone can't be winner!
cheers
#55
12-07-2019, 10:23 AM
Veteran Member
One of the reasons I resist government policy of forcing E-vehicles is we'll end up standardizing an inferior design.
E-vehichles were the dominant choice a hundred and twenty years ago. Some think of them as the future, failing to realize they are the past.
I'm fine with clean air goals, but chasing a CO2 boogieman when our predictions have been wrong decade after decade looks very foolish to me.
When I made a choice between gasoline and electric when I was racing RC's, I chose electric primarily for the noise factor.
However, it was also eye opening to the environmental issues that electrics have; issues that are ignored in most major automotive publications.
I don't like an environment where journalists are having to point at a deer and call it a horse.
E-vehichles were the dominant choice a hundred and twenty years ago. Some think of them as the future, failing to realize they are the past.
I'm fine with clean air goals, but chasing a CO2 boogieman when our predictions have been wrong decade after decade looks very foolish to me.
When I made a choice between gasoline and electric when I was racing RC's, I chose electric primarily for the noise factor.
However, it was also eye opening to the environmental issues that electrics have; issues that are ignored in most major automotive publications.
I don't like an environment where journalists are having to point at a deer and call it a horse.
The following users liked this post:
Tiepolo (08-13-2023)
#56
12-07-2019, 12:12 PM
Veteran Member
Buddhaboy,
You have cited the reasons (between the lines) for the incongruity.
Its one of the drawbacks of pure capitalism. We studied it extensively in Europe.
Despite that I left because both systems have merit, and the reason no industrialist settles in Europe to make a breakthrough.
Think Elon, Chevrolet, "I remember thinking and seeing that America is where great things are possible, more than any other country in the world." E.M.
Those looking from the outside in to Europe with an eye to green living, fail to see the most obvious:
Europe did not start the green revolution with $80,000 cars with limited range and capabilities for the urbanites. Or solar panels that cost as much as the home. As America is trying to do (as capitalism dictates, because the objective is not conservation, rather revenue)
Europe started in areas where it actually makes a difference, where one can be effective and where there can be no doubt that it was done for the sake of ulterior motives (as you also cite with bio-fuel)
It started with dwelling where we lose far more, you would not believe how stringent energy efficiency is in building, and the entire concept is unheard of here. People still overwhelmingly buy water heating tanks, even in FL, despite tankless being cheaper.
Its this perverse incentive that makes me highly suspicious of batteries.
Did I just write between the lines that Elon is a capitalist at heart. Its more than that in my immense admiration of him, he is to technology what Schwarzenegger is to personal achievement.
You have cited the reasons (between the lines) for the incongruity.
Its one of the drawbacks of pure capitalism. We studied it extensively in Europe.
Despite that I left because both systems have merit, and the reason no industrialist settles in Europe to make a breakthrough.
Think Elon, Chevrolet, "I remember thinking and seeing that America is where great things are possible, more than any other country in the world." E.M.
Those looking from the outside in to Europe with an eye to green living, fail to see the most obvious:
Europe did not start the green revolution with $80,000 cars with limited range and capabilities for the urbanites. Or solar panels that cost as much as the home. As America is trying to do (as capitalism dictates, because the objective is not conservation, rather revenue)
Europe started in areas where it actually makes a difference, where one can be effective and where there can be no doubt that it was done for the sake of ulterior motives (as you also cite with bio-fuel)
It started with dwelling where we lose far more, you would not believe how stringent energy efficiency is in building, and the entire concept is unheard of here. People still overwhelmingly buy water heating tanks, even in FL, despite tankless being cheaper.
Its this perverse incentive that makes me highly suspicious of batteries.
Did I just write between the lines that Elon is a capitalist at heart. Its more than that in my immense admiration of him, he is to technology what Schwarzenegger is to personal achievement.
#57
12-08-2019, 06:55 PM
One of the reasons I resist government policy of forcing E-vehicles is we'll end up standardizing an inferior design.
E-vehichles were the dominant choice a hundred and twenty years ago. Some think of them as the future, failing to realize they are the past.
I'm fine with clean air goals, but chasing a CO2 boogieman when our predictions have been wrong decade after decade looks very foolish to me.
When I made a choice between gasoline and electric when I was racing RC's, I chose electric primarily for the noise factor.
However, it was also eye opening to the environmental issues that electrics have; issues that are ignored in most major automotive publications.
I don't like an environment where journalists are having to point at a deer and call it a horse.
E-vehichles were the dominant choice a hundred and twenty years ago. Some think of them as the future, failing to realize they are the past.
I'm fine with clean air goals, but chasing a CO2 boogieman when our predictions have been wrong decade after decade looks very foolish to me.
When I made a choice between gasoline and electric when I was racing RC's, I chose electric primarily for the noise factor.
However, it was also eye opening to the environmental issues that electrics have; issues that are ignored in most major automotive publications.
I don't like an environment where journalists are having to point at a deer and call it a horse.
the internal combustion engine powered car pre-dates the first electric by five years.
#58
12-08-2019, 07:56 PM
Buddhaboy,
You have cited the reasons (between the lines) for the incongruity.
Its one of the drawbacks of pure capitalism. We studied it extensively in Europe.
Despite that I left because both systems have merit, and the reason no industrialist settles in Europe to make a breakthrough.
Think Elon, Chevrolet, "I remember thinking and seeing that America is where great things are possible, more than any other country in the world." E.M.
Those looking from the outside in to Europe with an eye to green living, fail to see the most obvious:
Europe did not start the green revolution with $80,000 cars with limited range and capabilities for the urbanites. Or solar panels that cost as much as the home. As America is trying to do (as capitalism dictates, because the objective is not conservation, rather revenue)
Europe started in areas where it actually makes a difference, where one can be effective and where there can be no doubt that it was done for the sake of ulterior motives (as you also cite with bio-fuel)
It started with dwelling where we lose far more, you would not believe how stringent energy efficiency is in building, and the entire concept is unheard of here. People still overwhelmingly buy water heating tanks, even in FL, despite tankless being cheaper.
Its this perverse incentive that makes me highly suspicious of batteries.
Did I just write between the lines that Elon is a capitalist at heart. Its more than that in my immense admiration of him, he is to technology what Schwarzenegger is to personal achievement.
You have cited the reasons (between the lines) for the incongruity.
Its one of the drawbacks of pure capitalism. We studied it extensively in Europe.
Despite that I left because both systems have merit, and the reason no industrialist settles in Europe to make a breakthrough.
Think Elon, Chevrolet, "I remember thinking and seeing that America is where great things are possible, more than any other country in the world." E.M.
Those looking from the outside in to Europe with an eye to green living, fail to see the most obvious:
Europe did not start the green revolution with $80,000 cars with limited range and capabilities for the urbanites. Or solar panels that cost as much as the home. As America is trying to do (as capitalism dictates, because the objective is not conservation, rather revenue)
Europe started in areas where it actually makes a difference, where one can be effective and where there can be no doubt that it was done for the sake of ulterior motives (as you also cite with bio-fuel)
It started with dwelling where we lose far more, you would not believe how stringent energy efficiency is in building, and the entire concept is unheard of here. People still overwhelmingly buy water heating tanks, even in FL, despite tankless being cheaper.
Its this perverse incentive that makes me highly suspicious of batteries.
Did I just write between the lines that Elon is a capitalist at heart. Its more than that in my immense admiration of him, he is to technology what Schwarzenegger is to personal achievement.
say on the Street, past performance is not an indication of the future. Factors non-existent, or dismissed a decade or two ago have now become influencing pressure. If the US gov's official position on global climate
shifts continues along current lines, other places can become more appealing, both socially and economically. Germany is at 27% renewable energy and has a vibrant and deep engineer pool. This percentage will likely
climb quicker than planned for, now that it's taking nuclear off the grid. It also has Europe's third largest stockpile of high-level waste, and no place to put it for the million or so years it needs to lose it's glow.
The Vegas strip is 100% renewable, and I never would have bet on that happening.
Elon is great. He's our Da Vinci, way ahead on a parabolic curve which makes it really hard to see how far along he really is. He claims privately Tesla was never about profits, only pushing the industry to tackle the issue
of a billion and a half internal combustion cars in the world now. The crazy thing is Lutz tried to get Tesla to adopt their system for the Volt. Old Bob had concluded what the Tesla needed was a good old internal combustion
engine for it to catch on with folks. Lutz sold 150K over the painfully long seven years that poor misguided product of 10 full years of development produced, since 2012, even without Lutz's guidance, Tesla has sold 750K.
We used to be first, when science and reason were qualities of value. Will today's private market create a nurturing landscape for ingenuity? Perhaps, though one might question why so many Wall Street money launderers
are shorting Tesla stock as they manipulat the valuation. Greed. Carnegie gave away most of his fortune, and left us with Carnegie Hall, Mellon, The Carnegie Institution for Science, and was the single greatest funder of public libraries.
This is not a revelation of party or affiliation, but now our wealthy prominent public figures steal from their own charities. And without shame.
Maybe you're right, and the E-car craze will run out of juice and stall. But, roughly 6% of all cars sold in China are electric, which is expected to double each year for the foreseeable future,. Norway is over 50%. I'd guess
transportation choices are going to become part a country's nationalist posture, though it's just a guess. We could call it California Syndrome.
It's helpful to remember, if Musk didn't have his billions, there would be no Tesla as we know it, and no industry response as we've witnessed. We'd be stuck in neutral.
Let's compare notes in 10 years. If you are correct, a cream of Manchester Boddington Ale is on me at a pub of your choosing.
#59
12-09-2019, 07:13 AM
Veteran Member
Vegas sits near one of the most famous sources of hydroelectric power in the U.S.
It has limited cloud cover and a decent altitude; good for solar.
What I want some day is a home generator system that stores hot water.
You run a liquid medium through the hot water as needed that is at a pressure such that the temperature difference flashes it into gas.
Then you pop this expanding gas through a turbine.
No need for a large environmentally costly battery array.
Instead you have a long lasting storage source in an insulated underground water vault.
If you use the solar to distil the water that goes in, you are also giving yourself a good emergency water supply.
Other projects sit in front of that, but maybe one day.
#60
12-09-2019, 10:23 AM
Veteran Member
Before we start getting all gushy over Elon Musk, and while I undoubtedly think he's a genius for more reasons than founding and guiding Tesla, I think his brilliance was in realizing and activating a plan to create his own infrastructure as did automakers a hundred years ago when they encouraged oil companies to open gas staions all over the map. The fact is that realistically, up until only a couple of years ago, if a typical family wanted an electric vehicle as its primary source of transportation, only Tesla provided a range and a way to quickly recharge the car that allowed a family to drive to a vacation destination. Did anyone think the 70 mile range of the original Nissan Leaf with a 12 hour recharge for the next 70 miles was going to be attractive to consumers? And were they going to have to carry their charger with them since it's not like consumers could stop at a gas station and charge up. Elon's genius is that unlike Nissan, GM, even Toyota, he understood the need for the infrastructure even before the car was born. BUT, and a big but, Tesla is hemorrhaging money and I sincerely doubt its ability to stay independent as a company for much longer. My guess is that Toyota will one day be the majority owner. Even major suppliers like Panasonic are realizing Tesla's future and canceled the building of its battery plant in Nevada. And as for the current in vogue demonization of the internal combustion engine, probably no other invention in history sped up the progression of mankind and improved the lives of so many in so short a period of time. Think about what has happened in the last 100 or so years as a result.
Now can we get back to discussing the merits of future XK classic status?
Now can we get back to discussing the merits of future XK classic status?