Is an electric Kawasaki Ninja coming out very soon? Leaked patent images surface

[ninjamunky85]

The only use I'd have for an autonomous vehicle is to take me home from the bar,.. but they'd probably make it illegal to drive autonomously while drunk too. No way the "man" wants to give up that revenue. $$$

[choneofakind]

Lol. I would be the guy who programmed his autonomous car to rev to peak power every single shift, as long as the engine was up to proper temperature. and put a fart cannon on it so everyone could enjoy the show.

wahhhH!!

[xXecuterXx2]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

I dread autonomous vehicles. Might as well make it wipe your ass too.

LOL i spit my chocolate milk all over my computer!!!

Sidenote, @Hero Danny, are you on youtube? Saw that username post on one of Motonosity's vids, pic was a blue swirly thingy

Sidenote Sidenote, this thread seems very intelligent, one day'll ill read it all, one day..

[choneofakind]

He's HEROrr on the youtube.

[xXecuterXx2]

Dudeee what a coinkidink

[xXecuterXx2]

LOL just saw wanna HEROrr's comment on Do It with dans fender fab thingy video, anyways, fancy seeing you there Hero

[Hero Danny]

Originally Posted by xXecuterXx2

LOL just saw wanna HEROrr's comment on Do It with dans fender fab thingy video, anyways, fancy seeing you there Hero

Hi

[xXecuterXx2]

Originally Posted by Hero Danny

Hi

Hey dude

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

I dread autonomous vehicles. Might as well make it wipe your ass too.

You have not lived until you try a bidet

Link to original page on YouTube.

[choneofakind]

Lol, I think I can pass on those.

[Flying]

Bidets are THE BOMB. Wipe + wash needs to be the norm!

[xXecuterXx2]

You telling me, that thing'll wash my ass for me? Ma, get the piggy bank..

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Alex

The problem with discounting weight and cost as problems, is that they are directly related to the problem that you don't discount, range. The reason one can't get reasonable range at reasonable cost is because batteries are crazy heavy and crazy expensive in comparison. If 1200 pounds and $20K of battery give the bare minimum of acceptable range, fixing the problem by putting in 2400 pounds of batteries isn't viable.

Why not? If battery costs drop by half in the next 5 years, a significantly possible scenario thanks to Musk's battery plant in Nevada, then the cost premium goes away. Don't forget, you'd be replacing 1,200+ lbs of IC engine and related infrastructure with batteries and a typically much lighter electric motor.

Originally Posted by Alex

Even with those comparatively light motors, electric vehicles of comparable performance are thousands of pounds heavier than comparable vehicles.

This has already been debunked.

Originally Posted by Alex

You can also look at today's hybrids to see how it actually plays out. It turns out to be lighter, and cheaper, to include not only all of the electric propulsion components, but an additional ICE engine along with fuel, and the vehicle is still much lighter than a comparable BEV with any range at all.

Actually, hybrids pound for pound have less EV range than pure EVs. This makes sense since the EV part has to drag around the thousand or more pounds worth of IC parts and infrastructure, and they typically have heavy transmissions which pure EV cars don't normally have. A hybrid is a good transition technology, though, a very good one. It allows people who are unsure about EVs to experience some of the benefits without having range anxiety which is a real issue for some.

Originally Posted by Alex

I also don't think we'd need to remove the cost comparison of charging the battery as unfair. It does feel good to pay so little to refill, a few cents for an electric bike, a bit more for an electric car. But one would also have to include the few thousand extra it costs for the car option, and however much one wants to cost out the upgraded charging station in the garage. Include those and divide it over mileage, and even the "few cent" recharges can be seen as incremental charges on top of the significant one.

Again, most people don't do the math to this level. All EVs on the market come with a charger that plugs in. For some additional cost one can get a fast charger installed, but it's not mandatory. For people committing to EV this isn't an issue, and honestly for those to whom it is an issue, EV probably isn't a good choice. Going into a new technology with the intent to experience failure and problems is self-fulfilling.

One thing that is typically ignored by anti-EVers when comparing EV to IC is maintenance cost. The typical modern EV require essentially no regular maintenance. No oil changes, no filter changes, no transmission flushes and filter changes, no coolant flushes and changes, no hoses, no accessory belts, no timing belts, no sensor replacements, no catalytic converter replacement, no tuneups, no spark plug changes, not anything at all. The Tesla models, require, in order of frequency, cabin air filter element, windshield wipers, and tires. Repairs? There's no emissions system, no fuel injection system (and hence no fuel pump), no exhaust system to rust away. No muffler(s), no fuel filter, no vacuum hoses, no engine air filter, no gaskets to ever leak, no dipstick to check. Even today, IC technology is just so maintenance intensive compared to EVs. Oh, and every few years you have to spend $100 or more to replace the lead-acid starting battery in an IC vehicle.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Alex

Sure, but IC engines are a reasonably efficient way to get energy contained in the gasoline into propulsion. It's not as if there is a currently viable way to use that leftover energy. Wasted is one way to define it. Pouring it over an electric motor won't do much other than clean it.

I'm sorry, but I just can't use the word "efficient" as a positive descriptor for something that's only 25-33% efficient. Maybe as a way to describe the ability to convert gasoline into waste heat, but not for moving stuff around. Call me silly, but that's just the way I am. And I'm not sure of the what the meaning was behind the "pouring it over an electric motor" sentence.

Actually, there is in EVs and IC-powered hybrids a way to recapture energy. It's called regenerative braking, and it works by using the electric motor as a generator. Running as a generator slows the car down, converting the energy of the car's motion into electricity and storing it. That's one of the reasons why hybrid cars often get better mileage in stop and go driving than out on the open highway. In a pure IC car that energy of motion is just turned into hot brake rotors and discarded into the air as waste heat.

Oh, comparing the energy content between batteries and gas tanks is not meaningful because electric drivetrains can be 300% more efficent in converting that stored energy into motion than gasoline drivetrains. That's why the more accurate comparison is to look at the end energy cost to move a given amount of mass a given distance. And, when you factor in maintenance costs that price per mile decreases even further. Even depreciation is better because EVs (and to a lesser extent hybrids) hold their value better than similarly equipped pure chemical fueled cars.

Originally Posted by Alex

Out there? As in available? Is now the old days, or will some point in the future be old days at a period of time sometime prior to the technology that we hope is coming?

Right now, existing and in production lithium chemistry is storing enough energy to give a 4,500lb car almost 300 miles driving range. This isn't something we are hoping will come someday, it's something that's already here.

Originally Posted by Alex

These are good comparisons, wanted to credit you for looking up the details. In that heavyweight high-dollar category it's getting pretty close. The Tesla seems very heavy, but those 3 competitors are quite heavy as well. The traditionally-powered cars have significantly more range, but the Tesla has significantly better acceleration.

I looked up the details (actually, the specific details since I already was aware of the general facts) because it seemed you weren't aware of them and I wanted to make sure I was as accurate as I could be. I chose those cars because you used the word "comparable", which to me means cars similar in size, performance, and features. The Model S compares favorably in all those categories with those other models except in price, and the price penalty is fairly trivial in the context of its buying demographic. If I'd compared the Model S with cars that were "thousands of pounds" lighter, I'd be comparing it to econoboxes and microcars, hardly a meaninfgul comparison. I also think the range issue is being overblown. Being able to drive 400 miles before having to go to a gas station to fill up seems like a good idea, but with an EV you end up at your own "gas" station every night anyway. I guess if you had your own personal gasoline station at home that someone else kept track of would be like having an EV home charging station.

Originally Posted by Alex

Scaled down a bit, it doesn't work out quite as well. The Leaf also weighs about the same as its competitors (3,300 lbs, give or take), but because of that has a range of well under 100 miles. Same with the Fiat 500e, electric spark, or essentially anything that Elon isn't selling to luxury buyers. You can't hide that much weight unless it already is a heavy car, or you choose to provide less of it to keep the weight reasonable. Many of the non-Teslas seem to have landed on a 24 kwh battery, not sure if there are tax, cost, or other parameters that point to that particular size.

Of course Musk is aiming for the high-end market first. New technologies are expensive, so you have to aim for those who are more likely to be early adopters. My dad bought one of the first CD players on the market. It was $800 and came with a printed catalog of all CD titles available. It was like 20 pages long, lol. He bought one of the first VCRs (VHS, not BetaMax) and it was over $1,200 in the 1980's. Those first VHS movies cost $75-100 a pop, too. The first cars in the late 1800's went to wealthy early adopters. If they hadn't, then the technology and market would not have developed to the point where Henry Ford could have done what he did with the Model A and T. It took decades to reach Ford's development, Elon Musk is attempting to do it far quicker. Elon Musk has the stated goal of offering long-range EV technology to middle-range buyers within two years. He has a history of missing his forecasts by a year or two, but that's to be expected considering he's having to break new ground every step of the way. His patent portfolio is extremely impressive, BTW. If the obstacles in his way, both technological and human/ideological, can be overcome then I expect that he will reach his goal and the Model 3 will be very successful.

The Leaf is targeting the under $25K market. That it's able to do so is impressive. Range is increasing as battery technology and pricing become more favorable. I doubt the Leaf would (or could) weigh "thousands of pounds" less if it was an IC car. I don't know much about the Spark or 500e, though have looked at the i3. BTW, have you looked at car weights lately? The Mustang (which created the "ponycar" moniker to represent light-weight sportiness) weighs well over 4,000 lbs. The Camaro? The same. Cars are heavier than they've ever been, driven by modern crash safety requirements for the most part. BTW, did you hear that Tesla broke the machine that was used to test the rollover crush requirements? The Model S is one of the safest cars that has ever existed. There's literally nothing that it's comparable with in that category.

Back to the Leaf, the batteries don't take up a large part of the weight of that car. Doubling or tripling the range by adding batteries would likely add only hundreds of pounds, not thousands (or even a thousand). Target market pricing (in-town commuting) is the likely reason for the battery size in that model, not weight. As battery prices continue falling I expect the Leaf to get significantly increase range in the future.

I don't know if you're an anti-EVer or not, but you make statements that are similar to them like saying that EV cars are "thousands of pounds" heavier than comparable IC cars, a statement that's provably false as I did in my previous reply. I'm not interested in trying to convert you into someone who thinks EV is, right now, today, a viable alternative to IC for many if not most drivers, because honestly I don't think you want to or are able to believe that. Rather, my point in trying to dispel the myths and misinformation about EVs that seems so prevalant is to encourage folks who are curious about the technology to look into it with an open mind and form their own opinions. The anti-EV contingent is working tirelessly to create the opinion in undecided consumers that EV is not viable, not now, and not for the foreseeable future, when the truth is quite the opposite.

EV's aren't significantly heavier than comparable IC models. Often times they're even lighter. EV's have a daily driving range that is perfectly suitable for many if not most drivers. They're currently fairly expensive for the highest-end models such as the Tesla sedans, sure, but I sure don't see the anti-EVers complaining about how expensive the comparable IC makes and models are. $80K for an EV? That's nuts! $80K for a Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, etc? Don't even blink an eye. What does that tell me about the complaints about price? That it's not about the price at all, it's just about it being an EV. That's one way you tell an anti-EVer apart.

You can claim significant battery technology advancements are unlikely to happen in 20-40 years, but to do that you'd have to pretend that the progress we make in the next 40 is only a tiny sliver of a fraction of the progress we've made in the last 20-40 years. Hell, even the last 10 years. It' s like saying that suddenly most all R&D into battery technology will come to a near-stop, an assumption that flies in the face of reality IMHO. The main driver for Li research was portable electronics, and in the last 10 years that has evolved toward transportation. There are real incentives in place now to discover and develop new battery technologies as it is becoming clear that burning fossil fuels to move butts around is non-sustainable in most every aspect.

Originally Posted by Alex

We might want to review the key point of Moore's law. What is interesting in it *is* the speed of advancement with electronic circuit density. It behaves like no other technology advance because of that speed. I'm not sure if it's fair to compare anything to Moore's law, but the pace of battery capacity enhancements wouldn't be anywhere near the pointy end.

When I made the statement "I see no reason why it can't roughly follow Moore's law in concept, but with somewhat slower timeframe" I wasn't saying that advances in battery technology would literally follow Moore's law, what I meant was that it can advance quite quickly now that we're developing the knowledge infrastructure that will allow us to design and build better batteries faster in the future. Discoveries that increase capacity and discharge cycles may be applicable across many chemistries, for instance. Development of more cost-effective manufacturing techniques help new technologies too. Face it, we've spent far less time and effort researching batteries than most every other technology we use. Lead acid batteries were invented by Voltaire in the 1700s, but little drive for advancement was made until automobiles became commonplace in the early to mid-1900s. By the 1970's lead-acid technology had pretty much peaked except for minor incremental improvements in reliabity and capacity. Nickel chemistry was next, but only because of the need to power new portable consumer electronics such as laptops. Lithium was driven initially by the same reasons, power density in consumer electronics, and it's the reason why we have the surge of powerful devices we enjoy today. Can you image a smart phone, laptop, or tablet being powered by nickel batteries? Lead acid batteries? LOL.

Power density is the same exact challenge with transportation batteries.
Lithium chemistries aren't the only solution, they're just the best in mass production out there now. There are numerous promising chemistries being developed in research labs all over the world today. Will all of them pan out? Of course not. Many technologies didn't pan out while lithium did in the 90's. Even lithium didn't pan out when it was first looked at in the70's. Because of lithium, EV technologies are viable for many drivers now, today, despite what the anti-EVers want folks to believe otherwise. Is lithium the end-all and be-all? Not any more than lead plates stacked in glass boxes filled with sulfuric acid were back in 1920. Lithium chemistries are the key to the new generations of EVs whether four wheels or two, and in the next few years we should see much more competitive pricing across the board as production ramps up.

Sorry for the wall of text, I just felt like what I said needed to be said. I think I've said about all I can say on the subject, and hope that someone on the fence about EV will give it an honest look for themselves instead of being swayed by all the misinformation and negative stereotypes being posted across the web today.

[Alex]

We are looking at the same facts, and coming to different conclusions. You're overweighting thermodynamic efficiency as something that matters to a car buyer, when I'm pointing out that traveling 50 miles on something that weighs 6 pounds and costs $2.50 is incredibly efficient compared to one that weighs 300 pounds. You think that 660 pounds in a subcompact (Leaf) isn't a significant part of the weight of the car; I'd disagree with that assessment. You're discounting the range issue as a significant factor, I think it's what will limit EV's as secondary cars at best for almost all households for decades to come. People don't buy cars to feel tied to home, even if that's all they would use it for the vast majority of the time.

I'm not sure there is an anti-ev crowd, but if there is, I'm across the street poking fun at them. And also throwing water balloons at the true believers, who wildly overestimate not only what is available today, but what they hope will be available real soon now. When Musk is talking about 5% yearly improvement in batteries to Tesla owners (capacity), those that believe that means "exponential" improvement aren't paying attention.

[allanoue]

Chevy Bolt Battery Cells = $145/kWh
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/05...omous-driving/

That will make that $20,000 battery about $13,000.
Getting close to half already.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by Flying

Bidets are THE BOMB. Wipe + wash needs to be the norm!

http://www.amazon.com/Aquaus-Handhel.../dp/B008F0FL5G

[FrugalNinja250]

50mpg is unusually for an IC car, 30's is more typical. Gas has only been down below $2.50 a couple of times since the latter stages of the Bush administration. Gas will go back up, and maybe drivable cars that get 40+ will become available eventually. Tens of thousands drive EVs now without issue, every one built is selling with a backlog, and attempting to claim facts for decades to come isn't realistic. Maybe that's more hope than prediction IMHO.

[choneofakind]

Gas has been in the $2.20-2.40 range for months here...

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by maverick31210

Mehhhh....do not want.

I can't get into this electric craze at all.

ok gramps

[Somchai]

At an outside temperature of 22°C with activated ventilation the efficiency from battery to road is 56%, at -5°C and switched heating it is only 22%.
On battery at 22°C while driving 19% of the charged energy is lost, at -5°C there are 48% lost (because lithium batteries are inefficient when cold).
The drive train has an efficiency of 50 to about 60%.
The recovery of braking energy has an efficiency of 56%.

The efficiency of an EV at least is the same like an IC gasoline with around 30% while a Diesel is around 40%.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

50mpg is unusually for an IC car, 30's is more typical.

50 mpg is not unusual at all for a hybrid here in 2015, deriving power only from gasoline.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Gas has only been down below $2.50 a couple of times since the latter stages of the Bush administration.

Call it $2.50, $5, or $10, if one is using 200 - 250 gallons of it a year, it's just not a large expense. Driving it to zero by spending many thousands up front on a battery isn't cost effective now. When will it be? That's where the future-telling part comes in. I think you're saying soon. I'm saying many decades.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Gas will go back up, and maybe drivable cars that get 40+ will become available eventually.

To paraphrase some of your earlier posts to me, it sounds like you might not be aware of hybrid technology. Cars that get 40+ mpg, accelerate promptly, and have tremendous range are available right now, from some of the largest automakers on the planet. I'm not sure what you're inferring by drivable, but perhaps you could clarify your misunderstanding.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Alex

To paraphrase some of your earlier posts to me, it sounds like you might not be aware of hybrid technology. Cars that get 40+ mpg, accelerate promptly, and have tremendous range are available right now, from some of the largest automakers on the planet. I'm not sure what you're inferring by drivable, but perhaps you could clarify your misunderstanding.

I'm quite aware of hybrid technology, surprised you didn't pick that up as often as I've been mentioning it. I see no further point in discussing this subject with you. We'll see if it takes decades for EVs like Teslas, etc, to be come practical for some drivers. After all, they've only sold 345,000 of those impractical electric cars in the states since 2008, and another half million around the world.

BTW, if you don't want to sound like an anti-EVer, perhaps you shouldn't talk like one. Sorry if I offend you, I just had to offer corrections on the myths, misinformation, and outright lies I see WRT EV technology lately.

For others who have a real interest in the subject, some information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-i..._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...use_by_country

Best effiency cars (including hybrids, excluding EVs):
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml

Non-Hybrid
37mpg Honda CR-Z 2-seater
37mpg Scion iQ Subcompact
36mpg Audi A3 Turbo Subcompact
36mpg Ford Fiesta subcompact
36mpg Honda Fit Small station wagon

Hybrid
50mpg Toyota Prius C Compact 10.7s 0-60, 18s 1/4
50mpg Toyota Prius Midsize 9.7s 0-60 17.1s 1/4
42mpg Toyota Prius V Midsize wagon 10.2s 0-60 17.8s 1/4
40mpg Ford C-Max Large (?) 9.4s 0-60 16.8s 1/4

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/

Sadly, there are only two cars in the 50mpg and two in the 40mpg range. I've excluded VW's TDI series because of the ongoing cheating scandal. You can't even buy one from a dealer now.

More politically-oriented information that is still factual and backed up by real science: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ic-cars/185798

Satisfaction surveys place EVs and hybrids at the very top:
http://evobsession.com/electric-car-...ion-3-surveys/
(all those folks must be lying, how can anyone be satisfied with driving a slow, heavy EV that can't drive very far without a very long extension cord).

As to EV bikes? The Brammo Empulse is tantalizingly close to my price range now. I only pay cash for vehicles, haven't had a car payment since 1983 and haven't had any debt at all since paying my mortgage off back in 2012, so I'm getting to the point where I can comfortably plunk down the cash for the Empulse, or I may get the Zero S instead. It isn't as stylish but has much better range. If and when I get one I'll come back to the forums here and give a report.

[VaFish]

Electric bike with 236 miles of range.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=245760

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Electric bike with 236 miles of range.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=245760

750lbs

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by allanoue

750lbs

Well that's the price you pay for a "superior" technology. cough

[dcj13]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

One thing that is typically ignored by anti-EVers when comparing EV to IC is maintenance cost. The typical modern EV require essentially no regular maintenance. No oil changes, no filter changes, no transmission flushes and filter changes, no coolant flushes and changes, no hoses, no accessory belts, no timing belts, no sensor replacements, no catalytic converter replacement, no tuneups, no spark plug changes, not anything at all. The Tesla models, require, in order of frequency, cabin air filter element, windshield wipers, and tires. Repairs? There's no emissions system, no fuel injection system (and hence no fuel pump), no exhaust system to rust away. No muffler(s), no fuel filter, no vacuum hoses, no engine air filter, no gaskets to ever leak, no dipstick to check. Even today, IC technology is just so maintenance intensive compared to EVs. Oh, and every few years you have to spend $100 or more to replace the lead-acid starting battery in an IC vehicle.

What about the irregular maintenance cost? The elephant in the corner: battery life and replacement cost!

No doubt I'll own an EV in my lifetime, but I'm not a technology "early adopter." I want long-life, high power density, low cost batteries. The holy grail...

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by allanoue

750lbs

Less than the weight of a Harley