This is nice, but it sounds like pie in the sky right now. Also, according to Tesla's Martin Eberhard, he's not a fan of the Altair Nano batteries. We'll see I guess.

How reliable can wheel motors be? What about potholes or uneven road that could damage them, or road water (when it rains, or driving through streams), or road dust.

People that say the power is too much don't understand electric motor efficiencies.

For electric the larger the motor the more efficiently it runs. That doesn't mean that running at 100 mph uses less energy than running 50 mph. It means that if both cars run at 50 mph the larger motor uses less energy.

That means in essence that the performance isn't just free, it comes with a bonus. If they want, they could probably put an electronic limiter on the top speed or acceleration.

As far as it being vaporware, there are a whole lot more Zap's on the road than Tesla Roadsters.

By the way, Tesla's roadster has a poor airflow rating, they've talked about it in their blogs on battery usage. I'm not sure if this one is better or worse, but the Tesla isn't the pinnacle of aerodynamics.

The extreme amount of horsepower (and torque, not mentioned in the press release) is actually somewhat necessary since this vehicle doesn't have a gearbox and thus has no torque multiplication abilities. Large amounts of Hp in a BEV doesn't carry the efficiancy penalty that it does in a typical ICE.

The only questionable element of this vehicle and its price is the battery pack. Eliminating an ICE (with its dozens of moving parts), headers, exhaust system, alternator, cooling system, transmission (with its dozens of moving parts), axels, differentials, and brakes actually reduces costs substantially. In fact, in-wheel motors should substantially reduce vehicle costs in mass production.

The ABAT citation is correct and quite interesting, though I wonder if the Chinese government isn't subsidizing the production of these batteries.

The aerodynamic efficiancy of this vehicle could be identical to the tesla which has downforce producing designs built in and probably has a Cd of .3-.32. This is obtainable in a well designed SUV especially when you can have a very smooth underbody (don't have to worry about exhaust, axels, etc.)

Unsprung weight is an issue for the suspension system and has a much more negative effect on sports cars (which must be tuned for to "perform") than SUVs where ride comfort is more of a priority than performance. As others noted, losing the brakes and axels helps to partially mitigate the additional weight of an in-wheel motor.

BTW, does anyone else see similarities to the Saab Aero-X in the front of the vehicle?

Looking at the design, with provisions for a rear diffuser (see the profile sketch), smooth body panels, and its roofline being reminiscent of the prius a Cd. of .30 is achievable, IMO.

With the current state of technology, a 40% increase in range requires at least a 40% increase in energy capacity and therefore a 40% increase in cost. Maybe ZAP is planning on selling zero-emission credits like Phoenix? Good luck with that...

I SERIOUSLY doubt the Tesla has a Cd of .30 to .32

My off the cuff guess would be closer to .40 without the targa top and maybe 0.36 to 0.38 with it.

The Cd numbers I gave were assuming the targa top was on (otherwise I never would have gone below .4). Wasn't the Lotus Elise .32? I have a PopSci article somewhere that gives the exact number. If the Elise was .32, I see no reason the Tesla couldn't achieve a similar number with the T-top on.

Addition: I just looked at the roof line of the Tesla, not as aerodynamically sound as I remembered. Perhaps a Cd of .36?

The reason I think the ZAP-X would be less aerodynamic than the Tesla is that it would have a much larger frontal area. The frontal area of an RX300 (similar in size to the ZAP-X) is 1.5 times that of an Elise; assuming a .32 Cd for the Elise, the RX300 needs a Cd of .20 to match.

The Honda Insight is the most aerodynamic car sold today and it has a Cd of .25. These concept drawings are missing many of the most important aerodynamic aids used by the Insight like covered rear wheels, minimal intakes and vents, and a long tapered tail.

Sorry, but all of your comments are irrelevant. ZAP is only talking, there is no intention to put a product on the road.

Actually, they are going into production next year, according to what I was told by their rep yesterday. They are sending me the info I need so that I can order one. I guess some of us put our money where our mouths are, and the rest just post comments on someone's blog...

Mr Pentz, can you provide us with the information with a link perhaps?
I'm sceptic until proven otherwise.

If the real deal matches all the hype,the Zap-X at $60,000 would be a bargin. I would save between $3000 and $4000 a year in gas. My questions are:
1. Where will you be able to buy one on the east coast?
2. What will the maintenance regime look like.
3. How long will it take to recharge using residential house power.
4. For longer trips where will I be able to get the car plugged in? A 350 mile range would meet about 95% of my driving needs.

Just what the world's been waiting for - another $100,000 electric car for the Hollywood ritzies to buy to show how "environmentally pure" they are. This car will have zero effect on emissions. What a fraud.

This reminds me of the Monty Python bit about a designer of slaughterhouses who tried to design an apartment building. Having Lotus design an economy car is the same thing. A car of less than 100 hp is unthinkable to Lotus engineers.

tom, go through and read all the comments. due to the nature of electric motors, the stronger they are, the less energy they use at highway speeds, and therefore increasing this cars range.

Zap really needs to get a monetary figure out there to let potential buyers have an idea of the estimated cost.

and even at 100k, the savings in gas of this car will justify the cost over gasoline, especially as the price of gas skyrockets.

...cont next post

not only that, i am an American that doesn't want to abandon the middle east and leave it to the terrorist but also want to end the war, and i believe the best way to get Bush to leave Iraq isn't by waiting till he kills everyone over there, but by taking their money away. and who funds these Iraqi insurgents? OPEC. If we Americans could buy cars like this zap that doesn't look ridiculous, has more power than we know what to do with, can easily get us to and from work, and that was cost effective, we could significantly reduce our funding to the middle east and could get the "war pigs" as some might call them to willingly leave.

is anyone else considering this as a better answer to Iraq than the democrats and republicans in a stalemate with the only real break in the stalemate as Bush?

(P.S. i know that this is a little off topic but it all comes back to the zap[and similar EV's] if it can get a strong hold in the American public)

In order to loose all the braking equipment and weighty drive train [especially for 644hp] you have to have inwheel motors as the safety regs require two independent braking systems. I'm not sure how PML meet this requirement - any ideas?.

If these 161hp motors went into mass production they could become very cheap and allow multi axle goods vehicles to use them and thus expand the bev market further. You could also have a a very interesting electric superbike - with no brakes [other than electric regen].

As far as batteries are concerned there is an interesting development in the Zinc - Air battery / fuel cell with 4 times the energy density of Li-ion and none of the safety lithium supply problems. Of course they still have to scale up to ev capacities. see
http://www.revolttechnology.com/technology/revolt-introduction.php

So does anyone out there know what the latest news is on this car?

Green Car Congress ; Some people say im ahead of my Time
I See Is in The Brand FUTURE peoples own ideas For ther own
vehicles; See the brand FUTURE as a Global Infranstructure .
Ive invested 10 Years of my life aplying For Brand FUTURE and
seeing peoples own ideas used for there FUTURE . My web page
Name is kent G Anderson web page is
is www.futurevisionaries.com
Home -701-223-0639

We have slways loved our big cars. Problem, the big 3 have always said we need our big cars and trucks. I do think the time is now to change their minds, we, that is us, have to get off the soap box and get into the future, it is now, not in some other far off time. I say let these people put there ideas to work, and we should suport these ideas. Like the man said, the cost will go down and opec will go down with it. now wouldn't that be nice.

I love this idea.And to all you non-believers,in 1908 Ford had an electric car that would go 100 miles per charge. Jay Leno owns one.So the technology has been here all along.But when a huge company in America gets greedy and runs out competition(ahem, OPEC.)Well folks than consider yourself no more than cattle that feel there is no other way, so you will just follow along.I've been biking to work for 2 years in all weather. And god willing I will never own another gas powered vehicle.Bush and his PIGS have taken enough.It's willpower and the passion for change.Hope this company skyrockets, because 60k for a car.Out of my price range at this point.

According to the zapworld.com website, they are taking reservations for the Zap-X at only $25,000 a pop!
I put my name in there (you can give 'em your credit card info if you want, or mark "check or money order" on your reservation).
Still no firm timeframe as far as I could see. Personally, I hope it is really going to happen in the next year or so, and that this vehicle is even CLOSE to the Christmas List specs that it has boasted all along.
BRING IT ON!

I belive that all the hydrogen cars will not succeed and the electrical vehicle is the future. There is plenty of infostructure to charge your EV anywhere in the world, but the hydrogen stations are nowhere to be seen. Buy the ZAP stock and buy their cars if you can afford them or they make them available. Fight the OPEC and feel good driving it!

I believe all the requirements for a rechargable are in place it's now just a case of packaging and massproduction.

The coming Silicon nano wire batteries, at 10 times the current Li cell capacity, fast charge, wide temperature range plus 25000 charge cycle, solve all the battery problems. The PLM 24 phase in wheel motors with inbuilt control and brakes solve all the drive train problems, with only a 2kg increase in wheel weight.

So the ZAP is completly feasible. The Tesla is using old Li battery technology and will need to update them to compete. Volvo (owned by Ford) is also using PLM motors in their fist hybrid and Lightening also in their rechargable sports car, with Lithium nano tintinate batteries and it outperforms the Tesla.

The future is here now but it will take some years to be common like the cell/mobile phone that toke 20 years.