HD and Tesla?
Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 66,126
Likes: 51,455
From: Niles Canyon Ca.
Working for Tesla I've heard nothing and I'm in the engineering department, if it's out there it's strickly a kick around concept over a couple beers at this point and I doubt there's been a serious conversation.
Tesla will be supplying battery tech to many manufacturers as the new giga factory comes up to speed. Drive trains no, not at this time as things tend to be very specific per application. We manufacturer our motors in house.
Tesla will be supplying battery tech to many manufacturers as the new giga factory comes up to speed. Drive trains no, not at this time as things tend to be very specific per application. We manufacturer our motors in house.
Road Master
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 399
From: Bournemouth United Kingdom
If you have a look at the video clips available they have indeed spent time and investment into the sound but moved totally away from the traditional V-Twin sound and created a unique one for the Livewire. It actually sounds like a jet turbine.
Road Master
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 816
Likes: 57
From: Rijssen, the Netherlands
All the electric vehicles are a hype, which is a fake. What to be considered is the 'total ecological footprint' of a vehicle. Calculate the total efficiency and pollution of electricity generated by a coal fired power station, the surplus of precious metals in an electric vehicle including the sum of the CO2 emissions and the pollution during mining (mostly in Africa), production of these metals and transport to the manufacturer of the vehicle as 'electronic parts', including all other air, water and soil pollution of the entire process, from mining till and included the end of life of the electric vehicle. If you calculate honestly a 1969 Cadillac Eldorado, running 1 liter on 2 miles is more 'ecological friendly' in total than any electric vehicle. But it is blasphemy in the "environmental church" to mention this. But it is completely and undeniable true..Calculate the fuel efficiency from mining the coal of the power station to the energy transferred on the road by the tyres and even a Ford Bronco 4x4 1965 is more 'lean' than an electric vehicle....Even a Abrahams tank is close to be leaner in total efficiency, not to mention the total environmental load. And this entire sum is called 'ecological footprint'. Unless all electric vehicles are solely powered by their own solar panels on top of the vehicle, they are more 'environmently hostile' than any petrol driven vehicle. Share this and break the myth ! And oh yeah, 'environment and circular economy' is the field of my profession for over 4 decades in the Netherlands, one of worlds most developed countries in these fields.
Last edited by Bart van der Meulen; Jul 28, 2017 at 05:10 AM.
Thread Starter
|
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,456
Likes: 2,860
From: SW FL-Jersey Shore Emigre
All the electric vehicles are a hype, which is a fake. What to be considered is the 'total ecological footprint' of a vehicle. Calculate the total efficiency and pollution of electricity generated by a coal fired power station, the surplus of precious metals in an electric vehicle including the sum of the CO2 emissions and the pollution during mining (mostly in Africa), production of these metals and transport to the manufacturer of the vehicle as 'electronic parts', including all other air, water and soil pollution of the entire process, from mining till and included the end of life of the electric vehicle. If you calculate honestly a 1969 Cadillac Eldorado, running 1 liter on 2 miles is more 'ecological friendly' in total than any electric vehicle. But it is blasphemy in the "environmental church" to mention this. But it is completely and undeniable true..Calculate the fuel efficiency from mining the coal of the power station to the energy transferred on the road by the tyres and even a Ford Bronco 4x4 1965 is more 'lean' than an electric vehicle....Even a Abrahams tank is close to be leaner in total efficiency, not to mention the total environmental load. And this entire sum is called 'ecological footprint'. Unless all electric vehicles are solely powered by their own solar panels on top of the vehicle, they are more 'environmently hostile' than any petrol driven vehicle. Share this and break the myth ! And oh yeah, 'environment and circular economy' is the field of my profession for over 4 decades in the Netherlands, one of worlds most developed countries in these fields.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Road Master
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 973
Likes: 440
From: West TN
I have been saying this for years. Same with the ethanol fuel, the fuel consumed to plant, harvest, brew, and distill the ethanol is higher than just burning it in the first place.
All the electric vehicles are a hype, which is a fake. What to be considered is the 'total ecological footprint' of a vehicle. Calculate the total efficiency and pollution of electricity generated by a coal fired power station, the surplus of precious metals in an electric vehicle including the sum of the CO2 emissions and the pollution during mining (mostly in Africa), production of these metals and transport to the manufacturer of the vehicle as 'electronic parts', including all other air, water and soil pollution of the entire process, from mining till and included the end of life of the electric vehicle. If you calculate honestly a 1969 Cadillac Eldorado, running 1 liter on 2 miles is more 'ecological friendly' in total than any electric vehicle. But it is blasphemy in the "environmental church" to mention this. But it is completely and undeniable true..Calculate the fuel efficiency from mining the coal of the power station to the energy transferred on the road by the tyres and even a Ford Bronco 4x4 1965 is more 'lean' than an electric vehicle....Even a Abrahams tank is close to be leaner in total efficiency, not to mention the total environmental load. And this entire sum is called 'ecological footprint'. Unless all electric vehicles are solely powered by their own solar panels on top of the vehicle, they are more 'environmently hostile' than any petrol driven vehicle. Share this and break the myth ! And oh yeah, 'environment and circular economy' is the field of my profession for over 4 decades in the Netherlands, one of worlds most developed countries in these fields.
Thread Starter
|
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,456
Likes: 2,860
From: SW FL-Jersey Shore Emigre
Not to get involved in a p!$$ing contest, but:
-Less and less coal is being used as a fossil fuel energy source, and more and more natural gas, not to mention solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, or nuclear;
-ICE vehicles need metals, precious and otherwise for transport and mining, just like EVs;
-ICE vehicles are ~ 30% efficient at best, running on fuel that has to be "mined", refined, transported (using more fuel) to fueling stations;
-EV's are ~80+% efficient, running on either electrons from burning fossil fuels that would otherwise be burned in ICE's, or "fusion" powered (from PV), wind, nuclear, geo or hydro, all greenhouse gas-free;
-Did I mention the 300-500 moving parts in the ICE drivetrain that have to be mined, refined, transported, assembled, and disposed of at the end of life, versus the ~ 8 moving parts in an EV drivetrain?
-and not to beat a dead horse, but a new Hyundai on order has a larger ecological footprint than a "pre-owned" Abrams tank-the environmental costs of the tank have already been paid versus the materials and energy needed to manufacture and transport the new Hyundai. If you REALLY want to save the planet, buy a used Abrams tank, rather than order a new Hyundai.
One can go round and round (circular economy? LOL!) with this, but one can model the argument like this:
Photons produced by fusion travel through space, are absorbed by biologic systems that die and "ferment" under high temperature and pressure for millons of years, then are extracted transported and burned for motive power with, with a 70+% "entropy tax".
OR
Photons produced by fusion travel through space, are absorbed by photovoltaics (yes, only 33% max efficiency, but, after all, they're cost and pollution free) and converted to electrons (charge), used for motive power at 80+ efficiency.
Choose wisely!
-Less and less coal is being used as a fossil fuel energy source, and more and more natural gas, not to mention solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, or nuclear;
-ICE vehicles need metals, precious and otherwise for transport and mining, just like EVs;
-ICE vehicles are ~ 30% efficient at best, running on fuel that has to be "mined", refined, transported (using more fuel) to fueling stations;
-EV's are ~80+% efficient, running on either electrons from burning fossil fuels that would otherwise be burned in ICE's, or "fusion" powered (from PV), wind, nuclear, geo or hydro, all greenhouse gas-free;
-Did I mention the 300-500 moving parts in the ICE drivetrain that have to be mined, refined, transported, assembled, and disposed of at the end of life, versus the ~ 8 moving parts in an EV drivetrain?
-and not to beat a dead horse, but a new Hyundai on order has a larger ecological footprint than a "pre-owned" Abrams tank-the environmental costs of the tank have already been paid versus the materials and energy needed to manufacture and transport the new Hyundai. If you REALLY want to save the planet, buy a used Abrams tank, rather than order a new Hyundai.
One can go round and round (circular economy? LOL!) with this, but one can model the argument like this:
Photons produced by fusion travel through space, are absorbed by biologic systems that die and "ferment" under high temperature and pressure for millons of years, then are extracted transported and burned for motive power with, with a 70+% "entropy tax".
OR
Photons produced by fusion travel through space, are absorbed by photovoltaics (yes, only 33% max efficiency, but, after all, they're cost and pollution free) and converted to electrons (charge), used for motive power at 80+ efficiency.
Choose wisely!
Last edited by shorelasHD; Jul 28, 2017 at 09:21 AM. Reason: sorry, two typos corrected.