Shelby electric car claims revolutionary power source - years between charges

if its nuclear it better have a collision avoidance system

 

LOL. I was talking about the fact that you needed to look it up, not that you didn't use the phrase googled.

 

A big bucket of pure electrons, that might be the secret.

 

Beyond the confusion (rampant in this thread!) about the guy's last name. And beyond the fact that the current super car can burn through 32 gallons of gasoline in about seven minutes... I see no reason why they can't make an EV super car if no expense is spared. Think Tesla on steroids. Think one second faster and four times the cost. There's no question that it can be done. The only question really is... why?

 

Oops - I keep getting myself in deeper and deeper... It's been a while since I've seen that movie - what was that... 20 years ago? Give me a break! I am an engineer. That get's me a little credit doesn't it?

 

Hype. Count the superlatives and buzz words.

 

I am sure a lot of people assume a connection between Shelby Super Cars and Caroll Shelby though none exists.

This is very curious: Every single reference to "Sheffield International Finance Corporation", the company through which SSC is soliciting investments, that I came across on Google was either in relation to the SCC deal or it was a hit on Sheffield's own website.

It's just like they had never done anything mediaworthy before SCC.

A snapshot of the website on archive.org from February of this year (the most recent before the live site) did not list any other projects yet.

Also, the domainsheffieldinternational.com was registered via a proxy service, i.e. the real registrant is obscured, which is not really a good sign for a financial company. The domain is about 2 years old, not really that old. The company's CEO is Philippe R. Harari (or Philip Harari according to a LinkedIn profile).

As for technology compact enough to fit a sports car to supply one or two 500 hp electric motors with current with up to several years without recharging batteries: a gas turbine driving a generator might fit the bill (i.e. a gas turbine hybrid).

A reactor from a nuclear submarine wouldn't fit into a car, plus you'd have trouble getting hold of highly enriched uranium to fuel it.

 

why are people getting worked up? anyone can claim whatever they want... they just need to prove it. and without the proof, why even bother with things like this?

 

sounds like a scam to sucker potential investors

 

If I had the patent on this battery I would mate it with a four cylinder engine in any popular japenese, american or any car I could mass produce. Why save it for a few rich folks who can afford an exotic sports car? Is the car manufacturer and financier not interested in the bottom line, only interested in
making sure the narcissistic, self-indulgent exotic car enthusiasts have access to this 'supposed' incredible technology?
Hmmm! something isn't right in this article.

 

As it has been pointed out with Tesla and other EVs, it is expensive to do the federal safety testing. It's more realistic for small companies to avoid it with limited production, kit cars, or three wheel motorcycles. The companies likely don't have the capital to invest in mass production initially either. Yeah, they might make more selling more for cheaper, but they have to be able to make more cheaply first.

 

I glanced at their web site from the link in the OP. I didn't actually see any mention of the car's being electric. I think they said it has a V-8 engine. They claim it's clean and green, not that it's electric. Burn H2 in a V-8 and you'll have a pretty clean car. Call it green? Anybody can claim "green." We'll say it's only as "green" as the source of the H2, and they'll reply that you can make H2 from renewable sources if you want to. Years between charges? That's because a standard 12-v car battery seldom needs an outside charger.

I think they're talking about an ICE that burns H2 and goes really fast.

 

The Hindenburg used H2 and 'went' really fast too but that doesnt make me want a car made that way!

 

The Hindenburg actually "went" rather slowly, and settled gently to the ground. The people that died were the ones who panicked and jumped, and a few who were burned. But it was not the H2 that burned. It was the "dope" used to seal the bag, which was extremely flammable, chemically similar to rocket propellant.

Gasoline is actually far more dangerous than H2, because in a leak the gasoline fumes settle to the ground and wait for a spark to ignite them, while H2 rises and dissipates.

The problem with H2 is that it's generally made from fossil fuels. Were it made from renewable energy, which is perfectly feasible, it would be a suitable carrier for applications where batteries are not practical, such as in airplanes.

 

Here they talk about the "Ultimate Aero EV (Electric Vehicle)":
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/news-071208.php

Elsewhere they talk about their current V8-based model.

They are not one and the same.

 

Well, if they're claiming an EV with several years between charging, either they expect you to drive it a couple of miles a month, or they're just plain trying to sell you snake oil.

 

Remember.. a nuclear power plant runs on steam.. SSC = Steam Super Cars ?

 

I think we can take it for granted that they are not claiming they will build a nuclear-powered car!

 

its stolen disifered tecnology from the anchient greeks!!! shelby whill be hearing from us at the hage courts !!! macedonia=is greek