back to article Fisker shows Karma Sunset in Detroit

Fisker used the Detroit Motor Show to unveil the final production version of its Karma electric saloon and tantalise assembled onlookers with the first showing of the convertible Karma S – the S standing for Sunset. Fisker Karma Fisker's Karma S: pretty as a sunset? OK, it's not a whole lot different from the images we've …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
b
Go

absolutely gorgeous!

yummy!

now can we have some sensible around town cars please?!

like the BYD F6 ;)

cheers,

bill

p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum

0
0
Alert

meh

With the engine, the batteries and the motors, it will be heavy, and, like the tesla, unweildy. If they took out the electric stuff, it might be a slightly slower 0-60 time (because of the torque bias electric has for the low-end) but it may be quicker (with the weight gone).

It's another gizmo car that, like other hybrids (like the toyota Poseur erm Prius) would give better figures if the electric stuff was taken out.

I'm not down on electric cars; I've talked with a honda engineer, about doing a electric Ridgeline, and I've made small personal ones (usually testbeds for my robotwars and battlebots chassis) but these vehicles are the worst kind of gimmickery. As the ell pie man from the mighty Boosch commented "elements of the past and the future, comming together to make something not quite as good".

0
0
Thumb Down

Can it get any worse?

A nicely styled turd, but a turd it truly is. Performance and efficiency is beyond horrendous considering claimed horsepower specs. How is it that two 150kw electric motors with claimed total 403bhp can only propel this slug up to 95 mph? Think about that for a second. More than 400bhp yields less than 100mph top speed! How is that even possible with today's technology?

Situation is even more disgusting considering its smaller 265bph petrol engine provides a higher 125mph top speed while "driving the generator". While this is also a horrible performance per power ratio, this means the battery pack is so mismatched that it can't supply the required current to feed the two electric motors anywhere near their rated horsepower. Result is that one of the electric motor's output is barely being utilized. I'd be willing to bet that the weight savings from removing one electric motor would yield similar or maybe even better performance.

Bottom line is that either the posted numbers are wrong or this “jewel” has a Rube Goldberg nonsensically designed drive train. But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they electronically limited both the battery pack only and petrol engine only top speeds and were just concentrating on 0-60mph performance. This is an even worse design objective meaning that you’re always carrying around all that extra weight, complexity, and resulting inefficiency for a single narrow-minded performance target. It just doesn't get any worse than this. Green is the new design objective but this POS is clearly brown...and stinky!

0
0
Thumb Up

@ Andrew Norton & Jim Murphy

You're totally missing the point. You can't remove the electric parts... It IS an electric vehicle.

The Petrol engine is decoupled from the drive train completely - it just charges the battery (Or in those rare situations where you need to go faster than 95 - Provide a boost)

And seriously, unless you drive a lot on the Autobahns in Germany, want to take it to a track, or just drive like a tw@t, you've no need to go above 95 except in very rare overtaking circumstances.

In reality you could remove the petrol generator and replace it with a diesel one - much more efficient.

You could even completely remove the fossil fuel engine and replace with more batteries, or a hydrogen fuel cell, or ultracapacitors or whatever new technology comes along for the generation / storage of electricity in vehicles.

This is an extremely important step in the move away from fossil fuels. When Fisker start manufacturing more affordable vehicles based upon the quantum drive train I'll be all over them - my commute every day is < 25Miles, and as I'll be charging the sucker off a wind turbine in the garden, the only time I'll be using fossil fuels will be 5-10 times a year when I go on a longer journey. Bargain.

0
0
Stop

No DRender, You’ve missed the point!!!!

This is a luxury abomination touted on their website as a “green” vehicle, which it clearly is not. Any automobile, especially an aerodynamically styled sedan like this one, that requires a total of 403bhp electric power and a 265bph petrol engine isn’t “green”. I don’t care if it can exceed 200mph or reach a paultry 125mph as in this case, IT AIN’T “GREEN”! I don’t even think you read the complete article as your comments certainly don’t reflect it, but let’s take a look at them anyway.

“You can’t remove the electric parts… It IS an electric vehicle.” - I only mentioned removing one of the two electric motors as it is clearly not contributing much power due to a possible mismatch of the battery pack, or some other quirk. However, this appears to be such a poor design that I agree with Andrew Norton and think it would be an improvement to leave out the electric power altogether as based on the listed specifications this company obviously is not showing expertise in this area, at least in my opinion.

“The Petrol engine is decoupled from the drive train completely - it just charges the battery (Or in those rare situations where you need to go faster than 95 - Provide a boost)” - Ummmm…you’re completely wrong here. According to the article the petrol engine drives the generator which provides electricity to the electric motors giving an “effective range of 300 miles” and providing a top speed of 125mph, although I would assume it also charges the batteries in this mode. However, even if you were correct, which you aren’t, then under which universe did you come from that you think it is a good design that requires a 265bhp petrol engine to charge the battery or to “…Provide a boost”. Let’s get real here. A 265bhp engine installed in any automobile, short of maybe a Hummer, will jerk a knot in your ass with plenty of acceleration, yet here they need it to “charge the battery”?

“And seriously, unless you drive a lot on the Autobahns in Germany, want to take it to a track, or just drive like a tw@t, you've no need to go above 95 except in very rare overtaking circumstances.” - Then why are you even looking at this thing in the first place? Go buy a Toyota Prius and save a ton of money. Oh, sorry Andrew, yes the Prius is lacking, but it is certainly many times more “green” than this contraption.

“In reality you could remove the petrol generator and replace it with a diesel one - much more efficient… …You could even completely remove the fossil fuel engine and replace with more batteries, or a hydrogen fuel cell, or ultracapacitors or whatever new technology comes along for the generation / storage of electricity in vehicles.” - Yeah, you could also just look at another vehicle that has proven “green” technologies. At least you’re beginning to get the point that this thing really is crap, at least in my opinion as an engineer. I have to add that it has already been proven that hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are just smoke and mirrors since it requires so much energy to extract the hydrogen.

“This is an extremely important step in the move away from fossil fuels. When Fisker start manufacturing more affordable vehicles based upon the quantum drive train I'll be all over them…” - I just about wet my pants when I read that statement! I hope you do buy one of Fisker’s products, as you certainly seem like a good match! However, I’ll agree with you that continued development of electric or hybrid powered vehicles is a move in the right direction, but this instance certainly seems questionable.

DRenar, I’m really not trying to bust your balls but I just want you to look at the numbers to see the truth. Even though this is a very nice looking car, the listed specifications suggest something is amiss and certainly not in line with “green” technology. I would like to know exactly how many miles per gallon this vehicle consumes under its petrol engine since they don't mention that.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an emerging trend that somehow very high powered or high performance electric cars are "green". Green technology, to me, means providing for high efficiency and zero or low fossil fuel comsumption while providing acceptable performance. It is not about just swapping powerplant types, especially if the results are still high energy and/or low efficiency. Keep in mind that the majority of the owners of these vehicles will be using the existing electrical grid to recharge those massive battery packs daily and/or they will be driving under petrol engine power. Either way, fossil fuels are still being depleted at a rapid rate. So where is the "green" in this scenario? Cheers! Jim

0
0
Paris Hilton

Wo what we essentially have is ...

a petrol engine with full tank et al charging a battery which will drive the electroc motors which power the car. 3 stage process from petrol to motion, each with losses.

I don't notice any stats on what the range of said beastie will be with a full tank of gas - anyone care to compare that with a similar car that doesn't have all the extra heavy electric gubbins on board?

Paris because there's no intelligence behind this design

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums