Interesting new car...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has
a
nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K
range. Who'll be the first?

http://www.teslamotors.com/


Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet.
Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current
battery
technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best
anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and
basic
E car? Something does not add up.

Eisboch


Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true.

Editorial
Go Speed Racer!

Published: July 23, 2006

Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the
automobile
market. That's why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster
that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting.

Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that
goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of
electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to
understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its
Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car's acceleration pinning
passengers to their seats.)

With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on
a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost
about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap,
running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this
case, it's actually a selling point.

Martin Eberhard, the company's chief executive, recognizes that new
technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are
making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and
football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market.

Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can
expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories
could really work.


I noticed they use a two speed transmission, although you don't have to use
first gear. In first gear the regenerative braking system recharges the
batteries at a higher rate than second gear.

My hunch is that the 250 mile range estimate is based on brand new
batteries, driving in first gear only, modest use of the "E" pedal when
accelerating and not exceeding about 15-20 mph. I further speculate that
under more "normal" driving, the range will be less than half of the claim.

Eisboch

Hell, that's no where near the mess that the current EPA mileage
predictions on gasoline vehicles are.

Interesting new car...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Harry,

I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so
you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast
70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens.
It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200
VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry.

Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a
duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a
compulsive mind can justify things.

Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling?


Nope. But I've read up on it, and it seems to be a great lens for the
price, performing about as well as the Nikkor of the same range, but for
half the price.

I'm still not convinced, by the way, that zoom lenses are as "sharp" as
fixed focal length lenses of "equal" quality. I've not seen the equal,
in any zoom lenses, of the old Nikkor 105 2.5, or the old Nikkor 180
2.5, which, if memory serves, weighed about four pounds. It was *the*
sports-action lens of its or any time. I owned a 105, but I never could
justify the big glass 180. I did borrow one once in a while. These were
beautifully made lenses, too, the non-glass portions machined out of
quality metal parts, not assembled from cheap plastic.

I know that in the 35mm SLR world, that multi-focal length zoom lenses
don't hold a candle to fixed focal length lenses. I'd bet the same with
DSLR

Interesting new car...
 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.
Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?

I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle,
normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a
lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being
able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are
contemporaries.

For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good
light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or
tripod.

Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long,
heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own.

Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the
resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in
decent light.

You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once
you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference.

I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my
composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges.

I'd forgotten how good you were.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Interesting new car...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


JohnH wrote:


Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?

I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle,
normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a
lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being
able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are
contemporaries.

For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good
light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or
tripod.

Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long,
heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own.

Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the
resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in
decent light.

You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once
you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference.

I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my
composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges.


I'd forgotten how good you were.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


*were*?

Interesting new car...
 

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:08:46 GMT, Don White wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


JohnH wrote:


Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?

I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle,
normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a
lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being
able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are
contemporaries.

For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good
light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or
tripod.

Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long,
heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own.

Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the
resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in
decent light.

You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once
you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference.

I rarely crop cat whiskers and blow them up. In fact, I do most of my
composing through the viewfinder and if I crop at all it is on the edges.


I'd forgotten how good you were.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


*were*?

Whoops!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Interesting new car...
 

LOFL!


Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has
a
nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K
range. Who'll be the first?

http://www.teslamotors.com/


Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet.
Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current
battery technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the
best anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down
and basic E car? Something does not add up.

Eisboch


You know, for a guy who formerly was engaged in science and manufacturing,
you sure miss the important stuff. Didn't you look under the hood and
notice the six hamsters hooked up to the crack cocaine pipe?

Is that the secret? I am still trying to figure out why the Li-Ion battery
in my cell phone goes dead after three calls.

Eisboch