[johnta1]

Musk is spending millions/billions to put the wires in the road to charge them while being driven. (like cell phones charging on the wireless chargers)

Let alone having charging stations every so often.

[1funride]

With buses you can have opportunistic charging, essentially an electrode sticks up from the bus roof and can be driven into a charge port/cable, a very high rate of current is then used to quickly give the batteries a refresh. Might be able to do this at stop lights, from under a car, I can think of several ways to do it. In big cities this may work to extend the range considerably. It can all be done if we really want. Regenerative braking is very effective, at times too effective, as we had to back it off some so the customer was forced to use the brakes somewhat as they were rusting.

[Region Warrior]

Reminds me of like slot car tracks lol.

[Mr Anonymous]

Originally Posted by 1funride

With buses you can have opportunistic charging, essentially an electrode sticks up from the bus roof and can be driven into a charge port/cable, a very high rate of current is then used to quickly give the batteries a refresh. Might be able to do this at stop lights, from under a car, I can think of several ways to do it. In big cities this may work to extend the range considerably. It can all be done if we really want. Regenerative braking is very effective, at times too effective, as we had to back it off some so the customer was forced to use the brakes somewhat as they were rusting.

That works because they control what uses the electricity.

How can individual owners be billed if cars are able to use it? they won't give the juice away for free, you can bet on that. The cost/economics of this all has to work out for it to have any long term viability, without tax breaks and subsidies. Most of this stuff isn't successful on its own merits, the tables are tilted in their direction to make the money work out.

I like the idea of "degenerative" braking instead. Use those child molesters for brake pads.

[dataway]

If electric vehicles are charged by in ground inductive charging then there will be the necessary components on the vehicle to monitor that charging and bill the owner of the car. Tax would be applied just as tax is paid at the gas pump.

If electric cars become common place they will all have mandatory GPS and taxed by the mile to make up for the short fall in gasoline taxes. A plan which some states are already considering.

So far inductive charging has not been efficient enough to be used large scale, too much waste energy in the form of heat. But they are working hard on it.

[66sprint6]

Agreed that for all of the talk about propulsion, the complete issue that’s holding it back is the batteries. But I’m sure in a few years I’ll be laughing about the battery in that Blazer that GM built. Kind of like seeing one of those old suitcase cell phones that were state of the art at the time.

[jerry455]

The faster you charge a battery the more it reduces the life of it. That is the balancing act right now. Until better battery technology is developed and the lack of a more robust electric grid. We have to turn off lights and reduce our A/C usage here in the Metro Detroit area in the summer when it gets too hot and there are not too many of those days but still. It tells you about the grid systems ability.

[dataway]

Just watched a short documentary on Toyota, they are going to announce in 2021 a new battery they have been working on for the last decade. A solid state Lithium battery, basically twice the power density of current EV batteries, charge time to 80% .. fifteen minutes. Typical range 300+ miles, 800 charges before any serious degradation (240,000 miles), 80% less heat production. They apparently have solved some of the short comings of this type of battery ... cold weather performance, dendrite formation, production costs etc.

For a daily driver, give me decent performance, warm in the winter, cool in the summer and I don't care what make it go. For my fun vehicles ... give me an I.C.E.

[NeighborsComplaint]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/rese...cid=uxbndlbing

[Dick Boneske]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

Which is why GE got Locomotives right with electrical drive like 6 decades ago. Hook them electric trucks together and train em down the tracks. Rinse and repeat, daily.

All those "electric" locomotives use diesel engines to run the generators onboard. There is no energy storage ability with locomotives other than the diesel fuel. That concept works very well, but replacing those diesel engines with batteries today would require a huge tonnage of batteries.

[dataway]

One thing to bear in mind is that there are two camps when it comes to EVs. The "pollution" camp, and the "All fossil fuel use is bad" camp.

The first camp has good intentions, but ignores electric source pollution and the fact that the sum total of the effect on the environment is based on how the power is generated, transported and distributed. They also ignore the tremendous gains made in efficiency and improvement of the ICE.

The second camp is the radical/political camp which has an un-reasoned, emotional approach that fanatically abhors all things fossil. There is no conversation with them, their position is not based on reason or critical thought.

The anti-fossil camp cares naught about vintage cars, or the minuscule amount they are driven, the less fortunate that have to drive older cars, or any other reasoned argument you can provide.

The pollution camp is in a hurry. They want change immediately and discount the ever decreasing amount of pollution in our air due to improvements in ICE design. Unfortunately their influence is probably reducing the amount of effort going into the continued improvement of the ICE by scaring manufacturers into diverting disproportionate resources into EVs. Manufacturers are not investing in EV research because they care about environmental issues, they are doing so in the expectation of legislation requiring these changes. They will invest in whichever way they think the legislative wind is blowing regardless if the science makes any sense. They are not in the business of educating people, but are there to sell cars in whatever form the government mandates.

We are ending up with a lopsided development scenario ... fossil fuel cars will be around for several more decades, they will be the majority of vehicles for probably the next two decades, but research dollars are being diverted prematurely to an auto segment that is in part arising to help solve problems with fossil fuel autos that might be much less of a problem in the future if development continued apace on the ICE.

In other words we are trying very hard to solve a problem that might not be nearly as drastic if we didn't divert so many resources to solving it instead of continuing to improve existing technology. Sure there will be a large place for EVs, but will there be so large a place in 20 years that we can sacrifice ICE development in the meantime?

[justincampbell]

I am not worried about EV having a huge impact on the hobby in the near future. However, I am VERY worried about the effect political BS will have on the cost of fuel and, therefore, my ability to participate in the hobby. As T/A addict said "Sell a kidney for fuel?". I know we all have different thresholds for where we would have to say "I'm out." For me, if gas were to reach $7 or $8 a gallon, I'm toast(or even $6 a gallon if our other taxes go the direction I believe they are headed). I am concerned enough that I have actually been debating whether there is any point in finishing my Formula resto. Right now it is all torn apart and I am in the midst of metalwork(that wonderful stage where you have already been busting your a$$, but it is torn apart so it's actually worth less than before you started). If I'm not going to be able to afford to enjoy it, I don't see the point in doing all the work.

[4zpeed]

Originally Posted by justincampbell

If I'm not going to be able to afford to enjoy it, I don't see the point in doing all the work.

You can use a EV to haul it to shows...


Frank

[Scarebird]

The fear here being pushed is wrong.

Gasoline will be around for quite a while, even if in a decade half or more of the cars sold are pure electric. Boats, General Aviation and other needs will ensure fuel will still be available.

We may have already seen peak gasoline use:



We will work this out.

[mgarblik]

In the grand plan of eliminating all the gasoline and diesel vehicles, one item that just never seems to get mentioned is the batteries that are needed for them. The batteries have to be manufactured from raw materials: Lets look for a minute of where they come from. 50% of the worlds known reserves for cobalt are in the Congo. 58% of the known reserves of lithium are in Chili 80% of graphite reserves in China, Turkey, and Brazil 75% of manganese is in South Africa, Ukraine and Brazil. Of course all these countries have strict environmental standards and safety measures in place to protect the environment and the workers in the mines. (NOT) They are all being paid a great wage and their health is top priority. (Unlikely) When making these big, bold proclamations about what has to happen in the next ten years, it might be a decent idea to look at the big picture beyond plugging the car into an outlet in the garage and letting the magic happen.

[Tom Vaught]

FIGURE OUT HOW TO SEAL UP THOSE HYDROGEN MOLECULES, MIKE, AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CHINA, ETC.

Tom V.

[Douglas Willinger]

Worse are the enemies of ethanol fuel. They say nothing about the horrifically lax quality and labeling standards of "E-85" (allowed to vary as low as 51% ethanol, and NO octane posting- a scheme to thwart its market expansion as well as protect overpriced racing fuel). They pretend that CO2 emissions are so bad that we must pretend that ethanol is worse by looking at dated production efficiencies while neglecting to say the CO2 emissions of transporting petroleum from overseas or its refinement. They so focus upon CO2 as to neglect that ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel. And they manipulate the hobby to so oppose mandatory ethanol content as to overlook the lack of choice from the "E-85" misregulation. How about a true E-70 fuel with 105 posted aki octane? And how is ruling out ethanol better for the environment than non-hybrid electric cars with larger battery packs? Or, better than retrofitting existing old cars for ethanol. Or the silliness of new turbo and supercharged cars not allowing higher ethanol content fuels? Or the wasteful destruction of older cars? Where is their science for such policies?

It almost seems to be some weird conspiracy to induce a methane jolt from the excessive battery and new electric car production.

Originally Posted by dataway

One thing to bear in mind is that there are two camps when it comes to EVs. The "pollution" camp, and the "All fossil fuel use is bad" camp.

The first camp has good intentions but ignores electric source pollution and the fact that the sum total of the effect on the environment is based on how the power is generated, transported and distributed. They also ignore the tremendous gains made in the efficiency and improvement of the ICE.

The second camp is the radical/political camp which has an un-reasoned, emotional approach that fanatically abhors all things fossil. There is no conversation with them, their position is not based on reason or critical thought.

The anti-fossil camp cares naught about vintage cars, or the minuscule amount they are driven, the less fortunate that have to drive older cars, or any other reasoned argument you can provide.

The pollution camp is in a hurry. They want change immediately and discount the ever decreasing amount of pollution in our air due to improvements in ICE design. Unfortunately their influence is probably reducing the amount of effort going into the continued improvement of the ICE by scaring manufacturers into diverting disproportionate resources into EVs. Manufacturers are not investing in EV research because they care about environmental issues, they are doing so in the expectation of legislation requiring these changes. They will invest in whichever way they think the legislative wind is blowing regardless if the science makes any sense. They are not in the business of educating people, but are there to sell cars in whatever form the government mandates.

We are ending up with a lopsided development scenario ... fossil fuel cars will be around for several more decades, they will be the majority of vehicles for probably the next two decades, but research dollars are being diverted prematurely to an auto segment that is in part arising to help solve problems with fossil fuel autos that might be much less of a problem in the future if development continued apace on the ICE.

In other words we are trying very hard to solve a problem that might not be nearly as drastic if we didn't divert so many resources to solving it instead of continuing to improve existing technology. Sure there will be a large place for EVs, but will there be so large a place in 20 years that we can sacrifice ICE development in the meantime?

[mgarblik]

I may have posted this nugget before but will again. In the early 1920's, cars were almost equally split in sales three ways. Gasoline powered, electric powered, and steam powered. It was decades before government intervention and tilting the playing field to "create" a winner. At the time, gasoline powered vehicles won the first round of the battle. 100 years later, I would be in favor of a renewed battle. Gasoline powered, vs. Diesel, vs Hydrogen, vs Hybrid, vs EV. May the best method of propulsion win. But when you have the game heavily manipulated by all the players involved, a level playing field where the market determines the winner can't happen. Without immense help from government grants, bailouts, rebates, credits, and other ploys, electric cars would have to survive on their own merits. I like choices, not to be told what I have to spend my money on if I wanted a new car.

[RocktimusPryme]

Originally Posted by Scarebird

The fear here being pushed is wrong.

Gasoline will be around for quite a while, even if in a decade half or more of the cars sold are pure electric. Boats, General Aviation and other needs will ensure fuel will still be available.

We may have already seen peak gasoline use:



We will work this out.

Whoa whoa whoa, you cant just go throwing around reasonable responses like that.

Again I reiterate my statement earlier about classic cars having different rules than newer vehicles for decades now. I dont know when the first classic tags in a state were issued, but older than me Im sure. Will some states be better than others for old cars? Sure, but thats been the case for a long time too.

Combine that with what Scarebird just said and the classic hobby wont be killed off by a lack of gas. Im also more bullish on future interest than some. Whenever the cool guy in the action movie pulls up, its always in a muscle car. Somtimes in a new one, but always a big manly V8. Until that changes, I wont be scared of lack of interest.

[455dan]

Originally Posted by RocktimusPryme

Whoa whoa whoa, you cant just go throwing around reasonable responses like that.

Again I reiterate my statement earlier about classic cars having different rules than newer vehicles for decades now. I dont know when the first classic tags in a state were issued, but older than me Im sure. Will some states be better than others for old cars? Sure, but thats been the case for a long time too.

Combine that with what Scarebird just said and the classic hobby wont be killed off by a lack of gas. Im also more bullish on future interest than some. Whenever the cool guy in the action movie pulls up, its always in a muscle car. Somtimes in a new one, but always a big manly V8. Until that changes, I wont be scared of lack of interest.

Right and SEMA will not go down without a fight either.

Industry retail sales had climbed nearly 4% to a new high of $46.2 billion in 2019 and were well on track for continued gains through 2021.

44 - 47 BILLION of value to the US yearly economy has a bit of Pull.