Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

longreads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 271 posts

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#51

Post by WorldMaker »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #9
Swizec wrote: post #5

We also could have had steam powered cars. Jay Leno once said that he got pulled over on the freeway for breaking the speed limit in his Stanley Steamer from 1906-ish. Darn thing has a top speed of 127mph. My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph, to give you a comparison. Why don't we have steam cars? Because in the early 1900's steam cars they couldn't compete with the elegance of ICE vehicles. The engines were big an…

> Tesla, for example, still doesn't have an official Nurburgring lap time because it simply isn't able to drive at racing speeds for long enough without the battery overheating and reducing power output to avoid damage Now I'm really curious: with a limit on the Tesla's performance to keep the battery from overheating, what's the fastest time it could do? That they don't have an official lap time for this reason stri…

It should be mentioned, too, that Tesla doesn't have an official Nurburgring lap time because they don't want one. They've made several official statements that they aren't interested in such competitions.

There are unofficial times [1], but Nürburgring apparently takes manufacturer wishes into respect on declaring official times.

Multiple EVs have official times at this point. Tesla doesn't seem to care right now.

(VW, on the hand, with Nürburgring in their backyard has to care, and it is fascinating to hear what's going on with their EV race teams.)

[1] An example: https://jalopnik.com/heres-what-a-tesla-model-s-can-do-aroun...

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#52

Post by Tade0 »

lgleason wrote: post #2

Battery technology has been, and to a certain degree still is the limiting factor for electric cars...and the fact is that gasoline is still a denser form of energy storage than batteries by volume, weight etc.. I'm saying this as a someone who prefers electrics over ICE...

I think that if, then only in terms of cost.

Every quarter or so I do a 1500km(935 mile) trip and back. Nowadays it takes me two days, because I realized that spending around 20h behind the wheel without rest is simply dangerous.

My car's highway range is about 440 miles - but I rarely drive that far without refueling because the longest distance between my usual stops is 350 miles. And once stopped I don't just fill up an move along - I stretch my legs, grab something to eat etc.

My point being: given that the newest Model S achieves 370 miles and my favourite spots all happen to have superchargers I could probably pull this off in a Tesla adding maybe one stop and one hour to my trip.

We're there in terms of range. Now all that is needed is a reduction in cost.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#53

Post by jacquesm »

Something1234 wrote: post #45
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely if the fossil fuel bonanza had not happened there would have been more interest in improving battery chemistry.

I would say that fossil fuels are very important for a lot of our battery technology. I believe that a large number of important chemicals and materials like plastics are derived from oil.

They are important, but not as important as they are to transportation. The quantities of oil required for fuel production dwarf the quantities required for plastics and other important chemicals. It's still a sizeable amount but not even close to what gets burned every day.

It's just that fossil oil is - relatively speaking - very cheap compared to other sources.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#54

Post by fooblitzky »

bamans wrote: post #8
Swizec wrote: post #5

We also could have had steam powered cars. Jay Leno once said that he got pulled over on the freeway for breaking the speed limit in his Stanley Steamer from 1906-ish. Darn thing has a top speed of 127mph. My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph, to give you a comparison. Why don't we have steam cars? Because in the early 1900's steam cars they couldn't compete with the elegance of ICE vehicles. The engines were big an…

Just a small correction-- Formula E doesn't swap cars anymore, they go the full race distance now, although the distance is much shorter than Formula 1, for example.

I wonder if any electric cars are going to get swappable battery packs? That way you could get an instant recharge, and for racing, it would make battery pack heat manageable by just swapping out the hot pack. It might even provide an advantage over ICE race cars, as fueling is often the lengthiest operation in pit stops.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#56

Post by maxxxxx »

Animats wrote: post #55

* But no sudden technological breakthrough explains the automobile’s arrival in the 1890s either.* Er, steel? Steel was about as exotic as titanium is now until the 1860s when the Bessemer process went into volume production.

I think steam engines prototyped a lot of the needed technology like lubrication, manufacturing of precision shafts and heat resistance which then could be applied to the gas engine.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#57

Post by saalweachter »

smileysteve wrote: post #49
ClassyJacket wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean steam powered cars? When I think of an X powered car I think of putting X into the car to power it. You put petrol in a petrol car and electric power in an electric car. You don't put steam in a steam train, aren't they actually coal powered? According to Wikipedia, steam cars just ran on petrol, but the combustion engine was external, and the car was less efficient overall. Steam engines don't seem…

It's not a combustion engine, but a burner, not unlike a grill or stove. To your point they could also be electric. The earliest ones were coal or wood burning, we're also talking 1880s

Or nuclear!

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#58

Post by maxxxxx »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #9
Swizec wrote: post #5

We also could have had steam powered cars. Jay Leno once said that he got pulled over on the freeway for breaking the speed limit in his Stanley Steamer from 1906-ish. Darn thing has a top speed of 127mph. My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph, to give you a comparison. Why don't we have steam cars? Because in the early 1900's steam cars they couldn't compete with the elegance of ICE vehicles. The engines were big an…

> Tesla, for example, still doesn't have an official Nurburgring lap time because it simply isn't able to drive at racing speeds for long enough without the battery overheating and reducing power output to avoid damage Now I'm really curious: with a limit on the Tesla's performance to keep the battery from overheating, what's the fastest time it could do? That they don't have an official lap time for this reason stri…

A Tesla is way too heavy and soft to produce a decent lap time. They accelerate really well but fast cornering is not their forte. The Nurburgring has some very fast sections where you go top speed or near top speed for a long time. I also would have my doubts about the brakes holding up.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#59

Post by stcredzero »

smileysteve wrote: post #44
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perhaps a more limiting factor now than then. As the article notes most EVs at the turn of the century had a range of 40-70 miles. The model T of around 1910, ten years later, had a range of about 90. Earlier ICE cars were down nearer EVs. A century ago battery and ICE technology were not that far apart. i.e. both fairly primitive. If electrics had been chosen and had 100 years of continual minor incremental imp…

we're also omitting the steam car. Where the maintenance and dirtiness were their major detractors, refined fuels and new burners solve these. Steam engines can and could have been refilled at any gas station, could run on any multi fuel including biodiesel. They theoretically require less maintenance, no oil changes, no cooling system. They'd also have had greater range and greater top speed (though less acceleratio…

Stirling engines have many of the advantages of steam, many of the disadvantages, but they lack the disadvantage of high pressure containment. It's likely that power density would have been too low, however.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#60

Post by Causality1 »

soperj wrote: post #39
Causality1 wrote: post #3

They could've worked in cities. Lead-acid batteries, though, have never had the energy/weight ratio necessary for the type of long-range driving necessary outside of highly urbanized areas.

And we would have all been better off. Cities would have been much more livable, and walkable, and people could commute by train/plane.

More livable for the urbanites. Everybody else, like my relatives who still live on dirt roads, can go screw themselves apparently.
Post reply on HN