StromTrooper banner

61 - 80 of 90 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,386 Posts
Best keep in mind that when the Volt was introduced it was listed here at $59,990 which is $40,000+ more expensive than any ICE equivalent.
You can buy a LOT of fuel for that many dollars, and that is surely the reason why they were not snapped up.
A great invention is only great when it can compete on the market. If you could have sold the Volt for $15-20,000 they would have been a runaway sales success.
Baby boomers have snapped up computers, digital cameras, the internet, mobile phones and solar panels but not electric and hybrid cars. Why not? Because there is a far more economical equivalent.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,391 Posts
That is exactly the Formula 1 model where under braking the car generates electricity to be stored in a battery for use when needed. Not exactly an economy exercise, but the idea could be adapted I guess.

However it is complex and costly, still using gearboxes, differentials and drive lines etc. I wonder if the locomotive idea of an engine to create electricity (supplemented by a solar paneled body and regeneration under braking) with electric motors on two wheels and with a smaller holding battery might be a more economical build?
In other words adding a motor to an electric vehicle rather than adding an electric motor, generator and batteries to an ICE vehicle.
Formula 1 hybrids do save fuel compared to the previous non-hybrids. The go faster with less fuel used.


Your idea for a gas engine and generator charging up batteries was how the first Hybrid was designed. That was in the late 1,800's! (Google Lohner Porsche.)

In modern times Chevy had/has an electric with a :"range extender" which is the same basic idea. (I think is was/is the Chevy Volt or bolt.)

..Tom
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,386 Posts
It seems apparent that the manufacturers cannot produce a vehicle equivalent to an ICE vehicle for the same price as an ICE vehicle. Otherwise we would buy them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
272812
:rolleyes:

plural noun: externalities
ECONOMICS
a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved,
According to a new report from the American Lung Association of California, cars are responsible for $37 billion in health and climate costs each year.

cleantechnica.com › 2019/09/20 › tesla-model-3-is-1-b...
Sep 20, 2019 - In Norway, the Model 3 is king of the hill — king of all hills. It is the best selling vehicle on the Norwegian market, by a large margin.
56% of Norway's new cars had a plug in 2019, Tesla Model 3 overall best-seller - Electrek
Jan 3, 2020 - 42% of Norway's car sales were pure battery electric, and almost 14% were plug- in hybrid. Tesla Model 3 was the best-selling car, with 11% of the market.
People without a propensity for burying their head and where legislation takes externality costs into consideration.....are buying.

Now if Aus put in the same 85% tax on a new ICE vehicle that Copenhagen does ...reflecting the cost to society .....the current cost of EV looks downright cheap....which many have figured out.
Count in the many savings in fuel, maintenance and running them even cheaper. An issue remaining to be solved is airconditioning efficiency.

www.forbes.com › sites › mikescott › 2019/06/10 › ele...

Jun 10, 2019 - electrics will take up 57% of the global passenger car sales by 2040, with ... implications not just for the automotive sector but also oil and gas companies and metals ... This will make electric cars cheaper than internal combustion engine ( ICE) ... in electric cars, accounting for 48% of all passenger EVs sold in 2025 and 26% ..
do keep up ....sand makes for cloudy eyesight. ☕
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
It seems apparent that the manufacturers cannot produce a vehicle equivalent to an ICE vehicle for the same price as an ICE vehicle. Otherwise we would buy them.
Otherwise more people would buy them. Trawl this and any other bike forum and you'll find people in every electric vehicle thread that straight up say they won't buy an electric because it doesn't make "vroom vroom" noises. Some will even make spurious claims about them being more dangerous because they can't hear them on the road. Why is that spurious? Because they couldn't hear a modern ICE vehicle through their earplugs, helmet, and wind noise, or sound insulated car and shitty music, anyway.
Then there's the issue of economies of scale. Simply put, the more you make of something the less it costs to make it. Electric vehicles are no different. As more people buy them, they will (and have) drop in price. ICE vehicles were no different.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,386 Posts
Some seem to rail very quickly when hearing something with which they disagree.
The fact remains that the Volt has been withdrawn from the market. You say that it is because people are dumb and bigoted, and have their head buried in the sand, however Holden Australia sold 246 units total over 2011-15.
For AU$59,990.
A comparable ICE vehicle is around $40,000 cheaper.

"The Corolla Ascent Sport starts off at $23,335, while the range-topping, Corolla ZR TWO TONE OPTION (HYBRID) is priced at $34,085." Now that is getting closer to becoming competitive.

BTW You can tell blind ideological zeal by the way in which people belittle or attack anyone with an opposing view.
Perhaps you should read the rules. The Rules
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,796 Posts
Best keep in mind that when the Volt was introduced it was listed here at $59,990 which is $40,000+ more expensive than any ICE equivalent.
You can buy a LOT of fuel for that many dollars, and that is surely the reason why they were not snapped up.
A great invention is only great when it can compete on the market. If you could have sold the Volt for $15-20,000 they would have been a runaway sales success.
Baby boomers have snapped up computers, digital cameras, the internet, mobile phones and solar panels but not electric and hybrid cars. Why not? Because there is a far more economical equivalent.
It seems apparent that the manufacturers cannot produce a vehicle equivalent to an ICE vehicle for the same price as an ICE vehicle. Otherwise we would buy them.
Sigh...you are still arguing the same invalid point, namely that because EV's are not a complete and total cost effective replacement for IC vehicles, they are worthless. You also seem to be arguing against points no one is making.

A few points:

1) EV's do make sense, at their current prices, for a lot of people. Tesla alone sold about 350,000 last year. Yes, that's a small percentage compared to ICVs, but what was it 10 years ago? EV's are showing solid sales growth.As technology improves, that subset is going to get bigger. How fast? I don't know (and I'm not as optimistic as some people) but it will improve.

2) EV's might not ever completely replace ICVs for all use cases, and that's fine. Doesn't invalidate the cases where they are the best solution.

3) "Cost effective" is not the same as initial purchase price. EV's cost less to operate. Lower fuel cost/distance travelled, less ongoing maintenance.

4) Couple of issues with your technology adoption analogies. First, most of those are based on microprocessors or related technologies, and those have advanced very rapidly, perhaps faster than any other major technology in the history of mankind. Also, the adoption rates on those weren't as fast as you're implying. Personal computers were commercially available in the late 70's, but it really wasn't until the World Wide Web was invented 20 years later that computers became ubiquitous in people's homes. Digital cameras, same time lag. Cell phones took about 15 years from initial availability to widespread adoption. Mobile phones of course were available long before that, but based on different technology and very expensive.
Solar panels actually refute your argument, they have been around a very long time, and adoption rates are still slow.

Finally, hybrids are very cost competitive right now. Most of the Prius owners I know are engineers, accounts and actuaries. People who ran the numbers and concluded that a Prius had the lowest total ownership cost of any vehicle that fit their needs. Not a leftie, tree-hugger group at all, and in some cases very much the opposite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Best keep in mind that when the Volt was introduced it was listed here at $59,990 which is $40,000+ more expensive than any ICE equivalent.
You can buy a LOT of fuel for that many dollars, and that is surely the reason why they were not snapped up.
A great invention is only great when it can compete on the market. If you could have sold the Volt for $15-20,000 they would have been a runaway sales success.
Baby boomers have snapped up computers, digital cameras, the internet, mobile phones and solar panels but not electric and hybrid cars. Why not? Because there is a far more economical equivalent.
Boomers did NOT "snap up" computers. That's garbage. Until recently personal computers were hideously expensive and the domain of younger people. The same goes for EVERY other example you offer. Boomers universally scoffed at every new technology, complaining they were too expensive, didn't perform as well as the technologies they have since replaced, or were "too complicated". Boomers on the whole are STILL afraid of solar panels and are the main group of climate (and general) science deniers in the population. ALL of those technologies started out VERY expensive and have only gotten cheaper because of increases in production which also produced massive increases in further development.
The Apple II personal computer hit the market at over $3000AUD in the '80s. Adjusted for inflation that's about TEN GRAND for something that Boomers saw as a rich kid's toy that would never do anything but play silly games.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,386 Posts
My first computer had twin 5 1/4" discs and a dot matrix printer. Then I bought a 386 DX2 in the early 1990's so I guess that I am not your average baby boomer.
When I was a retailer I worked out that 25% of my customers were shop loyal and 75% were price loyal. Any business that is not price competitive within its industry will have difficulty finding customers.
Also you both address the same issue - that new technology is ALWAYS expensive and ALWAYS subject to rapid advances in ability and reliability. That is a very good reason to let others be the laboratory animals.
I see electric cars facing the same rapid development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Basically as others have said you are always in your peak torque zone. You never have to compromise cruising RPM vs. Available power to accelerate.
Useful when riding hard on really twisty roads when normally you would be constantly shifting to stay on the power. Also useful on trails or even more so a two stroke on trails where the clutch is constantly being used to maintain the engine in the powerband and torque range you need for the terrain.

It's the next step from all the adventure bikes that are coming out with clutchless shifting now. At first I thought it wasn't that valuable, then I realized you can be hammering a hillclimb and just shift without having a drop in power if you mess up the clutch.

In some ways it's like ABS, decreases required rider skill, but makes riding more accessible and safer.
You do know Van that the torque isn't endless right? yes the produce max torque is at idle but the faster they spin the less power they generate. A tesla is a rocket ship off the line. Not so much once you get going.

In fact on the hybrid supercars, they often disconnect the electric motors at very high speed because they contribute nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
You do know Van that the torque isn't endless right? yes the produce max torque is at idle but the faster they spin the less power they generate. A tesla is a rocket ship off the line. Not so much once you get going.

In fact on the hybrid supercars, they often disconnect the electric motors at very high speed because they contribute nothing.
Not exactly.
Locked rotor torque is massive, but it's not necessarily the most torque an electric motor produces. Actual peak torque varies with motor design and can be greater in the middle of the tested rev range, or even at 80% of maximum design rpm, than at zero. In the real world the answer is, "it depends". The same goes for power output. Power output is a function of the torque and rotor speed, it's not independent of either. That's the same as an ICE. Once you get past the 'knee' in the torque curve that's about it. With an ICE you go for another gear, with a fixed drive you're done. You can move where the knee is by varying the input frequency of the supplied power as well as the supply voltage. Of course ICEs drop off in torque production as well when you get past their peak rpm, often quite sharply.
The hybrid supercars you mention use their electric motors as boosters and for economy, not peak performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
You do know Van that the torque isn't endless right? yes the produce max torque is at idle but the faster they spin the less power they generate. A tesla is a rocket ship off the line. Not so much once you get going.

In fact on the hybrid supercars, they often disconnect the electric motors at very high speed because they contribute nothing.
Yes, of course, but at the times you need torque, like trails, passing cars, generally times when you would normally need to downshift, you are not in the wound out, super low torque zone of the motor. Unless you are riding a bike that isn't meant for the application. Riding a bike with an appropriately sized motor isn't reserved for electric bikes, some 90cc machines can comfortably ride at highway speeds but could never pass a transport truck safely. Most modern sport bikes have 100+ horsepower. If someone put a 100hp electric motor out there and I have no doubt it would out perform the internal combustion motor in every way until the battery dies. Which is obviously the biggest drawback to pure electric vehicles in North America.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Not exactly.
Locked rotor torque is massive, but it's not necessarily the most torque an electric motor produces. Actual peak torque varies with motor design and can be greater in the middle of the tested rev range, or even at 80% of maximum design rpm, than at zero. In the real world the answer is, "it depends". The same goes for power output. Power output is a function of the torque and rotor speed, it's not independent of either. That's the same as an ICE. Once you get past the 'knee' in the torque curve that's about it. With an ICE you go for another gear, with a fixed drive you're done. You can move where the knee is by varying the input frequency of the supplied power as well as the supply voltage. Of course ICEs drop off in torque production as well when you get past their peak rpm, often quite sharply.
The hybrid supercars you mention use their electric motors as boosters and for economy, not peak performance.
Hybrid supercars do not use their electric motors for fuel economy. Electric motor power tapers off as revs increase. They make maximum torque at 0 rpm. It stays steady for quite some time and then drops off. ICEs make zero torque at zero rpm and climb to a peak. Essentially, at zero mph and low mph, an electric car is as powerful as it will get. An ICE car, meanwhile, builds speed — up to a limit — the faster the engine revs. Its a fundamental difference. High performance electric vehicles really wow off the line. They are, in real life driving, less impressive as speeds become elevated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Yes, of course, but at the times you need torque, like trails, passing cars, generally times when you would normally need to downshift, you are not in the wound out, super low torque zone of the motor. Unless you are riding a bike that isn't meant for the application. Riding a bike with an appropriately sized motor isn't reserved for electric bikes, some 90cc machines can comfortably ride at highway speeds but could never pass a transport truck safely. Most modern sport bikes have 100+ horsepower. If someone put a 100hp electric motor out there and I have no doubt it would out perform the internal combustion motor in every way until the battery dies. Which is obviously the biggest drawback to pure electric vehicles in North America.
No it would outperform at slow speeds. It would underperform at high speeds. By the way, did you know that the fastest electric race motorcycles — Moto E — are about 1.5 seconds slower than Moto1 bikes — with 250-cc singles — on the same tracks.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,391 Posts
No it would outperform at slow speeds. It would underperform at high speeds.
...
Subjectively the Porsche Taycan Turbo fees like it has the same instant acceleration at 75mph / 120 kph as it does from a standing start. Even if acceleration at 75 mph is less than from a standing start I can't see anyone saying it is underperforming. A client/friend who has a 918 Spyder, GT2 RS, GT3Rs etc, had an Indy Car team and raced in the Indy cars tells me the Taycan Turbo S feels the same at 120 MPH as when it starts. I can't speak from experience on that one (yet )

..Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Sigh...you are still arguing the same invalid point, namely that because EV's are not a complete and total cost effective replacement for IC vehicles, they are worthless. You also seem to be arguing against points no one is making.

A few points:

1) EV's do make sense, at their current prices, for a lot of people. Tesla alone sold about 350,000 last year. Yes, that's a small percentage compared to ICVs, but what was it 10 years ago? EV's are showing solid sales growth.As technology improves, that subset is going to get bigger. How fast? I don't know (and I'm not as optimistic as some people) but it will improve.

2) EV's might not ever completely replace ICVs for all use cases, and that's fine. Doesn't invalidate the cases where they are the best solution.

3) "Cost effective" is not the same as initial purchase price. EV's cost less to operate. Lower fuel cost/distance travelled, less ongoing maintenance.

4) Couple of issues with your technology adoption analogies. First, most of those are based on microprocessors or related technologies, and those have advanced very rapidly, perhaps faster than any other major technology in the history of mankind. Also, the adoption rates on those weren't as fast as you're implying. Personal computers were commercially available in the late 70's, but it really wasn't until the World Wide Web was invented 20 years later that computers became ubiquitous in people's homes. Digital cameras, same time lag. Cell phones took about 15 years from initial availability to widespread adoption. Mobile phones of course were available long before that, but based on different technology and very expensive.
Solar panels actually refute your argument, they have been around a very long time, and adoption rates are still slow.

Finally, hybrids are very cost competitive right now. Most of the Prius owners I know are engineers, accounts and actuaries. People who ran the numbers and concluded that a Prius had the lowest total ownership cost of any vehicle that fit their needs. Not a leftie, tree-hugger group at all, and in some cases very much the opposite.
1) Tesla seems 350,000 units a year for the same reason that people pay huge dollars for designer jeans: they're trendy. Musk could offer to sell flamer throwers — Oops he did that — and the cult would buy them.
2) True. BEVs are an ideal second car for any two car family. EVs are specifically superior in urban use. They are notably inferior in intra-urban use.
3) Two to three percent of the population buys car based on their total cost of ownership. The rest base their decision solely on purchase price. The long term ownership — i.e. that you will recoup some of the price premium you pay because of cheaper refuelling costs — is one of the biggest boondoggles in the auto business. it is meaningless to more than 95 per cent of the buying public.
4) Electrification — by that I mean hybrids and EVs — has had 20 years of unprecedented media hype and subvention of their purchase price and yet, even in the richest country in the world, they still have less than 5 per cent of the market. Take Tesla (for EVs) and Toyota (for hybrids) out of the picture, and electrification has been an absolute and utter failure for all other manufacturers. Nissan, the next best in the EV segment is at one tenth the sales they thought they'd have achieved by now when they first introduced the Leaf.
5) Some merit to this statement about Priuses. But in fact, I'd posit that because of that rational reasons for buying them, less people are considering them and all the emotional money is now going to Tesla. Certainly, Toyota is working very hard at keeping the hybrid thing relevant.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
Wrong on so counts and of course Brockie would love it/
Norway is a very rich country and the uptake on EVs is very strong.

The US is an outlier due to ridiculously low subsidized fuel and a outsized cadre of climate deniers in the pocket of fossil fuel barons fighting change tooth and nail. California and a few other states being notable exceptions. Using the US for any sort of assessment of EVs is ridiculous.

The automotive companies know what it coming and adjusting accordingly. But of course head in the sand is the order of the day for some. ☕
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Wrong on so counts and of course Brockie would love it/
Norway is a very rich country and the uptake on EVs is very strong.

The US is an outlier due to ridiculously low subsidized fuel and a outsized cadre of climate deniers in the pocket of fossil fuel barons fighting change tooth and nail. California and a few other states being notable exceptions. Using the US for any sort of assessment of EVs is ridiculous.

The automotive companies know what it coming and adjusting accordingly. But of course head in the sand is the order of the day for some. ☕
Norway subsidizes EVs to the tune of 60 percent of their MSRP. Or more accurately forgives taxes of 60 percent that ICE cars pay. And all those subsidies are paid for by oil exports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Subjectively the Porsche Taycan Turbo fees like it has the same instant acceleration at 75mph / 120 kph as it does from a standing start. Even if acceleration at 75 mph is less than from a standing start I can't see anyone saying it is underperforming. A client/friend who has a 918 Spyder, GT2 RS, GT3Rs etc, had an Indy Car team and raced in the Indy cars tells me the Taycan Turbo S feels the same at 120 MPH as when it starts. I can't speak from experience on that one (yet )

..Tom
Sorry Tom, I have driven all those cars. It does not accelerate as hard anywhere near as hard as the 918 at high speed.
 
61 - 80 of 90 Posts
Top