8 ms·

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 en

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...

Tade0 7y ago
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.
- emilecantin 7y ago
  I've done a roadtrip from Montreal to Atlanta in a Model S, back in 2015. I've found that by the time the battery runs low, you're due for a break anyway, so it doesn't really change the way you travel that much.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  1600 round mile trip, give or take. Georgia to Western Ohio then across to Eastern Pennsylvania, relatives in Eastern to North Eastern Ohio but that is an EV desert. I did this within weeks of buying a Model 3 LR. Added about ninety minutes to the 600 mile drive. Three stops. I did ignore the Navigation charge time so I could avoid the SC inside of Cincinnati. If you follow the suggestions of the car and are willing to stop more the charge times are lower. However as I was hoping 190 to 210 at a time and driving the standard speed of I75 at the time I tended to push the charge to 80% or more. Now the reason there is ninety minutes is you need to factor in charging at your destination. Seeing that my relatives had nothing more than standard 120 I was in effect anchored to my closest SC which was thirty six miles away. So at that point I charged to 95% which took longer. They don't live in a small Ohio town but there were only two good chargers, one at Nissan and one at the Ford dealer. Neither is good for a true long range car. After that trip I realized there really is no point in carrying the mobile charge cable. I simply found hotels with nearby SC setups. Do not rely on destination charging as you are just as likely to find "guests" who act as if they own it and hotels are not keen on stepping in. There are times I swear fellow EV drivers are the most entitled pricks I have ever met.
- closeparen 7y ago
  One hour per stop, maybe. It’s 75 minutes to fully charge the original version, so likely a bit more for the long range.
  - llukas 7y ago
    When people stop saying X minutes to fully charge? This is not how it works in reality. Last 5-10% is essentially trickle charge so it is better to skip it and charge more often but faster. Just compare average charging power between 20-80% part of the curve and 80%-100%. It is ~4-6x difference depending on supercharger type: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/08/supercharger-v3-shocking-power-smart-strategy-by-tesla-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/08/supercharger-v3-shockin...
    - closeparen 7y ago
      Because parent referred to using almost the entire range (350 mi out of 370 is 95% assuming no margin for error).
      - llukas 7y ago
        He mentioned all his favorite spots had superchargers, not that those only spots with superchargers along his way.
      - Tade0 7y ago
        I could easily halve that longest hop and a few others, because that's how many superchargers are along the way. Edit: I checked and the longest, indivisible hop in my route is 180 miles.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Agree. The posters talking about 500 mile journeys without a single stop strike me as being frankly bonkers. Yeah, you can do it. Unless your concentration is fundamentally different to most human beings, you shouldn't sit in a car for 8 hours straight without a break. On the Model S, on an infinite distance journey, supercharging increases journey time by about 20-30% maximum over driving all the way without a break (takes about 20 mins to charge 120 miles or 20-60%). Spending 12-13 hours to do a 10 hour drive is fairly normal for me even in an ICE car unless you want to like, eat sandwiches at the wheel and piss into a bottle whilst driving.
- avar 7y ago
  Where do you live where your favorite spots happen to have superchargers? I've looked into buying a Tesla and part of the reason I dismissed it is because here in Western Europe the supercharger stations are all in some bleak industrial estate by the highway usually next to a McDonalds or 1-2 restaurants. I recently did a 1200 km drive between the Netherlands and Denmark & back. Looking at a map there's a supercharger every 100 km or so around that route, but having looked at some road trip videos on YouTube from Tesla owners their long distance trip becomes all about planning around the charging times. I.e. I might drive for 6 hours with brief 3-4 brief 5-10 minute stops along the way, and maybe have lunch at some nice restaurant in a forest by the highway. Also, if you have young kids you really appreciate being able to loosely plan stops. I.e. "kids are asleep, let's keep driving" and "they just woke up, let's stop in the next 5 minutes for lunch". Changing that sort of trip to introduce the variable that we must stop for 40 or so minutes (for 80% charging) in specific charging stations along the way might work for some, but I can't see how to plan around it without a lot of hassle. I'm not going to seriously consider an electric car unless there's something like Tesla's proposed battery swap where "refueling" takes less than 5 minutes.
wmf 7y ago
Nuclear is denser than gasoline but we don't run cars on it. There's a lot more to the discussion than the best technology.
- lgleason 7y ago
  There are other issues with nuclear that made it not the best technology. https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/nuclear-powered-atomic-age-classic-cars/ https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/nuclear-powered-atomic-a... Like I said before. I am a big fan of electrics. Currently drive a Volt and plan on getting a Tesla eventually, but am not blind to it's faults. If we were talking about what lead to using leaded gasoline there is a different argument because that could have been avoided. Given the lower population density and the fact that in the early 1900's a large percentage of the population did not have electricity to charge the batteries.. when you factor that in with the other issues of electric cars vs ICE I can see why electric cars did not take hold at that time.
- jerrysievert 7y ago
  not for lack of trying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon but there are a lot of reasons why it never made it into production.
  - syockit 7y ago
    Interesting that the concept is based on steam engine. Would there be a way to recondense the steam for reuse, or did they plan to just release all of them? Then they would need to run on water, much like the steam locomotives of the past.
    - jerrysievert 7y ago
      given that the "fuel" was set to be replaced every 5,000 miles, i'm going to guess that it was going to be reused, but likely the need for weapons grade plutonium and the amount of shielding required made it not feasible to even think that far, so no idea what the end product would have entailed.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
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 improvements...
- vvanders 7y ago
  I've had the same thought about rotary motors, they're interesting beasts and I wonder what we'd see if they had the same R&D investment like we saw in piston engines. Alas I think that ship has sailed, aside from energy density the modern electric VFD wins along a whole range of design constraints(torque, size, latency/traction response, efficiency, etc).
  - chmielewski 7y ago
    We have seen a significant long-term R&D investment but all the nice rotary engines are in prop planes. Edit: since you mention a ship, some use large opposed-pistol Diesel engines (two oppositely meeting pistons around the combustion chamber per cylinder which also allows the cylinder to be much wider)... don’t see these in either planes or cars... Hydrogen power?—- Hydrogen is difficult to keep contained because it escapes through anything over time unless we put heavy ceramic tanks in our cars.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      It's hard to tell, but op may be talking about Wankel rotary motors.
    - AWildC182 7y ago
      Unless you're talking about turboprops (jet engines with a gearbox) there really aren't any wankel engines in aircraft. Just a few experimental/EAB conversions out there.
    - 7y ago
soperj 7y ago
Given that they were both range limited at the time, it was more likely the time to fill that had an impact.

Tade0 7y ago

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.

emilecantin 7y ago
I've done a roadtrip from Montreal to Atlanta in a Model S, back in 2015. I've found that by the time the battery runs low, you're due for a break anyway, so it doesn't really change the way you travel that much.
Shivetya 7y ago
1600 round mile trip, give or take. Georgia to Western Ohio then across to Eastern Pennsylvania, relatives in Eastern to North Eastern Ohio but that is an EV desert. I did this within weeks of buying a Model 3 LR. Added about ninety minutes to the 600 mile drive. Three stops. I did ignore the Navigation charge time so I could avoid the SC inside of Cincinnati. If you follow the suggestions of the car and are willing to stop more the charge times are lower. However as I was hoping 190 to 210 at a time and driving the standard speed of I75 at the time I tended to push the charge to 80% or more. Now the reason there is ninety minutes is you need to factor in charging at your destination. Seeing that my relatives had nothing more than standard 120 I was in effect anchored to my closest SC which was thirty six miles away. So at that point I charged to 95% which took longer. They don't live in a small Ohio town but there were only two good chargers, one at Nissan and one at the Ford dealer. Neither is good for a true long range car. After that trip I realized there really is no point in carrying the mobile charge cable. I simply found hotels with nearby SC setups. Do not rely on destination charging as you are just as likely to find "guests" who act as if they own it and hotels are not keen on stepping in. There are times I swear fellow EV drivers are the most entitled pricks I have ever met.
closeparen 7y ago
One hour per stop, maybe. It’s 75 minutes to fully charge the original version, so likely a bit more for the long range.
- llukas 7y ago
  When people stop saying X minutes to fully charge? This is not how it works in reality. Last 5-10% is essentially trickle charge so it is better to skip it and charge more often but faster. Just compare average charging power between 20-80% part of the curve and 80%-100%. It is ~4-6x difference depending on supercharger type: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/08/supercharger-v3-shocking-power-smart-strategy-by-tesla-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/08/supercharger-v3-shockin...
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Because parent referred to using almost the entire range (350 mi out of 370 is 95% assuming no margin for error).
    - llukas 7y ago
      He mentioned all his favorite spots had superchargers, not that those only spots with superchargers along his way.
    - Tade0 7y ago
      I could easily halve that longest hop and a few others, because that's how many superchargers are along the way. Edit: I checked and the longest, indivisible hop in my route is 180 miles.
esotericn 7y ago
Agree. The posters talking about 500 mile journeys without a single stop strike me as being frankly bonkers. Yeah, you can do it. Unless your concentration is fundamentally different to most human beings, you shouldn't sit in a car for 8 hours straight without a break. On the Model S, on an infinite distance journey, supercharging increases journey time by about 20-30% maximum over driving all the way without a break (takes about 20 mins to charge 120 miles or 20-60%). Spending 12-13 hours to do a 10 hour drive is fairly normal for me even in an ICE car unless you want to like, eat sandwiches at the wheel and piss into a bottle whilst driving.
avar 7y ago
Where do you live where your favorite spots happen to have superchargers? I've looked into buying a Tesla and part of the reason I dismissed it is because here in Western Europe the supercharger stations are all in some bleak industrial estate by the highway usually next to a McDonalds or 1-2 restaurants. I recently did a 1200 km drive between the Netherlands and Denmark & back. Looking at a map there's a supercharger every 100 km or so around that route, but having looked at some road trip videos on YouTube from Tesla owners their long distance trip becomes all about planning around the charging times. I.e. I might drive for 6 hours with brief 3-4 brief 5-10 minute stops along the way, and maybe have lunch at some nice restaurant in a forest by the highway. Also, if you have young kids you really appreciate being able to loosely plan stops. I.e. "kids are asleep, let's keep driving" and "they just woke up, let's stop in the next 5 minutes for lunch". Changing that sort of trip to introduce the variable that we must stop for 40 or so minutes (for 80% charging) in specific charging stations along the way might work for some, but I can't see how to plan around it without a lot of hassle. I'm not going to seriously consider an electric car unless there's something like Tesla's proposed battery swap where "refueling" takes less than 5 minutes.

wmf 7y ago

Nuclear is denser than gasoline but we don't run cars on it. There's a lot more to the discussion than the best technology.

lgleason 7y ago
There are other issues with nuclear that made it not the best technology. https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/nuclear-powered-atomic-age-classic-cars/ https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/nuclear-powered-atomic-a... Like I said before. I am a big fan of electrics. Currently drive a Volt and plan on getting a Tesla eventually, but am not blind to it's faults. If we were talking about what lead to using leaded gasoline there is a different argument because that could have been avoided. Given the lower population density and the fact that in the early 1900's a large percentage of the population did not have electricity to charge the batteries.. when you factor that in with the other issues of electric cars vs ICE I can see why electric cars did not take hold at that time.
jerrysievert 7y ago
not for lack of trying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon but there are a lot of reasons why it never made it into production.
- syockit 7y ago
  Interesting that the concept is based on steam engine. Would there be a way to recondense the steam for reuse, or did they plan to just release all of them? Then they would need to run on water, much like the steam locomotives of the past.
  - jerrysievert 7y ago
    given that the "fuel" was set to be replaced every 5,000 miles, i'm going to guess that it was going to be reused, but likely the need for weapons grade plutonium and the amount of shielding required made it not feasible to even think that far, so no idea what the end product would have entailed.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

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 improvements...

vvanders 7y ago
I've had the same thought about rotary motors, they're interesting beasts and I wonder what we'd see if they had the same R&D investment like we saw in piston engines. Alas I think that ship has sailed, aside from energy density the modern electric VFD wins along a whole range of design constraints(torque, size, latency/traction response, efficiency, etc).
- chmielewski 7y ago
  We have seen a significant long-term R&D investment but all the nice rotary engines are in prop planes. Edit: since you mention a ship, some use large opposed-pistol Diesel engines (two oppositely meeting pistons around the combustion chamber per cylinder which also allows the cylinder to be much wider)... don’t see these in either planes or cars... Hydrogen power?—- Hydrogen is difficult to keep contained because it escapes through anything over time unless we put heavy ceramic tanks in our cars.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    It's hard to tell, but op may be talking about Wankel rotary motors.
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    Unless you're talking about turboprops (jet engines with a gearbox) there really aren't any wankel engines in aircraft. Just a few experimental/EAB conversions out there.
  - 7y ago

soperj 7y ago

Given that they were both range limited at the time, it was more likely the time to fill that had an impact.