3 ms·

Also if you wanted to travel a longer distance, you just threw a couple cans of fuel in the back. Neither electricity nor fuel stations were abundant, but exten

Also if you wanted to travel a longer distance, you just threw a couple cans of fuel in the back. Neither electricity nor fuel stations were abundant, but extending the range using gas was dead nuts simple.

berkes 3y ago
It makes the assumption that in early 1900 people wanted or needed to travel far. Did they? Even today, most travels are under 100km, often averaging around <60km a day for commutes and less for non commutes. Would that have been different then? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that back then, when the car was replacing horse drawn carriers, on a very rudimentary infrastructure (no tarmac, no paved roads outside of City centers) it was even less.
- toast0 3y ago
  It's not only about traveling long distances. It's about traveling short distances many times without refueling. And about recovering from using your fuel. It's easier to walk (or hitchhike) to a fueling station and carry a gallon or 5 of fuel back to your vehicle than it is to carry back a similar amount of electric charge. So you've got to move the vehicle somewhere it can charge --- not too hard today, electricity is near omnipresent and highly standardized in the developed world and mobile generators are common; but in the early 1900s, not so much. I imagine few people were regularly using personal vehicles for commuting at the dawn of cars, but cars and trucks are immensely useful to move goods. Rapid point to point transport of goods for routes beyond navagable waters and the rail network opens up a lot of opportunity for trade and doing business in more of the country. Note that cars can work with minimal infrastructure --- pavement is nice, but not required, although modern cars might not like it very much.
  - datameta 3y ago
    General agreement, but I must say the difficulty of travel without roads using thin solid rubber wheels and rudimentary suspension was rather rough, regardless of engine tech.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    > It's easier to walk (or hitchhike) to a fueling station and carry a gallon or 5 of fuel back to your vehicle than it is to carry back a similar amount of electric charge. That seems more like post facto justification than an original design consideration. Early cars were meant to be easily fixed, though. And that was likely a design consideration. Before cars were fuel-injected and full of computers there were "shade tree mechanics" everywhere. Of course "easy to fix" is maybe just a proxy for "unreliable." Kind of like software . . . > cars and trucks are immensely useful to move goods So are wagons pulled by draft animals. In fact, those wagons are much more reliable before roads were built to enable the automobile. Probably why there was a reliance on them for several generations after the country was crisscrossed with rail. > pavement is nice, but not required Pavement as we think of it was designed for cars, not vice-versa. The Appian way has lasted for thousands of years, but that's not much like how our streets and highways are built. https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-types-and-history/pavement-history/ https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-type...
    - heavenlyblue 3y ago
      > So are wagons pulled by draft animals. In fact, those wagons are much more reliable before roads were built to enable the automobile. Probably why there was a reliance on them for several generations after the country was crisscrossed with rail. define reliable? Of course there was reliance on them, rail doesn't go all the way to your back garden
- hugh-avherald 3y ago
  Everyday commuters? Perhaps not. But a couple of years after this photo there was a major increase in demand for vehicles with extended range.
  - berkes 3y ago
    What drove that demand? Supply maybe? At that time, fast long distance travel was there: trains. So why was personal, fast, long distance travel wanted. And was it really fast (faster than a horse?)

berkes 3y ago

It makes the assumption that in early 1900 people wanted or needed to travel far. Did they? Even today, most travels are under 100km, often averaging around <60km a day for commutes and less for non commutes. Would that have been different then? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that back then, when the car was replacing horse drawn carriers, on a very rudimentary infrastructure (no tarmac, no paved roads outside of City centers) it was even less.

toast0 3y ago
It's not only about traveling long distances. It's about traveling short distances many times without refueling. And about recovering from using your fuel. It's easier to walk (or hitchhike) to a fueling station and carry a gallon or 5 of fuel back to your vehicle than it is to carry back a similar amount of electric charge. So you've got to move the vehicle somewhere it can charge --- not too hard today, electricity is near omnipresent and highly standardized in the developed world and mobile generators are common; but in the early 1900s, not so much. I imagine few people were regularly using personal vehicles for commuting at the dawn of cars, but cars and trucks are immensely useful to move goods. Rapid point to point transport of goods for routes beyond navagable waters and the rail network opens up a lot of opportunity for trade and doing business in more of the country. Note that cars can work with minimal infrastructure --- pavement is nice, but not required, although modern cars might not like it very much.
- datameta 3y ago
  General agreement, but I must say the difficulty of travel without roads using thin solid rubber wheels and rudimentary suspension was rather rough, regardless of engine tech.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > It's easier to walk (or hitchhike) to a fueling station and carry a gallon or 5 of fuel back to your vehicle than it is to carry back a similar amount of electric charge. That seems more like post facto justification than an original design consideration. Early cars were meant to be easily fixed, though. And that was likely a design consideration. Before cars were fuel-injected and full of computers there were "shade tree mechanics" everywhere. Of course "easy to fix" is maybe just a proxy for "unreliable." Kind of like software . . . > cars and trucks are immensely useful to move goods So are wagons pulled by draft animals. In fact, those wagons are much more reliable before roads were built to enable the automobile. Probably why there was a reliance on them for several generations after the country was crisscrossed with rail. > pavement is nice, but not required Pavement as we think of it was designed for cars, not vice-versa. The Appian way has lasted for thousands of years, but that's not much like how our streets and highways are built. https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-types-and-history/pavement-history/ https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-type...
  - heavenlyblue 3y ago
    > So are wagons pulled by draft animals. In fact, those wagons are much more reliable before roads were built to enable the automobile. Probably why there was a reliance on them for several generations after the country was crisscrossed with rail. define reliable? Of course there was reliance on them, rail doesn't go all the way to your back garden
hugh-avherald 3y ago
Everyday commuters? Perhaps not. But a couple of years after this photo there was a major increase in demand for vehicles with extended range.
- berkes 3y ago
  What drove that demand? Supply maybe? At that time, fast long distance travel was there: trains. So why was personal, fast, long distance travel wanted. And was it really fast (faster than a horse?)