3 ms·
The efficiency is undeniable, but it couldn't make up for the awful battery technology and absurd drag coefficient of a garden-shed-on-wheels car from the 1910s
by theodric 3y ago
The efficiency is undeniable, but it couldn't make up for the awful battery technology and absurd drag coefficient of a garden-shed-on-wheels car from the 1910s. Streamliners and aerodynamics matured a little later.
It's a pity we didn't go for Otto-electric hybrid drive cars like the EMD locomotives that have been running since before I was a going concern. The genset runs at its optimal RPM for power delivery and fuel consumption, with rapid refuelling and the massive range benefits of liquid fuel while the electric motors deliver a wall of torque and minimal driveline losses all the time. Dump it into a battery (or a flywheel KERS, whynot) to smooth out the peaks and valleys if you're feeling fancy. I am nearly certain that we had all that tech in 1912 - it's completely analog and self-regulating! - but it probably didn't pay for itself back in the days before they'd invented things like the environment and non-unlimited supplies of crude. Bummer.
I still want to build an EMD lawnmower.
- actionfromafar 3y agoStreamlined isn’t a concern below 30 mph or so.
- theodric 3y agoAnd 30mph is fine if you're not going very far, but that's not what people wanted, and their wants dictated what technology succeeded at the time. Even a Model T could do about 50 MPH, not that you'd want to, and not that you'd be able to stop in time if anything bad happened, but it did it and delivered 20 MPG in the 1910s.
- jacquesm 3y agoYes, it's all in the batteries. But GP suggested it was in particular the last couple of mW advanced electronics squeezed from the batteries that made the difference and I really don't think that mattered at all.