Electric Speedster - the Chesil E - just launched in UK

I don't understand why people pay exorbitant premiums for electric vehicles. Nearly a hundred grand can buy a really fine toy here in the states.

I know, I know..

I'd love to have an electric conversion of some vehicles, my '57 Lambretta for one - keep the classic style but far quieter, less polluting (2stroke smoker) and less maintenance than a 64 year old 2 stroke design.

But the cost!!! Any electric conversion of a classic car (Fiat 500, Beetle, small British sportscars etc) is around £20-25k here in the UK ($27-34k). That's a LOT of dosh to spend on top of the cost of the original car - and you wouldn't convert a rotten sample, you'd want a pristine restored version - so I know of one Fiat 500 ending up a total cost of around £35,000!! Definitely only for those who have very deep pockets - at the moment. But to be honest I can't see it coming down that much over time.

Lots of companies are working on that Holy Grail, a 'universal' electric conversion kit that can be made to easily work on all types of classic cars. But we all know on this forum how tricky it is to make everything work with a fairly standard chassis, engine and plastic body! And messing with that amount of electrical power is not for weekend mechanics unskilled in electronics - who would need to be the main market if such a conversion kit was to become mass market and provide a sustainable business.

It's hard to make the math work even with the British price for petrol. But it's still cool as hell, and 200 miles' range is good enough for anything except a run at LeMans.

Here's hoping battery pack prices keep falling (along with their weight).

@edsnova posted:

It's hard to make the math work even with the British price for petrol. But it's still cool as hell, and 200 miles' range is good enough for anything except a run at LeMans.

Here's hoping battery pack prices keep falling (along with their weight).

The wife and I have done several 200+ mile daily jaunts in Little Red, just on back roads in Western Pennsylvania. We'd need the 300 mile battery to ensure we made it back to home base. 

Here's where the price/ battery pack/ range argument gets muddied - and I qualify this by limiting my viewpoint to UK distances, which are obviously far less than US - top to bottom of this country is 700miles..

So many 'average' people say they NEED a 200-300 mile range and yet if they actually analysed their driving over the last year or two, they probably only need a 200 mile range once every other month, if that. Most people need a 50 mile range because they'd do a 25 mile commute befiore recharging at work or overnight. They would utilise 100 mile range (for odd days out a bit further afield etc) and occasionally they would like to go 200 miles.

Obviously us car fanatics are somewhat a different breed, but even then, many classic vehicles don't encourage you to drive all day - realistically my Lambretta is a 10 mile range scooter, my brother's Series 1 Land Rover is a 20 mile range vehicle. Any further and it's too uncomfortable and slow - I'd then take my VFR or Volvo daily driver.

The point I trying to make is that cars could potentially be made a lot less expensive if they did not need more expensive batteries (+ everything upgraded to take the extra weight), simply to increase the range. Which would then increase uptake by the general market.

Martin, you are right. Most times my Spyder drives are less than 100 miles, most less than 60. I like to do short jaunts. In this case, electric works.

Until it doesn't. Example would be Carlisle, which is 270 miles or so. If you had a REAL 300 mile range, that could/would work. But I'd have to recharge overnight IF the hotel had the charger. Then I'd have to recharge every day for our drives. I'd be constantly worried about how much charge is left. Then charge overnight and head back home.

The problem gets compounded when you drive 700-800 miles to Nowhere, North Carolina. We stay in an old motel that is simply not going to have a charging station, nor does anywhere else near the motel. I'd have to trailer the car to and from and maybe find charging somewhere. I'd definitely have to change the base of operations.

The problem with electrics has always been cost, charging rate, and charging availability.

Electrics could and do work for commuting purposes. But for that "Red Barchetta" feeling it just doesn't, even disregarding the outrageous expense and/or inconvenience. I need the noise and smells of combustion, thank you.

Just to play the other side:

Do you "need" a car at all? Couldn't you just as well walk or ride a bike? Nobody really"needs" more than one pair of pants, or coffee, or a pretty wife, or indoor plumbing-- but we want all of these things. Most people really do know what they want, and when a third party tells us we can't have it, it rankles all of us pretty badly.

Also: I could probably get by with a Speedster with 50 miles of range, most of the time-- but by that same logic, I could probably get by without one at all. A huge part of the allure of motorcars, and why they took over the world, is the promise of unlimited mobility. Your home country may only be 700 miles tip to tip, but if you want to do nothing all day but drive from tip to tip and back-- you can. Part of what makes a totalitarian state unbearable is the restriction on the freedom of movement-- when you take away the freedom to go where you want, when you want, in the conveyance of your choice-- you take away a freedom that has defined western democracies since the 18th century (and before).

Most people start looking for a gas (petrol) station when their tank drops under 1/4 full. An EV with 100 mi of range means that the tank is never more than 1/4 full, and the driver is perpetually running on fumes (as it were)-- the difference being that filling up a conventional ICE vehicle takes 5 minutes and filling up and EV takes 5 hrs.

Big EV proponents ignore or belittle human nature's desire to keep vital and valuable things in reserve for when they might desperately need them. It's 9* F outside this morning, and I'm headed to a job that's 45 miles away. A vehicle with 100 mi of range would get me there and back, but I can guarantee you that I have zero interest in venturing out to potentially freeze to death with a 10 mi margin of error. What happens if I need parts, or have to make a detour, or just want to buy lunch?

Range anxiety has a basis in actual needs, whether they are perceived by EV proponents or not.

The engineer in me loves the simplicity and instantaneous torque of an EV, and I can see that in a 2-car family one could easily be an EV for commuter use for most folks.  However, a fun car with limited range and long charging time is an oxymoron in my view.  Either range or charging time (or both) must be resolved before I would consider one.

.

The driver of an electric car assumes life's roads have no detours.

.

.

There seems to be a much bigger buzz in Europe and the UK lately for small, city-sized electric cars than in the states. Both Honda and VW have just released cars that are a rethink of the whole range requirement. And they’re not intended for the US market.

The new cars are deliberately short on range and meant strictly for urban use. The thinking is small range means small battery which means quicker charge times and substantially lower initial cost. It also means much less weight, meaning the car will go farther on a given amount of charge.

There are also the coming laws (already here in some cities, like London) that will outlaw (or tax) any exhaust emissions at all in a city’s central district.

And the cars’ tiny size is seen as a plus in Europe, where many urban streets are narrower than our sidewalks and parking space almost doesn’t exist by US standards.

But Honda and VW understand very well that the US is not the place for such cars. No one in Montana is going to want one. And even in LA, a trip to your favorite taco stand might be 100 miles round trip (if you swing by to pick up a new yoga mat on the way home).

This forum is not likely to enthuse over a limited range vehicle, either. Our cars are already limited enough in utility. Their main function is to feed our thirst for the open road. We may be only going for coffee, but whenever we slip behind the wheel, we are Stirling Moss at the Mille Miglia and we’ve got miles to go before we sleep.

.

To put a fine point on it for @Martin's Eleven (UK): Most of the guys on here tow their cars to destinations anyway. So it's a monster truck with a trailer (because flat-towing destroys the transaxle!) So bottom line for Americans is we burn up 70 gallons of gas (or 46 diesel) dragging the electric car to the place where electric cars get driven, then burn up 70 more driving it back home to our gargantuan heated garage.

Just like with the ICE-powered cars.

See? There's no possible benefit to going electric.

And also there never will be such benefit as long as gas (aka petrol) is under $4.00 per gallon, which it likely will be until the next time some clever hedge fund dude figures out a way to rig it. Because we don't really tax fuel here—not the way you yurpeens do.

Such taxation would be considered as "tyranny" and/or "communism" by a sizable proportion of our august citizens, all of whom are heavily provisioned with firearms, both large caliber and semiautomatic.

This is also Just The Way We Like It, as it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to change in any way.

Forty-gallon gas tank and a generator on a little trailer you would hook up just for longer trips?

@wrkinprogress posted:

Forty-gallon gas tank and a generator on a little trailer you would hook up just for longer trips?

Burning fossil fuel create power for an electric car?  Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense (mind you, a significant portion of North America's electrical needs are met that way, so why change now?)

Like Sacto Mitch's comments about Stirling Moss. Also like my string back driving gloves. Every drive is a step back in time, and good therapy for the current crazy world we dwell in.

Liking all your comments, and agreeing with most. I'm not saying we should convert to electric, I was just the messenger about Westfield's attempt to create a new market. And in the UK it may well make sense, given the market for 'vehicular toys' over here.

But at some point we do have to start thinking about the process of when petrol becomes too scarce and high priced to be a fuel solution - especially with the recent explosion in fuel requirements by China as they all swap their bicycles for cars (ditto India). And in smaller countries where space is at a premium, but the vehicle numbers are very high, the pollution from engines is becoming far more noticeable.

As always, my viewpoint is from the UK, and I understand everyone has a different viewpoint and socio-economic situation, and we're all entitled to those views. Perception is everything. Petrol in the UK is currently priced quite low compared to what it was pre-pandemic.  At it's highest in 2013 it was £1.53 per litre, which is $8 per US Gallon. It's now £1.20 a litre (just over $6 /gallon).

Most car ads are sold on the premise of freedom, the open road, individuality, style, etc. If they showed the reality of being stuck in a Range Rover in city traffic (which is where most RR's are driven), moving at 5mph with fumes all around, people would still buy a Range Rover because they want a better class of car to be stuck inside, with HEPA filters to keep the smog out. In UK, cars are very much a status symbol. In France, much less so.

Our roads are far narrower in the UK, so smaller cars are more practical, especially in the country (most US visitors freak out when sitting in the left seat about 3 feet from a hedge doing 50mph down a country lane

I love my petrol burners, all the way from the '57 Lambretta to the Speedster - none of which are needed but all are wanted (and cherished). I'm aware that progress will happen - even a multiple TT winner rode an electric bike and was amazed, even though he took a while to get used to the noise (or lack of). And creating a larger market (for the average driver, not for 'enthusiasts') is a chicken and egg situation, but governments may well use a big stick too. Charging stations, more affordable cars (trade in your petrol car for a grant towards an electric car?) Charging stations will increase in number - we even have them in my local Supermarket car park now so your e-car can fast charge whilst you do your weekly shop. And new house builds are being built with charging stations for garage/drive.

Funnily enough, the largest market for hybrid cars in UK is currently large SUVs. Which are relatively high polluters. So much for saving the earth.. Methinks it's similar to those Hollywood actors buying Priuses when they initially came out.

In London, one has to pay £12.50 ($17) a day if you wish to drive your car - £100/$138 if a commercial vehicle (over 3.5tonnes). Portsmouth, where I live, is also moving to become a ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) where I will have to pay £12.50 if I want to drive any of my vehicles into town, even if only for 30 minutes (the only car that won't be charged is my wife's 2017 Fiat 500). Driving in the continent is now a major planning exercise because you need differing emission/pollution licences to drive in a number of major cities or urban areas.

However, there has been the massive drop in driving since Covid happened - far less commuting, with people working from home and no visiting friends or relatives. At the moment, with the UK under lockdown, most cars are lucky if they get used once a week to do the essential food shopping. People are finding they don't need to drive as much as before (of course I acknowledge this forum consists of people wanting to drive, not needing to).

Hell, even my wife and I are discussing getting rid of one of our two 'main' cars, because I don't really need my Volvo C30 any more - I'll ride my bike or take the Speedster. And if we go anywhere together we'll either take her Fiat, or if we absolutely need to drive 500 miles I'll hire a larger car for a day.

As and when laws drive us out of petrol engines, I for one would prefer to have a classic vehicle that has been converted to electric (or whatever is the next non-petrol mode of engine power) than a modern anonymous box car. So I would rather convert my Lambretta or Speedster to electric than stop driving it altogether. Until that time, I'll fire up the two stroke/ V4/flat four and enjoy that sound that gets us petrolheads all tingly..

Well said @Martin's Eleven (UK).  Do you have a more wieldy name we can call you by?

I'll keep buying gas. No interest in an electric vehicle...none.

Apologies, Lane. I’ve now spotted that I can change my visible username. Duly amended..
[Speedsters Anonymous] “Hello everyone, my name is Martin and I own a Speedster replica”

@edsnova posted:

And also there never will be such benefit as long as gas (aka petrol) is under $4.00 per gallon, which it likely will be until the next time some clever hedge fund dude figures out a way to rig it. Because we don't really tax fuel here—not the way you yurpeens do.

Such taxation would be considered as "tyranny" and/or "communism" by a sizable proportion of our august citizens, all of whom are heavily provisioned with firearms, both large caliber and semiautomatic.

This is also Just The Way We Like It, as it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to change in any way.

I think Ed is one of the most interesting people on this site, but we disagree regarding many, many things. One would think that I would disagree regarding the entirely of this post-- but on the highlighted portion, we do not. I disagree that $4/gal is the break point ( think it's much closer to $8/gal), but Ed is 100% right that there is almost zero benefit to an EV when fossil fuels are nearly free (and they are quite nearly free at present).

I'm the odd conservative who thinks gasoline (and diesel) should be taxed at a much greater rate than it is (Ross Perot agreed with me)-- not to drive people towards EVs, but to conserve something that we'd like to continue to use for the foreseeable future and to pay for the things that an auto-intensive infrastructure requires. Far from hating individual transportation, I love it, but believe it should pay its own way. This is one of the basic functions of a government in a free country-- to build and maintain a robust transportation system for the use of everybody. It's in our best interest for taxes to be higher so that roads and bridges can be better.

Which gets to the heart of where Ed and I disagree.

Absent a strong spiritual reason to do otherwise, people (almost universally) act in their own best interests. Regardless of all the virtue signaling, folks on the left do this all the time, as does everybody else. They may snark regarding the USA's heavily armed citizenry, but personally own a handgun-- because they perceive it to be in his own best interest. I know that Ed owns a handgun (I do not, by way of contrast), even as he makes weekly swipes regarding the heavily armed citizenry. He perceives gun ownership to be in his best interest.

We call this free will, and the very definition of tyranny is when free will is curtailed. Maoism came close (as did Stalinism) but free will cannot ever truly be eliminated, except in dystopian novels: much to the chagrin of the proponents of a centrally planned worker's paradise. Marx believed in the primacy of the state.

People mistakenly believe that a democracy cannot be tyrannical, but it is the tyranny of the masses that gave us a democratic republic (as opposed to a pure democracy). Plato understood the problems with democracy as did the founding fathers-- it's only of late that we assume it to foster everybody's desire to be self-determinate.

I support a higher gas tax because I'm one of the only conservatives I know who think we ought to conserve something as necessary and fantastic as fossil fuels. There is a finite amount of petroleum in the ground-- far more than the "science" of 20 years ago suspected (much like a lot of what passes for science, this was a guess), but the amount is finite. I'd like for my great grandchildren to be able to burn it in their own vehicles.

To circle this back to EVs-- if gas and diesel were taxed with an additional $3/gal, people would decide for themselves which technology made the most sense. It would clean up our highway system and provide funds for a real interstate passenger rail system. Higher fuel prices would probably end the (economically intelligent) practice of  flying a jet to cities 1000 mi. away, but it would be the marketplace deciding rail made more sense-- not a government fiat.

This would be far, far preferable to Washington deciding to subsidise the wealthiest man in the world (Elon Musk) with money we do not have.

I do not, in fact, own a handgun. I do appreciate Stan's critiques.

To be clear: I absolutely do believe there should continue to be a place in the world for atavistic grouches (such as myself!) who enjoy a pointless country drive in an open car with a stick shift and carburetors.

There is and must continue to be a place in this world for inefficiency.

As always, Stan, your thoughtfulness and eloquence do you credit.

Do we need any of these toys? Clearly not, but we want them. And some of us have exactly what we want, until something else comes along to change our fickle fancy.

I was just looking at the garage built by AllnuttS(Stephen) and trying to decide if I could live in it. Compare it to Burt Monro's shed in New Zealand, upscaled a bit with an actual bathroom, kitchenette, and bedroom. I'd have no reason or desire to be anywhere else.

Actually I kind of liked Tigermoth66.  I was just hoping you'd through your name in your posts until we all remembered it.  Either way works for me, and I'll through in a belated "Welcome to the Madness, Martin!"

@DannyP I loved The Worlds Fastest Indian film and Bert’s way of engineering. And whenever my wife and I dream of winning big on the national lottery, cars are usually at the top of the list, because there’s never one perfect car - you need a dozen, right? And the best way to keep all those cars will be to have a massive 12 car garage with an apartment above. That then gets you thinking about how to get into the car from the living area, so a fireman’s pole straight into the drivers seat of a Speedster seems about right.. And on and on. My wife wants a Nissan Figaro..

@edsnova posted:

I do not, in fact, own a handgun. I do appreciate Stan's critiques.

To be clear: I absolutely do believe there should continue to be a place in the world for atavistic grouches (such as myself!) who enjoy a pointless country drive in an open car with a stick shift and carburetors.

There is and must continue to be a place in this world for inefficiency.

I'm really sorry about that, Ed. Nothing grinds me quite as much as being wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

I thought I had gleaned that you did from a post you made a couple of months ago regarding heading into a certain neighborhood in Baltimore city. I must have put two and two togehter and gathered the sum was 22. Apoligies.

.. and I could not agree more with your last two sentances.

@Stan Galat surely you meant 2 + 2 = .22 ?
and @edsnova without inefficiency my life would lack meaning.

Meanwhile, my garage is currently at 1c/34f, so I’m incredibly inefficient today in terms of mechanical activity.

@Stan Galat posted:

I'm really sorry about that, Ed. Nothing grinds me quite as much as being wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

I thought I had gleaned that you did from a post you made a couple of months ago regarding heading into a certain neighborhood in Baltimore city. I must have put two and two togehter

@Martin's Eleven (UK) posted:

@Stan Galat surely you meant 2 + 2 = .22 ?
and @edsnova without inefficiency my life would lack meaning.

Meanwhile, my garage is currently at 1c/34f, so I’m incredibly inefficient today in terms of mechanical activity.

.. and I could not agree more with your last two sentances.

I would have wagered 2 + 2 = 9 or .45 if you really want to protect yourself. Lol

@Martin's Eleven (UK) posted:

… without inefficiency my life would lack meaning.

That should be the subtitle to this forum!  I know that it fits me perfectly.

@Stan Galat  As I get older whenever I see a theory that involves thousands of years I look at the suggestions apocryphally and wonder if there is something we are missing.

There are some out there who believe that we won't run out, it does seem that nature has a way of being self sufficient and cyclical.  Some have done some research in alternative ways to produce gaz, "Petroleum generation: Simulation over six years of hydrocarbon formation from Torbanite and Brown Coal in a subsiding basin.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...pii/0146638086900884

Not sure where they are at at this point, but there maybe alternatives out there that we are not aware of.  E cars, when subsidized and for those with deeper pockets may be nice but maybe we just need a few of us to think outside the box, in a crisis we put our heads together to create something new.  Normally it takes 8 years for a new drug to get to market, at this point Pfizer can claim trumpishly that they did it to a full ramp up production in 9 months, it was an outstanding result.  

Of courxe there are those who will profit along the way with any trend.  

I would simply prefer the free market to reign rather than governments force feeding the agenda.  I find it really sad that the worker, the small business owner adversely affected at this time is not being really helped out, but we can decide to do all kinds of things to push the E agenda and spend in this area and cancel oil production.

Seems totally illogical to me.

.

Well, at least most of us can agree on a need for inefficiency.

In the states, we ended up with our form of government not because it is the most efficient, but because it’s the one the greatest number could tolerate. You could argue it’s the least efficient one possible that still functions at all. We began by rebelling against a very efficient form of government that just wasn’t working out for us.

Our peculiar cars are small monuments to inefficiency. I think little kids pull at their mothers’ skirts and point at our cars as we pass because they have been raised in a world of thoroughly efficient cars. They seldom see such unabashed inefficiency.

Those kids are taught to favor efficiency, to make efficient use of their time, to lead efficient lives. But it’s not how we start out. There’s something unnatural and confining about it.

Inefficiency is essential to our happiness. It is a part of who we are. The proof is all around us. Without it, there would be no ‘Delete’ keys on our keyboards, no erasers on our pencils, no heli-coils, no touch-up paint.

We would live in a world without a single roll of duct tape.

.

This is a great thread.  As a car guy, I have been very fortunate to work in the car industry, at Volvo cars for the last 33 years.  Like Stan, I am a conservative who favors high gas taxes, gasoline is essentially free in the US.   We need to invest in our infrastructure.  

As our company moves towards electric cars it is a heavy internal battle.  Example discussion with my colleagues in Gothenburg: “we have fantastic range on our new XC40 BEV!”  “Really, how far?”  “208 miles!”  Crickets....  “Uhh, our customers are not happy with 300 miles of range, we need 400!”  “Why, who needs to drive that far?” ...    We are so far apart culturally.  I’ve been driving our BEV for three weeks now.  The acceleration is very addicting, especially 30-80mph.  My commute from Charleston to the Volvo plant is 33 miles.  I use 20% of the battery one way.  So the 208 mile range is really 150 in 50F weather with use of heated seats and steering wheel (I’m spoiled).  It’s a great second car for commuting.  But we travel to upstate SC every month or so, 250 miles away, a four hour trip.  For that we need a car that holds the kid, two dogs and stuff.   Plus the hitch to tow trailers occasionally.  For that we need gasoline.   So yes Martin, I need range.  If I had 400 miles of range I could count on, I would go for a large electric SUV.  But not at twice the cost of an equivalent ICE SUV.

You’re in Charleston?  Join us at Cars and Coffee in Towne Centre (Mount Pleasant) on Saturdays.  I’m in a black BMW 1-Series but I’ll have a Beck Super Coupe shortly - he said hopefully.

As mentioned above, when I said I need 12 cars to cover every type of driving situation, there are so many differing requirements that people look for when buying a car. And my situation changes every now and again - once I needed an estate/ station wagon (a Volvo V50) for sea kayak and mountain bike. When I sold the kayak I no longer needed the V50, so I sold that and bought an Audi convertible because I love droptops, and eventually I sold that because it was costing me £250/$350 a month in gas, and so on and on...

@Three Pedals (Chris) good to hear your thoughts, especially from a Volvo guy! Interesting that you essentially broke your requirements down into two different cars - one short range for every day commutes and general driving, and one for the monthly 500 mile round trip to SC with the family (+ trailer towing). So when you say "I need range", you technically need it once a month.. If only we could have the EV equivalent of a 10-15 gallon tank for everyday use (keeping weight and cost down) but be able to hook on the equivalent of aircraft drop tanks when we needed longer range? We could rent these from the local car dealership for occasional use rather than paying for them to be deadweight 95% of the time.

Just playing devil's advocate here.. :-)

The economics of car manufacturing (both gas and EV) figures in the equation in terms of profit for car manufacturers - the trend to larger, luxury cars maximises profits, whereas smaller no-frills cars tend to mean less profit.. But in England we have cars that are so large now they barely fit down our country roads - one only needs to compare the various VW Golfs from Mk1 to current day Mk 7 to see the difference. Of course, a lot of that is down to improved crash structures but some is having to accommodate the ever widening ar$e of the average driver (and UK is rapidly catching up the US in terms of obesity). :-) When there was rationing back in the Fifties and no-one was overweight, two adults could easily fit in a Mini. A bit more of a struggle now..

As an aside, this could be an interesting EV proposition - I can see the business sense in this idea. But again, it's at the high end limited market..

Martin,

Some housekeeping on the idiocracies of this site: unless you click "add attachments" with the little paperclip down on the lower right of the dialog box, and then click the "Insert all images and videos into post body (large size)" box in the prompt box, we can't see your picture. I'm not sure what the "Insert/edit image" does, but it doesn't (in fact) insert the image in your text.

@Three Pedals (Chris) posted:

If I had 400 miles of range I could count on, I would go for a large electric SUV.  But not at twice the cost of an equivalent ICE SUV.

Everybody thinks I'm anti-EV on principle, but I'm not. I'm anti-polyana vaporware. A "400 mile EV" would get about 150 miles of actual, real-world winter driving in at least half the country. It's 5*F outside right now, and my work truck is parked outside. Battery performance in cold weather is terrible. Hot weather too-- it's just baked in the cake.

Anyhow-- 3 days out of 4, a work-truck with 200 mi of real-world range (which would take a 400 mi battery pack) would be adequate. But there are days like yesterday, when I expected to drive about 120 mi, and drove 240. Or this morning, when I was awakened at 6:00 AM to go to a store with an emergency service call (if I'd have been plugged in, there's no way I'd have had a full charge).

Work trucks are tools, and I'd gladly use one with about 10% as many moving parts and no transmission. I can't make money with one that costs $150K, or which leaves me DOA before the end of the day.

The bottom line is that batteries are a terrible way to store electrical energy, and always have been. Unfortunately (aside from capacitors) they are the only game in town, which makes the entire EV proposition pie-in-the-sky, unless we run wires overhead and connect to them ala street-car. Everybody keeps talking about a battery breakthrough being imminent (which is sorta' like COVID being "unprecedented"), but the voltaic pile was invented in 1800 and really smart guys have been working on that imminent breakthrough for 220 years.

Alchemy had about the same amount of intellectual horsepower applied toward a similar goal, and there were no shortage of people who believed it was not only possible, but inevitable. It wasn't. Similarly, we'll still be farting around with incremental increases in hypothetical EV range in 50 years, while real-world range stays about the same (which is to say: woefully short of real-world requirements). EVs will remain grossly expensive, monetarily and ecologically.

Hybrid technology is real, and really usable. Plug-in hybrids are a great idea. 100 mpg with coast to coast usability is completely possible. Ferrari and Porsche have shown what is possible when this technology is used as a performance (rather than economy) aid.

Pure EVs are to real transportation as a blow-up doll is to a wife.

Or a plastic clown car is to a Porsche snob.

@Stan Galat posted:

Pure EVs are to real transportation as a blow-up doll is to a wife.

This line caused me to exhale neat bourbon. Have you any idea how painful that is?

As Stan says, a work truck, used every day, at variable range, needs right now to be a gas or diesel device. This will probably still be true in 10 years. Maybe in 20.

A car you commute 22 miles to work in each day and grocery shop with on Saturday doesn't. Doing a 400-mile trip once a month? That's why we have rental cars.

(And rental trucks).*

There is no need to invent a battery "drop tank" you could rent that would fit your EV; the whole solution already exists right down at your local airport Enterprise.**

And there's no reason to imagine the development of an EV fleet and requisite infrastructure is or would by necessity be incompatible with the Plastic Clown Car way of life.

In fact, if fewer people felt they absolutely needed to drive everywhere in these bloated, bulbous, leather-appointed, touch-screen-controlled, 22-speakered, twin-turbo'd four-wheel drive three-ton Lunar Rover Modules every True American now calls their "daily driver," there just might be more open space on the roads for us!

==

*And TRAINS. Unfortunately we barely have passenger trains anymore. But for any trip between, say, 200 and about 500 miles, a passenger train should be the cheapest, easiest and most reliable option. Three tickets on Amtrak ought to be less than gas and tolls; a bar and dining car on every train (along with wifi, etc. and a provision to transport pets AND a personal vehicle) would be incentive enough to keep most people from driving their Explorer or renting a minivan to haul the family to grandma's for Thanksgiving.

**The problem currently is it's a PIA to rent a UHaul or Enterprise. The standing in line at the counter, the reams of small-print disclaimers, the pre- and post- inspections and the frantic make-sure-it's-full-when-you-return-or-we'll-charge-you-$17.50-a-gallon endgame cause most people, quite sensibly, to opt instead for full time ownership and maintenance of a $55,000, 400-hp SUV.

I just don’t get this push for electric vehicles. Unless we are going to rethink how we produce power in this country from other than fossil fuels, it makes no sense.  For the foreseeable future, renewables are not the answer.  The greenies are certainly  not going to advocate nuclear plant construction.

Producing and disposing of batteries is a dirty secret that isn’t even discussed when speaking of electric vehicles. Why not? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda.

It will be very interesting to see how many light duty trucks GM sells starting in 2025 when they claim they will start to phase out gas powered for electric. Mary Barra is putting GM on a path to possible destruction.

When the technology is ready, the marketplace will determine the future of transportation. There is a reason why all great inventions are privately developed. The reason is not top down government.

@edsnova posted:

Three tickets on Amtrak ought to be less than gas and tolls; a bar and dining car on every train (along with wifi, etc. and a provision to transport pets AND a personal vehicle) would be incentive enough to keep most people from driving their Explorer or renting a minivan to haul the family to grandma's for Thanksgiving.

Amtrak already has these amenities, but they're not enough to attract riders. The problem is trip duration and convenience. Once you get away from the northeast corridor and its dedicated high-speed rails, Amtrak shares rails with freight trains. To travel from Pittsburgh to Chicago on the Capitol Limited takes almost nine hours. The return trip takes just under 11 hours. Both legs are overnight. I can make the drive in about six hours, at a time of my choosing, and I don't have to park my vehicle at one train station and take ground transport at another, schlepping my luggage between conveyances.

Amtrak's no good from NY to DC even—it's on CSX lines all the way. And that's all as designed. It doesn't have to be this way and a civilized nation would arrange things so it wasn't.

Pittsburgh to Chicago is under 500 miles and ought to be a 4-stop trip (Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo, Elkhart) in under 7 hours, or an express in under 5. It wouldn't even take a "bullet train." And either way it'd beat any car trip not done overnight with a spotter plane to pick out state troopers.

Never gonna happen though.