Electric cars are the future

Page: 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Online now: Google [Bot], ukimalefu
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
all this talk of range kind of confuses me ... the next gen offers hundreds of miles on a single charge, how is that not enough? they'll be comparable to the range of a tank of gas

the only difference is that recharging will take 30 mins instead of ~15 mins
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
When has gassing up a vehicle ever taken you 15 minutes?

As for why range gets talked about, sure the estimated range of what isn’t even out yet is good, it’s not out yet for real world testing. Why bother talking about computers that are out today, when a new one will be out next year?

And for charging to be done quickly, you have to be at very select charging stations.

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.
mmaverick posted:
[snip]

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.

True, but it is also "true" that people Americans get enormous vehicles with extraordinary features such as extra high clearance "just in case" when by far the majority of people driving such vehicles might encounter situations where they would take advantage of such features maybe 2 or 3 times a decade at the very most.
At this point it's an arms race. Little cars get bullied by the bigger suvs with giant blindspots, and the lifted trucks blind smaller cars even when their headlights are on low beams.
The Law of Conservation of Momentum means the larger vehicle 'wins' in any collision. Though I doubt the average American thinks of it that way.
Lombo Opiofiend
User avatar
Demonstrably false. You forgot to add: if all other factors are equal. I can show you a crash test of a heavier 60’s car vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and you will see who ‘Wins’.
Kirk posted:
The Law of Conservation of Momentum means the larger vehicle 'wins' in any collision. Though I doubt the average American thinks of it that way.

Sometimes the little car just bounces off.
TOS
User avatar
mmaverick posted:
When has gassing up a vehicle ever taken you 15 minutes?

As for why range gets talked about, sure the estimated range of what isn’t even out yet is good, it’s not out yet for real world testing. Why bother talking about computers that are out today, when a new one will be out next year?

And for charging to be done quickly, you have to be at very select charging stations.

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.


once again, the average distance driven per day (for americans) is around 30 miles

a car with 300-500 mile range will be just fine for 95% of car owners, even if the real-world range is lower than that
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
You're forgetting that all important Great American Vacation Roadtrip.
You can't get from Cincinnati to Orlando in one day if you have to stop to recharge in Knoxville and again in Atlanta and hope you make it to Gainesville before you're sitting beside the road waiting for Cooter to show up in his tow truck.

Americans think like this.

(I am NEVER driving to Florida again. A flight from Lexington or Cincy, round trip, is just, like $150.)
Lombo posted:
Demonstrably false. You forgot to add: if all other factors are equal. I can show you a crash test of a heavier 60’s car vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and you will see who ‘Wins’.

Consider the velocity change for each vehicle. The law of conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle experiences greater change. That crushes cars and breaks bones. Sure that can be mitigated somewhat by more cunning design, but not completely.
dv
User avatar
Kirk posted:
Lombo posted:
Demonstrably false. You forgot to add: if all other factors are equal. I can show you a crash test of a heavier 60’s car vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and you will see who ‘Wins’.

Consider the velocity change for each vehicle. The law of conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle experiences greater change. That crushes cars and breaks bones. Sure that can be mitigated somewhat by more cunning design, but not completely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

It's amazing how much more "cunning" designs have gotten, and how flexible those laws are.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
TOS posted:
mmaverick posted:
When has gassing up a vehicle ever taken you 15 minutes?

As for why range gets talked about, sure the estimated range of what isn’t even out yet is good, it’s not out yet for real world testing. Why bother talking about computers that are out today, when a new one will be out next year?

And for charging to be done quickly, you have to be at very select charging stations.

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.


once again, the average distance driven per day (for americans) is around 30 miles

a car with 300-500 mile range will be just fine for 95% of car owners, even if the real-world range is lower than that


And the majority of people don’t even need to own a vehicle, so what’s the point of talking about purchasing cars?
Lombo Opiofiend
User avatar
dv posted:
Kirk posted:
Lombo posted:
Demonstrably false. You forgot to add: if all other factors are equal. I can show you a crash test of a heavier 60’s car vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and you will see who ‘Wins’.

Consider the velocity change for each vehicle. The law of conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle experiences greater change. That crushes cars and breaks bones. Sure that can be mitigated somewhat by more cunning design, but not completely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

It's amazing how much more "cunning" designs have gotten, and how flexible those laws are.

The second YT video was the one I saw.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Betonhaus posted:
Kirk posted:
The Law of Conservation of Momentum means the larger vehicle 'wins' in any collision. Though I doubt the average American thinks of it that way.

Sometimes the little car just bounces off.



The people inside don't fare well though.
TOS
User avatar
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
mmaverick posted:
When has gassing up a vehicle ever taken you 15 minutes?

As for why range gets talked about, sure the estimated range of what isn’t even out yet is good, it’s not out yet for real world testing. Why bother talking about computers that are out today, when a new one will be out next year?

And for charging to be done quickly, you have to be at very select charging stations.

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.


once again, the average distance driven per day (for americans) is around 30 miles

a car with 300-500 mile range will be just fine for 95% of car owners, even if the real-world range is lower than that


And the majority of people don’t even need to own a vehicle, so what’s the point of talking about purchasing cars?


that might explain why a lot of carmakers are exploring ridesharing models as an alternative to traditional ownership, especially if cars can be summoned, unmanned, to a subscriber's house
dv posted:
Kirk posted:
Lombo posted:
Demonstrably false. You forgot to add: if all other factors are equal. I can show you a crash test of a heavier 60’s car vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and you will see who ‘Wins’.

Consider the velocity change for each vehicle. The law of conservation of momentum means the smaller vehicle experiences greater change. That crushes cars and breaks bones. Sure that can be mitigated somewhat by more cunning design, but not completely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

It's amazing how much more "cunning" designs have gotten, and how flexible those laws are.


Sure, comparing a new small car with an old huge car the cunning design helps a lot. Now try a new small car versus a new huge car. When tech is equal the larger car still wins.
TOS
User avatar
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
TOS posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
mmaverick posted:
When has gassing up a vehicle ever taken you 15 minutes?

As for why range gets talked about, sure the estimated range of what isn’t even out yet is good, it’s not out yet for real world testing. Why bother talking about computers that are out today, when a new one will be out next year?

And for charging to be done quickly, you have to be at very select charging stations.

“All this talk” happens because it’s the biggest drawback of an electric vehicle vs an ICE vehicle.


once again, the average distance driven per day (for americans) is around 30 miles

a car with 300-500 mile range will be just fine for 95% of car owners, even if the real-world range is lower than that


And the majority of people don’t even need to own a vehicle, so what’s the point of talking about purchasing cars?


that might explain why a lot of carmakers are exploring ridesharing models as an alternative to traditional ownership, especially if cars can be summoned, unmanned, to a subscriber's house


If a vehicle is part of a ride share program, then it makes monetary sense for it to be able to run as long as possible on a single charge before having to go back to base.
TOS
User avatar
introducing the taiga, an electric jetski from a startup in canada (where else?)

they say it has a 2-hour range

Image

Image
Aside from the toaster bath problem, two hours is likely enough time to have a fuckton of fun.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
I could see it working great as a cottage toy, but it wouldn’t work here. The majority of the water toy use where I am comes from the RV folk in campgrounds without hookups, so they would need to be recharged with a generator.

I think it’s a great idea, but I think most of the smaller watersport toys get used in spurts where they sit for months, then get brought out and abused for 12 hours a day over a couple long weekends each summer. Not really conducive to batteries yet.

As for the toaster complaint, these things all had acid batteries before.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
If I lived on the water, I’d be all about this.
arkayn Aaarrrggghhhh
User avatar
Summer in Bullhead City and the Colorado River, means there are a ton of jet ski's.
TOS
User avatar
i wonder if they're quieter? that alone would seal the deal for me
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
your tesla is NOT self driving, teslas suck, self driving will never work, blah blah blah

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/30/2089 ... -accidents

I don't care, I still want one. Even if they never get self driving to work. But I believe they will. And I've seen human drivers do worst.

here are samples of what human drivers do

https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/


Tesla says: watch your car at all times, if something happens it is your fault.

So "smart summon", isn't very smart, and definitely not auto-pilot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlCQG2rg4sw

I want to find ANY exit to the mall's parking lot, and have the car come get me.

But I still want a tesla
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
TOS posted:
introducing the taiga, an electric jetski from a startup in canada (where else?)

they say it has a 2-hour range

Image

Image


I can't wait until they come up with watercraft that runs on wind energy!
Séamas posted:
TOS posted:
introducing the taiga, an electric jetski from a startup in canada (where else?)

they say it has a 2-hour range

Image

Image


I can't wait until they come up with watercraft that runs on wind energy!


I hope these toys at least get charged up by wind or solar power and not the usual harmful sources. If we're going to insist on toys and playtime on a burning planet, at least the pretense of giving a human waste might be something.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
until the world runs on wind, solar and hydro.....


it's all vegan fur, vegan wool, and vegan leather.

it starts helping to kill the planet the moment it's created.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
Quote:
Electric utilities are keen on electric vehicles these days — they see them as a future revenue source. Utilities from California to Florida to Michigan are sponsoring the installation of public charging stations, and some are offering rebates to customers for installing home chargers. To date, at least 50 utilities in 25 states have launched or proposed programs to encourage the buildout of charging infrastructure.



https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/02/bi ... -vehicles/
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
CJ 5 Jeep was the first to become famous for rolling over i believe. it ain't big.
dv
User avatar
Pariah posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.


That was more true for truck-based SUVs in the '90s, but mostly doesn't apply to modern unibody SUV/Crossovers like the Honda CR-V (which is pretty much a Civic Wagon on 2" stilts. Same braking distance, similar maneuverability, only 300 pounds heavier, same crash test rating.)

The FWD-only versions of unibody Crossovers are technically classified as passenger cars and have to meet the same standards as the Accord/Camry.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Pariah posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.


There is also that misguided sense of safety the drivers tend to have. So they drive with abandon.

And their stopping distance is such a huge issue in inclement weather.
The 4WD makes their "go" excellent, but their "stop" really miserable.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/collision-course-pedestrian-deaths-rising-driverless-cars

Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?


Quote:
Ask a room full of road safety experts what is causing pedestrian fatalities to increase and most will admit that, well, they are not exactly sure. Every time a car hits a pedestrian, it represents the intersection of a vast number of variables. At the level of those involved, there is the question of who is distracted, reckless, drunk. Zooming out, there are factors such as the design and condition of the road, the quality (or absence) of a marked pedestrian crossing, the speed limit, the local lighting, the weight and height of the car involved. In a crash, all these variables and more converge at high speed in real-world, non-laboratory conditions that make it hard to isolate the influence of each variable.

Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
dv posted:
Pariah posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.


That was more true for truck-based SUVs in the '90s, but mostly doesn't apply to modern unibody SUV/Crossovers like the Honda CR-V (which is pretty much a Civic Wagon on 2" stilts. Same braking distance, similar maneuverability, only 300 pounds heavier, same crash test rating.)

The FWD-only versions of unibody Crossovers are technically classified as passenger cars and have to meet the same standards as the Accord/Camry.

They also don't fit into the bigger is safer argument because cars like the CR-V are no larger or heavier than my Mazda.
It's just taller.
dv
User avatar
Pariah posted:
dv posted:
Pariah posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.


That was more true for truck-based SUVs in the '90s, but mostly doesn't apply to modern unibody SUV/Crossovers like the Honda CR-V (which is pretty much a Civic Wagon on 2" stilts. Same braking distance, similar maneuverability, only 300 pounds heavier, same crash test rating.)

The FWD-only versions of unibody Crossovers are technically classified as passenger cars and have to meet the same standards as the Accord/Camry.

They also don't fit into the bigger is safer argument because cars like the CR-V are no larger or heavier than my Mazda.
It's just taller.


Anecdotally I'm pretty sure that people perceive vehicles like the CR-V to be larger regardless of their actual curb weights, and make decisions based on that perception.

Between the added height and a bit of blocky styling, you gotta admit they look bigger, and the upright seating arrangement makes them feel larger, especially in back.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
Kitty Hawk says its third electric aircraft has a 100-mile range

Quote:
Kitty Hawk, the electric flight startup backed by Google co-founder Larry Page, unveiled its third aircraft on Thursday. Heaviside, which is abbreviated to HVSD, is roughly 100 times quieter than a helicopter, and it can travel the 55 miles from San Jose to San Francisco in about 15 minutes, the company says.


Image

Video at the link... I'm not sure if that video is real or CG. It looks great, but something is... off. And it's just a corporate ad anyway.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
dv posted:
Pariah posted:
dv posted:
Pariah posted:
mmaverick posted:
TOS posted:
suvs have a worse crash safety record than small cars


Especially if they are classified as a “truck” and don’t need to follow as stringent safety standards. (At least last time I looked into it, which was a few years ago)

Ya, this is where intuitive thinking "Bigger is safer!!!" runs up against reality.
SUVs are relatively less safe for several reasons:
They handle terribly, particularly in emergency evasive maneuvers.
Their great weight causes increased stopping distances.
They are not built to the same safety standards as cars are.
SUVs are far, far more prone to roll-overs which is a particularly deadly behavior.


That was more true for truck-based SUVs in the '90s, but mostly doesn't apply to modern unibody SUV/Crossovers like the Honda CR-V (which is pretty much a Civic Wagon on 2" stilts. Same braking distance, similar maneuverability, only 300 pounds heavier, same crash test rating.)

The FWD-only versions of unibody Crossovers are technically classified as passenger cars and have to meet the same standards as the Accord/Camry.

They also don't fit into the bigger is safer argument because cars like the CR-V are no larger or heavier than my Mazda.
It's just taller.


Anecdotally I'm pretty sure that people perceive vehicles like the CR-V to be larger regardless of their actual curb weights, and make decisions based on that perception.

Between the added height and a bit of blocky styling, you gotta admit they look bigger, and the upright seating arrangement makes them feel larger, especially in back.

And on the flip side, having a car that encourages me to drive safely probably actually provides me greater safety than any other feature.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Electric cars are the future

Page: 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11