True, but freedom of mobility is a big one. Supposedly, one of the major tenets of technocracy is to use energy as currency, so suspect EVs as well. Not really sure what lead and the children would have to do with each other, but then I suppose that's par for course. In general, such emotive arguments need to be watched very carefully. Unfortunately, modern life is full of them. Certain words such as "children", "safety", "climate", "environment", and so forth elicit basically pre-programmed responses from a large segment of the developed world's population, automatically liking or disliking anything with a certain label attached to it without really thinking much about it. So any attempt to reverse the current disastrous course of society is guaranteed to have to fight through a thick and high wall of manufactured emotion - many decades' worth, in some cases - before it can start attacking real issues. This is the other thing a lot of people don't seem to realize. The shift from cars to robocars is going to be a deeper change than the shift from horses and bicycles to cars. In the previous shift, we simply upgraded speed, comfort, and carrying capacity. The shift to robocars will be a shift from actively "going somewhere" to passively "being taken somewhere". And if you think robocars will ever be immune to anything bad, from glitches to ad shoving to outright hijacking, then you really don't understand human or machine nature, especially when human nature is unfettered by morality. In the end, all this really serves to do is to illustrate why car culture is doomed. Car culture can be incredibly resilient to outside attack when it wants to be - the fact that it still exists in places like Japan, where a cultural philosophy of "never stand out" has pervaded for thousands of years, or California, where an engine swap is a convoluted process requiring direct involvement of bureaucrats, or Australia, where the nanny/ninny state is so well-established that a second burnout ticket can get your car confiscated and crushed, is proof of that. But today, it seems like car enthusiasts would rather side with the outside attacks than resist them. Question any of it - the ever-growing list of mandatory safety and pollution equipment, the byzantine mess of post-purchase modification regulations, the onerous inspection regimes, the overzealous policing, anything - and you are immediately accused of wanting people to die. Modern car enthusiasts want bicycles and pedestrians to have perpetual unlimited access to the best driving roads. They want mandatory reinspections after every upgrade. They want EVs to replace combustion engines, and robocars to replace manually-driven specimens of both, and they want the mandates and subsidies and lip-flappingly insane fuel-economy/emissions diktats which will speed this process along. They want the police to cuff and stuff anyone who dares to have any fun outside of a closed course. EVs are actually a great example. They are still incredibly compromised; even the fastest chargers are still hideously slow compared to a liquid refuel, and are still dependent on infrastructure which is not available everywhere and likely will not be for some time. But as long as the EV peddlers keep the sound bites coming, their many fans within car culture will ignore all that and expect everyone else to do the same, using the promises of elite-level or "future" EVs to paper over the technology's faults in the present. Because, again, they desperately want EVs to work, even though they destroy everything car culture used to celebrate. The sound and fury of a nasty race engine, the feeling of a butter-smooth double-clutch downshift, all of it replaced by the same passionless tinnitus whine and the same boring 1- or 2-speed transmission. Is that really what you want? So car culture is in a weird place. From the outside, it looks healthy, with forums and websites all over the place highlighting builds and big shows while the latest factory sports models throw down BEEG BEEG NAWMBERZ on the dyno, test track, and skid pad. But underneath, with the regulations that are on the horizon, from "speed limit assist" to ever-tougher emissions and safety standards, we are absolutely headed into another Automotive Dark Age like the one from about 1974-1986 - but maybe worse, because this time we have the technology to make a car truly anti-fun and the regulations to keep people from getting around it. Much of car culture is illegal in one way or another, and even that which always was is now enforced against much more harshly than it used to be. Tuneability and "unintentional sportiness" are effectively things of the past at this point, and aftermarket support for new cars isn't what it once was - again, blame the regulators. There are other signs too. If you were to make a list of the vehicles that carry social currency in the tuning scene, you'd find many of the same makes and models that had cachet 10 or 15 years ago. There have been new muscle cars from the Detroit Three, a couple of hot ones on the tuner side as well, but overall, car culture has stagnated badly. I have, however, seen evidence of unconventional older cars finally being accepted into car culture. On the muscle car side, sedans and wagons have started to find their way into a scene once dominated by coupes and convertibles. The RWD "post-muscle" cars of the 70s and 80s (more-door versions included) are seeing more use in drag racing and, occasionally, for street builds as well. The idea of subjecting an old pickup truck to a serious handling build isn't nearly as ludicrous as it would have once seemed. I've even seen evidence of rodded and cusomized Edsels - it's not common, but it does happen occasionally. Meanwhile, on the tuner side, I have... not much information because I usually pay more attention to the muscle side of things, but I did once see someone singing the praises of the XV10 Toyota Camry and its punchy, tuneable V6. On one hand, it's good that people are branching out and finding hidden gems, and who knows, maybe people will eventually come to respect the V6 J-body, but there's something dark underneath. What this says to me is that we've blown through most of the more desirable hot rods and tuners, with fewer unmodified survivors on the market and prices for good-condition specimens starting to increase, so people are scraping the bottom of the barrel in search of affordable base material - and coming up with cars like the Edsel, Camry, or random pickup truck/sedan/wagon which, in their time, were maligned or simply considered to be as far from fun to drive as it was possible to get. We can't keep picking the bones of days gone by forever. The Supras, Chevelles, E30s, and other objects of gearhead veneration are slowly running out, and they aren't really being replaced. But don't forget, if you see a problem with any of this, it automatically means you want people to die in car wrecks while having pollution-induced asthma attacks!
It's an insanely strong suspicion. Also, if malaise era car custom builds, hot rod trucks or Edsels are new, then I wanna know the address of the rock you've been living under.
Okay, so you have some good points here, But when you said that riding horses were "actively going somewhere" instead of being "taken somewhere" I disagree. Horses have a mind of their own, and if they want to, they will absolutely take you somewhere you were not expecting to be when you woke up that morning. usually a hospital. Yes, AVs will be susceptible to hijacking, ad shoving and accidents, but forgive me for saying this, present cars are also vulnerable to these. accidents and hijacking in particular. I never said AVs would be immune to bad things. I did say that they would be far more consistent and safer. Glitches can be patched out. Bad driving habits are not so easily unlearned. Also, bear in mind, if there is a major exploit that allows an AV to be easily hijacked by a third party, you can either expect that exploit to be fairly quickly fixed, or you can expect that company to go under because no one wants to be hijacked. I don't want the popo to cuff any/every driver having fun on the roads, but I think there is a big difference between having fun and endangering lives. Drift through 4 lanes of traffic and cut off a semi in full view of one of LAPD's finest? Na, it's okay. It looked like fun. I'll let you off. Oh, you did a massive, tire shredding burnout at 3 AM in a residential area for no damn reason? no problem. I'll just tell the dozens of families you woke up that I'm not giving you a ticket because it looked like fun. Oh? you blow past a cop at 160mph on the highway because you think that public roads are your personal playground and you can't be bothered to pay dragstrip/ track day fees? that's fine. That cop should just sit there, right? It's not like you can't stop safely from 160 mph if say a commuter car decides to pass a semi on the highway with no warning. I've had a lot of fun on public roads, and I've never gotten a ticket. Partly because I respect cops, partly because I drive a TDI econnobox, and partly because I'm not an idiot. Being reckless on a public road is a little like practicing bow hunting in a city park. There are better places to do it, people around you will probably call you mean names, and the police will probably show up. Also, as far as the 'ever increasing list of safety requirements' goes, have you ever seen what happens to old cars in a wreck? Here is a helpful video comparing an older car to a more modern one in a crash test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck . Safety regs exist for a reason. Imagine, if in America, a new 2019 car was sold that crumpled like that. Nobody would buy it. Part of the shift into difficult tuning is coming from manufacturers and consumers. Consumers want a more reliable, more economical, and powerful engine. Manufacturers are happy to oblige because it means you need a more complex system to do all that, and a more complex system makes it difficult to service. That means the Manufacturer can charge $180 for an oil change. As for more classic cars being used for racing and modification, while running out of cars. Yes, that is how a limited supply works. Due to safety and emissions regulations, Automakers can't make them like they used to. Even if they could, how many people would realistically buy an EF hatch today, with the spartan features it had? Personally, I think that's a blessing. I love old cars. I admire the dedication it takes to get one back on the road. If someone wants to drive an old car, there is nothing stopping them apart from money. But time marches on. Radios used to be an optional extra, as did seatbelts. ABS and airbags were once optional, and putting the fuel tank in a protected, central location? Well, that wasn't really figured out until after the Ford Pinto, and even then. Have you ever driven an EV? Like not a chevy bolt, like an electric sports car? The feeling of instant torque and power is intoxicating. You are ALWAYS in the powerband. Taking corners in a sports EV is satisfying and cathartic. Sure, they can't recharge as quickly as an ICE (Internal combustion engine) car can refuel, but theoretically, you could simply exchange your low battery for a precharged one at an EV battery station in ~10 minutes. Both EVs and ICE cars are flawed designs. ICE takes about 50-90 % of the energy in the fuel and throws it out the exhaust pipe as heat. (I know that significant parts of that loss are from mechanical drag too, but the point still stands) That's silly. ICE has many, MANY more moving parts, which means more to go wrong. We've had 100+ years to perfect ICE, but modern electric cars have been around for about 2 decades. in conclusion, you bring up a few good points, but the fact is, AVs are safer, more efficient, and more consistent. they never get road rage, they never get drunk, they can't text and drive, etc. yes, they will always have accidents and problems, but humans have those already.
In fact, the opposite is true. An EV only has ONE gear, thus one powerband, an ICEV has multiple gears, meaning powerband can be achieved at any speeds. Most EVs struggle at higher speeds because of power dropoff. And because of the inability to upshift to bring down the RPM, EVs' less efficient at highway speeds.
Do you know how electric motors work? The reason they don't need gears is because they have a flat torque curve. They don't need to shift because they produce the same power at 0 rpm that they do at 500, 1000, 3000 etc. Power in an EV doesn't drop off, it's either limited to something like 155 mph, or the speed controller cuts voltage off to the motor to keep the whole system from tearing itself apart.(like how an ECU will cut fuel to prevent overrev). I also call bs on ICEV achieving powerband at any speed. 0 is a speed, and ICEV struggle to put down power in first gear at 0-15 mph depending on the car. EVs are amazingly quick off the line, and since the motor is ALWAYS in the powerband, you ALWAYS have access to the full power and torque of the motors.(as long as the tires can take it.) while it's true EVs also don't downshift at highway speeds, they just reduce the voltage and therefore energy going to the motor. Assuming a constant speed, the motor only needs enough power to match aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance.(around 15-40 horsepower depending on the speed and the car). The throttle pedal on an EV is more or less a pentiometer controlling voltage to the motor. (It's more complicated than that but you know.) In fact, since EVs typically have much more aerodynamic bodies, they lose less energy to drag than most ICEVs at highway speeds. In conclusion, I believe you are critically misinformed as to the nature of EVs, with a particular focus on how electric motors work. I urge you to do some reasearch into the actual mechanics of electricity, as ignorance is a choice, and it's a shame to see people choose ignorance.
In your opinion, disagree your argument = ignorance. As shown in the picture, the power band is 45-70mph,after 45mph torque dropoff, after 70mph power dropoff. Tesla Model S is a luxury vehicle, cheap EVs power dropoff even earlier. ICEV has multiplied torque at 0 speed thanks to the torque converter, the TC lockup when cruising to improve efficiency. Also please compare EVs and ICEV with the same power rating, some EVs have suprisingly high torque rating but overheating much quicker than ICEV. ICEV can maintain full power longer before overheating and at much higher speeds. Do you know back-EMF? Do you know the "unregulated" and "regulated" motor torque curves? Do you know what is actually limiting electric motor from reaching higher speeds? Voltage/Frequency cannot increase indefinately Information here Also battery is another problem. Even Tesla, one of the high-end EV manufacture, use laptop battery that only rated at 2C, which is 200kW in an 100kWh pack. With the 500+kW dual motors, the battery is massively overloaded, leading to lowered efficiency and shorter lifespan. Also note the discharge curve lowers at high current, which is because of internal resistance. The battery efficiency is only 80-85% at full throttle, this is more than 80kW of heat generated in the pack.
Actually, you were ignorant of certain facts about how electric motors work. As was I to a certain degree. After I attempted to correct you you attempted to discredit me by implying my entire argument was opinion. This is untrue. Upon further research, it turns out electric motors do not have flat power curves. They are however, much flatter than ICEVs. for reference, there is a very handy chart on page 2 of this paper https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/10097517.pdf I apologize for my ignorance in this subject, but I more or less had the right idea. The reason a Tesla gives less power at high speeds is not because of the motor. it's not technically drop off. The motor is still in the powerband, the speed controller is just cutting throttle to get more range. As pointed out in the paper, motors tend to be most efficient at around 75% of their power. What is happening after that is the car is throttling back to limit the speed, something most ICEVs do nowadays. BMW and Mercs are electronically limited to 155 mph for safety reasons. same thing here, the Tesla just cuts throttle gradually. Also did you notice the best Tesla has 600 horsepower at 0 mph? What does a Z06 or ZR1 get at zero? maybe 100 or 120. Sure, you can launch the car at 4k revs, but the Tesla won't spend it's time waiting for the tranny to shift, or the engine to build revs. Torque converters don't multiply torque at zero speed. that is the transmission's job. Torque converters are basically two fans throwing fluid at each other to allow the car to stop while keeping the engine running. Since there is no direct connection to the engine, torque converters lose around 5% of their energy to mechanical drag at all times. In an attempt to get better fuel economy, most models of TC lock up at highway speeds, but not all do. The motor doesn't need to multiply torque, as it has enough on tap. Anyway, there are electric drag cars capable of 300+ mph, and if electric motors overheated so easily at continuous high loads, then why are Diesel-Electric locos used to haul nearly 100% of America's rail freight? I don't see ICEVs being able to hold higher power for longer much benefit in the real world, as it's usually better to be efficient for longer. hence why every car doesn't have 600 horsepower. Also, I do apologize for taking the low road here, but could you perhaps spend some time checking spelling and grammar? A little polish can go a long way. My grammar is not perfect, but I do check it. When you have grammar mistakes, people tend to see you as less credible or less convincing. Take that as you will. EDIT as Default0 saw fit to edit in more arguments while I was composing this, I need to edit to counter these. No, you can't just keep adding volts and frequency forever. that would be absolutely absurd. You can no more forever add energy and frequency to a a motor as you could add more boost and fuel and revs to an ICE forever. Both techs have limits. Batteries are an interesting problem. In fact, batteries are the biggest hurdle facing EVs. most of the info you supplied for batteries are fairly true. Modern battery technology is in it's infancy. in the future, there will be better and safer batteries. Anyway, I'll take the 20% loss in the battery over the 50-90% loss an ICE gets from the drivetrain, the exhaust pipe, and gasoline evaporating out of the tank. ICEVs and EVs are not flawless. I think how far EVs have come since the GM EV1 is very promising. EVs aren't going to go away any time soon, neither are ICEVs.
Sorry, my fault, I'll check. Tesla cuts throttle at 220km/h for safety reason. The torque dropoff is not throttle cut, in fact, the motor voltage maxed out at 70mph. The back-EMF increases with speed, which leads to a lower current(and lower power). No, the 600 is torque in Newton-meters. A TC does multiply torque, which is a known fact. Drag car can overheat in as short as 10 seconds, electric dragsters don't need a long-range battery that could run 100+km, also you can cool them before and/or after the drag race. Diesel-Electric locos don't have traction battery. I'm not arguing that ICEVs are good, but please understand the realistic limitation of electric motors and batteries, and not to overhype EVs.
I'm not overhyping EVs, they have potential to be something great. this isn't even an EV discussion thread soooo.... I didn't mean to be a butthole when it comes to spelling and grammar, it's just an important factor in how you are perceived.
Well, if we have mechanical brains instead of monkey brains, there would be no arts and entertainments(including BeamNG.drive).
