WAY before the tesla roadster ... there was the bmw 1602

[TimeMachinE30]

Got it, guilty until proven innocent.

You are a Saudi Arabian oil baron?

Guilty? I gave an example... Chevron owns rights to battery tech bought from GM, sues other companies then immediately upon purchase, wins, taking the battery tech away from others.

Now, what did Chevron do with the battery rights? Improve upon the tech? No! Just squashed the EV. Then rolled out. Toyota Rav4 EV... check it out and others. Examine the reasons why EV "fails".


Your cherry picking of something to get butt hurt over ("guilty until innocent") leads me to believe you are not a serious contender in this discussion. Like you told a fellow r3v'er, go read on the subject matter. Become acquainted with NHTSA, NTSB, read some of the corporate influences upon administrations... how a safety device such as an airbag is a can kicked down the road for decades.. read about Lt. Col. John Stapp and his desires to use his testing for good in the automotive market and the resistance met there. Better yet, follow the money trails.

[roguetoaster]

I do understand what both of you are saying, and I am not trying to support oil companies, or be all butt hurt over it, but I may be playing devil's advocate a bit much. I just don't want to see the tinfoil hats take over a place I enjoy.

In any case, tech is bought and sold all the time. Do innovations get crushed unnecessarily or delayed for years, undoubtedly, but what are the companies actually doing? Well, business, which often involves protecting self interest and limiting competition. Is it wrong? Well, that's a P&R discussion, but as far as I am concerned, no, not really, morally sure, but businesses aren't individuals whatever case law might say.

Frankly, I find it somewhat difficult (not impossible, I get avarice) to actually believe that two completely different sectors of businesses with making money as the only common interest would collude on such a scale, especially after one of them has invested heavily in a tech for whatever reason. It's almost always the case that there was some sort of legitimate or understandable reason why an unpopular business decision gets made, and not a conspiracy. When the market and infrastructure is ready for full scale EV adoption it'll happen, but it's not there yet.

[Das Delfin]

It really has more to do with limitations of battery tech and infrastructure than anything else. Is it cheaper to make a car which already works with existing gas stations? Or is it cheaper to make a whole new car which needs recharge stations every 200 miles, then build those stations, then have no one buy it when customers find out it takes 8 hours to full recharge the car?

Does big oil control battery tech? Not likely, considering how many devices and (large) companies would benefit from improvements in lithium batteries

Maybe in 10 or so years when we have safe, rechargeable lithium batteries with fast charge rates, electric will begin to take over

[TimeMachinE30]

And I guess that is the thing.. the Hydrogen/Electric/Alt Source vehicle is another 10-15 years out. It took a self made millionaire to rock the boat and get shit done. Elon Musk and his group with Tesla have really made a great impact for the technology.

Things advance.. and sometimes very quickly.. we have wonderful people all over the world able to do miracles quite honestly with research, development.

Reference recharging stations, our grid is weak. It is susceptible to attack. Definitely a concern. The vehicles are not intended for cross country tours.. I am not one to say turn off the oil derricks tomorrow. We need it. But for most of our driving, EV would do the trick. Not many of us drive for hundreds of miles a day. The current charging cycle fits most lives rather well. Of course, that will only get better. If it gets a chance.

And no tin foil. Just look at the facts, look what is there. Funny enough, everyone said the 9/11 conspiracy folks are bat shit crazy.. now look at what we have in the spotlight: the redacted 28 pages linking SA to 9/11. To quickly label someone with that phrase is a common tactic, one which doesn't make room for consideration. I am not saying sasquatch roams the Earth and I swam with Loch Ness. I am saying EV is very real contender for our transportation needs and has been hindered by those with more money, more pull, more to lose from its success.

[straight6pwr]

LOL it looks like they took a shrink ray to the gear shift knob.

[Das Delfin]

Reference recharging stations, our grid is weak. It is susceptible to attack. Definitely a concern. The vehicles are not intended for cross country tours.. I am not one to say turn off the oil derricks tomorrow. We need it. But for most of our driving, EV would do the trick. Not many of us drive for hundreds of miles a day. The current charging cycle fits most lives rather well. Of course, that will only get better. If it gets a chance.

You and I would buy a car just for grocery getting, and another for driving through the mountains or a track day. But most people aren't into cars and want one to do everything, so they'll choose the car that lets them drive to visit their family 200 miles away a few times a year. Hell, here it snows maybe two weeks out of the year but everyone has to have a Subaru. Customers want the car that can do everything "just in case." So the pencil pushers at GM, BMW, etc, have to think: is auto manufacturing about a niche market? Or would profits be bigger if we applied to a broader audience?

That could be said about anything, really. The manual transmission, RWD cars, build quality, new designs...

[TimeMachinE30]

Oh yes.. Money decides and money is king. If given the chance, the demand really would bring about the innovations they seek for that do it all car. A child prodigy would build a battery or RogueToaster discovers our ability to harness the Ether and we all have unlimited energy...

If you build it.. They will come??? Maybe.

And no gassers are going to be crushed tomorrow and we all drive EVs. It is not a binary operation..no switch. No one solution fits all. But EV could hold a Mich more prominent place in yhr market..if allowed.

An get used to it.. Ain't the EPA going to shut down motorsports.

[Kershaw]

- No, that was proved to be an overreaction.

- Not a self made millionaire. Self made billionaire.

- The oil barons were/are protecting self interests, by squashing electric cars. If that's your point, we are saying the same thing.

- It really took cell phones to put the R&D into battery tech that other companies wouldn't/couldn't stop. Who makes the batteries for Tesla? Panasonic and Samsung.

- I did read recently that the Netherlands were proposing eliminating ICE cars by 2025. It definitely could work for such a small country. They mostly bike everywhere anyway.

[varg]

Too much tin foil ITT.

Batteries have always been the limitation, no questions asked. With electricity being the essential service of the modern age, battery tech is extremely important to the world, so you can't even say that battery tech was stifled by the oil boom. Beside the range limitations with the current tech, it's going to be a while still before you can charge an electric car as quickly and conveniently as you can fuel a car with an ICE, a major limitation. The kind of power we're talking about here (dozens of kWh), is just flat out tough to manage over such a short amount of time. The infrastructure required to for a charging station capable of charging several hypothetical EVs at once in a few minutes is substantial, it's not a Tesla brand "Supercharger" hooked up to some existing electrical service. We're talking about the amount of power the average home uses in a month being used in a matter of minutes or hours, that's a lot of current and a lot of load on the power distribution system. Solar cells on the roof of the charging station? They will provide a small fraction of the power needed, generating far less than 500W/m^2 even under ideal circumstances (keep in mind that on a clear summer day you'll see 1kW/m^2 or less from the sun at the earth's surface). We're talking about huge upgrades to the infrastructure here, and we're going to need more clean power too, wind and solar won't cut it because of the practical limitations; we need nuclear energy. Unfortunately misinformed alarmists and dumb hippies have people afraid of our best bet for clean energy.

[TimeMachinE30]

- No, that was proved to be an overreaction.

- Not a self made millionaire. Self made billionaire.

- The oil barons were/are protecting self interests, by squashing electric cars. If that's your point, we are saying the same thing.

- It really took cell phones to put the R&D into battery tech that other companies wouldn't/couldn't stop. Who makes the batteries for Tesla? Panasonic and Samsung.

- I did read recently that the Netherlands were proposing eliminating ICE cars by 2025. It definitely could work for such a small country. They mostly bike everywhere anyway.

Reply to me?

Billions are just lots of millions. Sure, whatever. You would want him to give his "fair" share ya commie..:poke:

Yes, oil and auto manufacturers squish competition. Self preservation.

Cell phones absolutely help progress battery tech. Tesla has brought about a new need for battery tech. I'm not sure how well batteries scale up... A battery which powers my phone for x hours of use.. Can I now just take a thousand of them and power my car? Or does a new material, different approach become necessary.

Yes, our country could not do as they propose successfully. With societal inertia, you cannot expect changes to ever happen fast or easily. Nor is the technology there to provide a total switch over. But, let it phase in, gain acceptance and market will birth technology.

[TimeMachinE30]

Too much tin foil ITT.

Batteries have always been the limitation, no questions asked. With electricity being the essential service of the modern age, battery tech is extremely important to the world, so you can't even say that battery tech was stifled by the oil boom. Beside the range limitations with the current tech, it's going to be a while still before you can charge an electric car as quickly and conveniently as you can fuel a car with an ICE, a major limitation. The kind of power we're talking about here (dozens of kWh), is just flat out tough to manage over such a short amount of time. The infrastructure required to for a charging station capable of charging several hypothetical EVs at once in a few minutes is substantial, it's not a Tesla brand "Supercharger" hooked up to some existing electrical service. We're talking about the amount of power the average home uses in a month being used in a matter of minutes or hours, that's a lot of current and a lot of load on the power distribution system. Solar cells on the roof of the charging station? They will provide a small fraction of the power needed, generating far less than 500W/m^2 even under ideal circumstances (keep in mind that on a clear summer day you'll see 1kW/m^2 or less from the sun at the earth's surface). We're talking about huge upgrades to the infrastructure here, and we're going to need more clean power too, wind and solar won't cut it because of the practical limitations; we need nuclear energy. Unfortunately misinformed alarmists and dumb hippies have people afraid of our best bet for clean energy.

Not sure where the classically ignorant label of tin foil fit in to this discussion. I am not sure anyone is coming from off the wall. It is tough to be graceful to ignorance.

The battery technology has suffered from EVs being rejected. If there is no market, there will not be a push, interest, funding needed for batteries which could say power a car. The research focused on the ICE and many advancements were made which we enjoy today. Batteries certainly have progressed.. Cell phones, laptops, pacemakers, AEDs, etc have brought about wonderful advancements .. I'm just not sure if that tech is scalable to power cars. Is it? Or maybe the advancements are not in the direction tailored for EV use.

Weird enough, was listening to some Nikola Tesla folks this morning on YT. A previous comment, re Nuke, made me think of some take aways from that video... spoke of a battery Tesla would have used with radiated clay (radium, and radium clay a typical topical of the time) for the medium... Maybe nuculear is the answer..

I'd love to know more about Tesla, his works and accomplishments. His death ray, wireless transmission of energy, vehicle powered by the ether... Tin foil? Military use of lasers for defense and weaponry... Rail guns, radio for countless applications, HAARP... Actually it is real stuff. He was just a few decades too early.

[Kershaw]

His death ray was a joke, it never existed. He had some pretty cool inventions, but he was also definitely a nut case. Don't think I'm not a detractor though, I donated money (and got a t-shirt) to buy and renovate the Tesla Museum.

[TimeMachinE30]

Death Ray was a joke? Meh... The technology is in practice by our military. The shielding from incoming missiles... That is nothing new..

The earthquake machine... Destroying his Manhattan lab...it sounds reasonable... But may be more headline than story.

[Kershaw]

He gave a copy of his "death ray" to the hotel he lived in in lieu of paying, for the final years of his life. He told them not to open it until after he died. When they opened it was just random crap and wires sitting in a box. He duped them.

It is new tech. If we had death rays, they would have been used in WW2. It's just now being used in anti missile defense. If we had it before, we would have never developed mingun based CIWS. "The shield" is an anti-missile missile shield. Lasers as an offensive or defensive measure are just now being fielded in tests.

[varg]

Not sure where the classically ignorant label of tin foil fit in to this discussion. I am not sure anyone is coming from off the wall. It is tough to be graceful to ignorance.

The battery technology has suffered from EVs being rejected. If there is no market, there will not be a push, interest, funding needed for batteries which could say power a car. The research focused on the ICE and many advancements were made which we enjoy today. Batteries certainly have progressed.. Cell phones, laptops, pacemakers, AEDs, etc have brought about wonderful advancements .. I'm just not sure if that tech is scalable to power cars. Is it? Or maybe the advancements are not in the direction tailored for EV use.

Weird enough, was listening to some Nikola Tesla folks this morning on YT. A previous comment, re Nuke, made me think of some take aways from that video... spoke of a battery Tesla would have used with radiated clay (radium, and radium clay a typical topical of the time) for the medium... Maybe nuculear is the answer..

I'd love to know more about Tesla, his works and accomplishments. His death ray, wireless transmission of energy, vehicle powered by the ether... Tin foil? Military use of lasers for defense and weaponry... Rail guns, radio for countless applications, HAARP... Actually it is real stuff. He was just a few decades too early.

Yes, tin foil. You failed to address anything that I said, and just called me "ignorant" for not seeing it your way.

From a literal conspiracy to "stifle innovation" by the oil industry to super secret technology invented by a man 100 years ago which has been flawlessly kept secret since then. You're basically just speculating on hearsay and a narrative that you find personally appealing then tossing around insults, calling me ignorant for not believing it because someone else wrote it online.

Is battery technology usable for superior laptops and phones and other stuff scaleable to cars? Of course it is. Is demand there without electric cars? Of course. Do you think they're using some special type of battery not found in anything else in modern EVs? There has not been much pressure to find any alternative to internal combustion engines because they were simply the superior solution and honestly still are until battery tech advances further and the infrastructure can support the added demand. Why have previous EVs failed? Nobody wanted to buy them. Why? Nobody wanted a car that had extremely limited range and needed hours to charge up. EVs have been around for over 100 years, they got steamrolled by the internal combustion engine because electric motors were weak and inefficient, batteries had low capacity and didn't last, and they took forever to charge. When EVs and gasoline powered cars were competing the EVs died because... why lug around heavy batteries that have no capacity and take forever to recharge when you can pour gasoline for a minute or so and be on your way? Let's not forget about the maturation of solar cells and other technologies generation of electricity. Nuclear power, more efficient and cleaner use of coal and natural gas, these things were in immense demand irrespective of the existence of EVs and it still took all these years.