Subaru, formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries, is the successor to the Nakajima Aircraft Company, which manufactured one of the legendary Japanese planes (the Hayabusa) during World War 2, and they still produce vehicles and aerospace components for the Japanese military.
Subaru vehicles are produced using superior Japanese engineering. 4 wheel drive ensures that they can be driven in adverse conditions, not just in soyboy cities.
Subaru-Robin lawnmower engines are superior to Bricks&Scrapiron trash (unfortunately they are no longer produced, which means get your fucking hands on one before they all disappear)
Subaru is the most based car brand you can find today. Even Brenton Tarrant drove a Subaru. Why aren't you driving a Subaru, nanon?
posting here because kike admin locked /o/
>not electric
>near 2020
>not being a low-aerodynamic magnesium alloy space frame chassis with tweel tires in-wheel hub permanent magnet axial flux ironless halbach motor in all 4 wheels with stabilization and torque vectoring
>>12031 >muh elegdrig garz D:DD:DDDDD:DDDDD
Electric cars are a token cumskin wigger technology. They are less efficient, less long-lived, less practical and all-around retarded; yet cumskins and other kinds of filth insist on wasting their money buying it.
>>12033 >They are less efficient
[citation needed]
The theoretical efficiency of a internal combustion motor is 37%, in reality it's around 24%.
Permanent magnet motors can have efficiency up to 97%. Live with it.
>less long-lived
Electric motors live more because they are simpler.
>less practical
In what sense? Electricity-wise? If it is, not true. You can plug it on the wall and done. If you mean that the world don't have enough energy, then not true too. Petroleum will all be burned in some years and we can't produce it. Whereas with electricity we have nuclear power plants.
Do you know what made japanese aircraft so good? Simplicity. Electric motors simplify the concept of cars very much.
Lurk moar.
>>12033 >less efficient
I heard it was the other way around because it eliminates the need for the entire drivetrain and therefore the friction involved with all those components. Also means that oil changes are less frequent because contaminates do not enter the system through the combustion cycle.
>>12038 >[citation needed]
Coal power plants, which produce the majority of electricity in the world, are around 30 to 40 percent effient. Let's say 35% is the nominal value.
Charging batteries and discharging them again is very inefficient. Tesla batteries charging at high speed (which is still way slower than filling a tank of gas, btw) have a charging efficiency of around 60 to 70 percent - let's say 65%. Discharge of that battery has average 85% effiency.
Let's also assume that the motor efficiency is 97% as you say.
In this case, the tesla is 17% efficient overall.
Internal combustion engines are around 24% efficient, and the gearbox is usually 90% or higher. Let's assume numbers of 24% and 90% respectively. This makes the internal combustion engine vehicle 21% efficient overall, which is superior to the tesla, and has lots of other advantages as well.
>Electric motors live more because they are simpler.
The batteries do not. We all know how badly laptop and phone batteries hold charge when they are old. And when you burn out a coil on an electric motor, you are NOT fixing that shit by yourself, if at all. In contrast, when you totally wear out an engine after half a million miles, you can change the bearings, change the rings and re-sleeve the cylinders and just keep on going. This can be done at home if you have enough time and some relatively basic tools.
>You can plug it on the wall
Which takes hours to charge, vs 5 minutes to fill from a jerrycan or a pump.
>Petroleum will all be burned
You haven't heard of biodiesel and bioethanol? These fuels are the most promising renewable fuels in my opinion, because they can easily be burned in existing engines.
>Do you know what made japanese aircraft so good? Simplicity.
An electric vehicle is NOT SIMPLE. The motor may be "simple", but the shitload of batteries, electronic control modules, "smart" systems and other bullshit that invariably comes with electric vehicles is greatly increased compared to internal combustion vehicles. Someone can build an engine from scratch out of raw metal if they had a machine shop, which may cost a few tens of thousands of dollars to put together. Nobody can build even a single motor control module from raw metal unless they have a multi-million-dollar chip fab facility.
>>12040 Drivetrain and bearing technology is very good. Gearbox efficiencies are 90% or over now.
>oil changes are less frequent
Oil changes are not difficult, and waste oil can be burned in the engine over time if you filter it and mix it with the gasoline in small portions. If you have a diesel, then waste oil can be filtered and directly burned with around 75% diesel.
>>12043 Don't forget that the battery weighs like a ton or something and takes you less far than a full tank would. xD
Though electric cars may be practical enough if the big cities are all you're gonna drive them through.
Also,
>burning fossil fuels to drive electric cars with that energy
LMAOing @ electricfags
BTW
>burning fossil fuels to make biofuel
LMAOing @ biofags
(it still has potential though)
>>12044 >burning fossil fuels to make biofuel
Biofuels are made from plants, and they cost way less energy to extract and process than what they provide. So biofuels are much more practical than electric bullshit.
The oldest form of biofuel is wood. Wood can be burned to generate massive amounts of energy, and the only effort you need to put in is to swing the axe, move the saw, and cut down the tree. Unfortunately, wood-burning cars, while common in world war 2 when petroleum was not available for civilian uses, are even less convenient than electric cars, so they are not common today.
>>12031 (me)
>>12038 (me)
>>12043 Ok, so now we are not actually talking about vehicles. We are talking about a worldwide energy production efficiency.
The primary discussion was if a electric car is better or not.
Anyway, here we go:
>Charging batteries and discharging them again is very inefficient
Indeed. But it doesn't have to be battery as the energy storage means. Just like petroleum refinement, the technology evolves. If we are going to change from coal/natural-gas to renewable energy, the technology will get more stable/efficient as we progress.
To give a example of better energy storage, see the magnetic bearing flywheel and flow batteries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
>have a charging efficiency of around 60 to 70 percent - let's say 65%. Discharge of that battery has average 85% effiency.
Where did you got those data? I don't think this is the case for new common use Li-Po batteries.
>In this case, the tesla is 17% efficient overall.
[citation needed]
You are forgetting other variables, such as weight and cost. A electric car weights much less than conventional cars, thus reducing electricity consumption. Also, electric cars can cost less depending on the technology used (permanent magnets are expensive, but switch motors can be as efficient and cost much less).
Not to say about other things: immediate torque, no noise, no direct polution (CO2 production), etc.
>and has lots of other advantages as well.
Such as?
>The batteries do not.
Agreed. Lithium batteries are also dangerous (inflamable). But, read the above. Technology is already getting better.
>And when you burn out a coil on an electric motor...
How are you going to do it? This is nearly impossible with todays technology.
>Which takes hours to charge, vs 5 minutes to fill from a jerrycan or a pump.
Doesn't matter, unless you're travelling very long distances.
>You haven't heard of biodiesel and bioethanol?
I have, but they have some of the same issues of gasoline (motor inneficiency, weight, CO2 production). Also, their production is limited (AFAIK a japanese company created a GMO microalgae that has much larger multiplication rate, but I don't think it's already in use).
>Nobody can build even a single motor control module from raw metal unless they have a multi-million-dollar chip fab facility.
Bullshit. Lurk moar.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YsSm65DAcCg Also, our currect cars already use those "electronic control modules, "smart" systems and other bullshit", and you can do that with simple processors. We're not talking about computer-vision here, we are talking about basic microcontrolers for stability control and torque vectoring.
>>12044 >battery weighs like a ton
The current ones, yes. But consider that the overall car weight is reduced because you don't need the complexity of combustion engines.
See also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-air_battery
>burning fossil fuels to drive electric cars with that energy
What is hydroelectric? What is solar?
If every person had a high-concentration photovoltaic panel at home, you would waste nearly 0 dolars to drive your car.
>burning fossil fuels to make biofuel
I don't think biofuel is the future, but you're wrong too. Bioreactors don't need fossil fuels to work, just carbon-dioxide, nutrients and sunlight.
>>12067 >hurr durr [shitation needed]
>it's better but only after developing 9000 different types of radically different new technology
Why do you think any of this bullshit is better than simply improving combustion engine technology? There are still a lot of areas to improve. HCCI for example is a new engine technology which could greatly improve efficiency. Opposed-piston diesel engines are much more efficient than 24%.
>motor inefficiency, weight, CO2 production
Why are you whining on about CO2 like an absolute brain-dead libtard? Even libtards can understand that biofuels are CO2-neutral because they are made from plants, which absorb CO2 from the air while they are growing. "Motor inefficiency" is a moot point, too. You look at the engine and say "LOOK WOW 24% VERY BAD" but you don't also look at battery inefficiency and electricity production efficiency. And biofuel production is not "limited". Biodiesel for example can be produced using ordinary vegetable oils combined with sodium hydroxide or some other common chemical. Ethanol can be produced with sugar and yeast.
Your arguments are all shit. You depend on the introduction of multiple gay technologies to even begin to compete with the superiority of engines, while existing diesel engines can already reach efficiencies of 35% to 40%, while maintaining the benefits of long range, fast refuelling and backwards compatibility with existing technologies.
>>12068 >ad hominem everywhere
Wow, what else did I expected from here? Not surprised.
>better than simply improving combustion engine technology?
Because we can't improve combustion engines significantly anymore. We reached their limit.
But that's not the case with electric motors.
Also, electric engines on cars open possibilities that combustion engines cannot have, such as putting the motor inside the wheel. This also opens the possibility of more secure cars, since it's more lightweight and you can have specific control over the center of gravity. This means less probability of rollout and better projection of car structure (as the wheel engine liberates more space, you can project diagrid space frame to distribute the forces in case of impact).
I could go on with the possibilities. I did some a big research on this some months back... I was even thinking about a patent for one of my ideas, but it costs too much.
>HCCI engine
Wikipedia linked a paper from Society of Automotive Engineers saying it's 30% more effient than current engines. This mean 7.20% above the average 24% of efficiency, or 31.20% overall efficiency.
This is not enough, very low compared to todays electric engines.
>Why are you whining on about CO2
While it is true the bioreactor will absorb and release O2 in the air, most vehicles using biodiesel will be driven inside the city and the CO2 released while burning will still polute the air. Biodiesel would not be as bad for the whole environment, but the cities would still have poluted air.
The saturation of CO2 in the air is bad for general health.
>battery inefficiency and electricity production efficiency.
Battery is a issue we need to solve as a society. I've linked some ideas in the previous reply, you're welcome to read. Also, the production of energy is not really inneficient, the biggest issue is energy storage.
>And biofuel production is not "limited".
I meant that it doesn't scale very well. Two major issues are:
- Bioreactors need sunlight (ultra-violet radiation, to be specific). This is the same issue with Solar energy
- The rate of multiplication of algae/cyanobacteria is not enough. As I said, some researchers are trying to genetically modificate some strains to have a better rate of multiplication
- The ratio between mass/oil is too small. This means you'll need huge places with huge bioreactors to actually make it happen
This is what I meant by "limited". I know you can reproduce algae indefinetly (considering you have the nutrients).
>You depend on the introduction of multiple gay technologies to even begin to compete
Some of these are already in use. Siemens have some of these working in germany, AFAIK. This is happening now.
>>12069 >we can't improve combustion engines significantly
LOLWUT? There are infinite possibilities for improvement. Diesel engines are already very efficient, and with new engine layouts such as opposed piston two stroke diesels combined with turbo- and super-charging can reach efficiencies of 40% to 50%. Electric motors can't be improved because their efficiency is close to 100% already. The motor is not the problem. The battery is the problem, and how you get the energy into the battery is also a problem. Stop talking about the motors. It's irrelevant.
>putting the motor inside the wheel
This is bullshit retardation. It will greatly increase your unsprung weight, which causes bad handling and a bumpy ride.
>lightweight
>more secure cars
Lightweight means you have less traction.
>blublub electric engines
As I said, irrelevant. Combustion engines generate energy directly from primary fuel sources. Electric motors require you to take into account the losses of production, storage, and discharge.
>CO2 will pollute da air!!!!!!!1!1!
CO2 by itself is not relevant. CO2 is not harmful to humans unless it is present in high concentrations. And moving the pollution elsewhere is not a solution; it will also introduce transmission losses. In my 17% efficiency figure for teslas I forgot to include power transmission losses, which probably reduce the efficiency of your electric meme even more.
>biofuel doesn't scale well
>muh cyanobacteria
Why are you rambling about cyanobacteria and algae? Ethanol is produced using yeast. Diesel engines can be modified to run on pure vegetable oil which requires no processing.
>>12071 >Electric motors can't be improved because their efficiency is close to 100% already.
That's my point.
>The battery is the problem
Exactly as I said in previous post. If you have read, I said there is solutions for this problem. Both for the powergrid (flow batteries and flywheels) and for the cars (aluminum-air batteries). As a example, Tesla acquired Maxell:
>"[their batteries drop] the expensive cobalt element and using "nano infused lithium" with manganese, with twenty times more power storage, and the ability to mass-produce it inexpensively."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxell#Batteries
>Stop talking about the motors. It's irrelevant.
It is not. The motors transfer chemical/electric energy to mechanical energy. This is the primary point for vehicle efficiency (together with weight and rolling resistence).
>It will greatly increase your unsprung weight
This was solved years ago. First on Hoover from NASA, then on normal cars (such as MIT's Hiriko) and by companies (Protean and Elaphe, for example). Currently it's used on industrial vehicles. AFAIK, they put the suspension inside the wheel and use lightweight materials (aluminum and magnesium alloys).
>Lightweight means you have less traction.
So what? Also, in-wheel motor would increase traction exactly where it is needed.
>Combustion engines generate energy directly from primary fuel sources.
They do. But, you're limited to the energy liberated by combustion and by gears. For a raw performance comparison, compare F1 with Formula-e.
>And moving the pollution elsewhere is not a solution
Indeed, that's why I'm defending electric. No direct emission, no noise.
>I forgot to include power transmission losses
Same for combustion engines. Also, rolling resistence, aerodynamic drag and weight.
>Why are you rambling about cyanobacteria and algae?
From my research, they are the only efficient way of producing biofuel.
Using plants for energy would be a ecological disaster and I didn't see research about using yeast in large scale production. You could prove me wrong here.
BTW, can you stop being a monkey for a moment asukafag? I'm trying to discuss seriously.
>>12075 (me)
>>12071 Complementing my last post:
>CO2 by itself is not relevant. CO2 is not harmful to humans unless it is present in high concentrations.
World Health Organization disagrees with you:
>Small particulate pollution have health impacts even at very low concentrations - indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
>>12080 Cars produce very few emissions. Catalytic converters and particulate filters are a thing. Whenever you see some car blowing smoke, it's because the owners are retards who don't replace the cat or the filter.
There is a superior kind of vehicle:
- no carbon emissions
- high (~99% efficiency)
- no motor to maintain
- very simple to understand - just by looking
- easy and cheap to repair/upgrade
- increase personal health
- doesn't require you to travel on predetermined roads or rails
- no botnet
and it's the fucking bicycle, but I guess you fat americans have no understanding of using your own strength to move anywhere.
>>12092 >Bikes are nice for commuting, except when it rains.
Put up with the rain, unless you are a little bitch. Wear waterproof clothing. Anything extra on top of a bicycle (motor, fairing/full enclosure like a velomobile) is unnecessary complexity.
>>12092 >>12095 e.g. that podbike shit has to have it's own garage system taking up huge amounts of space, resources, etc. whereas with a bike you just lock it to a railing, or a folding bike you take with you.
>>12092 >>12095 >>12098 >You will have electric assist up to 25 km/h. Higher speed needs to be based on your pedalling, as well as wind and gravity. When speed go above 50 km/h the electric motors automatically starts to gently brake the vehicle. Max speed is around 60 km/h.
Sounds shit, I can go faster down a hill on a department store bike.
Bicycles are the superior form of single-person transportion when not more than 10kg of additional cargo is to be carried for a distance of 20km or less, there are few steep grades along the route, and if time is not a severe constraint. Otherwise, karz iz betturr.
>>12092 (me)
>>12095 Rain can fuck your electronics. You can't carry too much weight on a bike.
And the most important aspect against bikes for me: safety. It's not safe at all. Here in my shithole country we have fatal accidents with bikes very frequently. That's because roads are too narrow for the amount of vehicles and generally there's no special lane for bikes.
You do a single mistake and a truck pass over your head. That's a big issue for me.
But, I agree people should use bikes and it *is* superior for commuting... unless you're not in civilized countries with good traffic regulamentations. In this case your chances of dying increases.
>>12112 >it's not safe
That's why you should ascend to the level of a true chad and cover yourself with flashing lights. Also, ride right in the middle of the road and play loud music. No one will accidentally hit you, then.
For bonus points put a machine gun at the back and the front so you can shoot people who are intentionally trying to run you over.
>>13287 >flashing lights
It doesn't work very well. In daylight it is ineffective and at night there is still big trucks that can't see shit and don't care about cyclists. Here in my country cyclists die smashed by trucks every single day.
For commuting, bycicle is great (or any human-powered transportation). But for >1km city trip it's not safe at all.
>>13288 >Hurr duzent werk
That just means you need to increase the power of your flashing lights. Use lights that blind all surrounding drivers and automatic high power laser systems that make beams in the air. Not only can no one not notice you, all drivers will be blinded and swerve off the road before they can hit you. Perfect solution 9/9.
>>13289 Bullshit. A true chad attaches a powerful engine to his bicycle so he can go not just as fast, but even faster than the fastest cars. The chaddest of chads attach aerospace-grade turbojet engines and collapsible wings to their bicycles so that they can fly out of range of police and military vehicles.
What, are you telling me you just pedal with your scrawny little feet like a fuckin pleb???
>>12088 >high (~99% efficiency)
Nope. Humans don't absorb 100% of the food energy consumed (read about bioavailability). And we lose energy when doing exercise, since we have to maintain other parts of the body that is not related to the leg movement (brain, mostly).
Also, the bicycle gear will have some degree of friction, the aerodynamic drag from your body against the air and rolling resistence from tires.
Not 99% efficient.
>>13295 >we have to maintain other parts of the body that is not related to the leg movement
Those have to be maintained in any case, including when you drive a car instead. They are therefore discounted.
>the bicycle gear will have some degree of friction
That's the ~1%
>the aerodynamic drag from your body against the air and rolling resistance from tires.
This is discounted from calculations for cars as well.
>>13299 >Those have to be maintained in any case
Not in the same degree when you're doing exercise. For example, to prevent overheat your body will produce sweat. To keep balance, you'll have to use your vestibular system, which uses the cerebelum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular_system
Also, you will use more your cognition to process possible obstacles that cars will not have because they have specific roads for them (most countries still don't have appropriate cyclepaths). Wikipedia has a very complete article about cycling safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_safety
>That's the ~1%
Not according to this:
>Even a new, well-oiled chain will lose about 3% of the power that is put into the pedals.
>If the pulleys are good quality with steel bearings then about 1.5% of the power is lost.
https://ridefar.info/bike/cycling-speed/mechanical-resistance/
>>12020 >Why aren't you driving a Subaru, nanon?
Because they look like shit.
>>16978 >Actually asukafag got out of arguments against electric motors. Read the thread.
It ended with electric motors are fine but the range and charging times can't compete with ICEs. People who reee about the environment haven't looked carefully enough at what these batteries are made of either.
Hydrogen cars were supposed to be the future because you fill them up in a minute just like petrol and the only emissions is water vapor. But they were quietly killed for some reason.
>>16991 >haven't looked carefully enough
Humm, dunno about that. There's nothing special about modern batteries. Sure Lithium extraction is damaging to the environment and it's not scalable due to scarce quantity of this material. But is it as damaging as petrol and burning coal? Don't think so.
Hopefully flow batteries or alluminum-air will replace the lithium ones.
>>16991 >>16994 Look faggots, there is absolutely zero reasons to use electrical motors or batteries on cars ever as long as the amount of power produced from burning non-renewable shit (gas, oil, coal) is where it is now, around 75% of worldwide power production maybe?
This here shit means the following:
1) Power to fill your """clean""" batteries was "dirty" as fuck and you even lost some in the transition from "dirty AND inefficient" power plants
2) Power to produce the gimmicky shit like biofuel (yes I'm looking at you Asukafaggot) was produced in the same shit fashion and your agricultural vehicles to produce your bionutrients are powered via the regular diesel fuel and not your fancydancy biodiesel.
3) Same goes for hydrogen shit because guess what, the electrolysis (the most obvious way if we get rid of fossil fuels and the most renewable way anyway) takes power lol
4) And that shit will continue to be as it is for economic reasons as long as regular fuel is cheaper and it will be cheaper unless something very radical happens like political decision (not happening ever) or we simply run out of oil and shit (which is going to be a painful transition even for rich and developed nations if it hits suddenly)
>muh hydroelectric
>muh solar
Hydroelectric plants are damaging to the environment because they require dams. Literally all big rivers in the industrial countries are fucked up and get pretty much worse.
Solar is low-efficiency per sq.(k)m lol. Also countries closer to the poles will suffer and will probably require to buy electricity.
The only source power I don't see an immediate problem with is nuclear but stupid Japanese monkeys had to blow up the Fukushima station for literally no reason. Maybe humanity shouldn't be trusted with that shit yet at all.
>>16998 Are you braindead?
>will still rely
Nobody said that.
If humanity stops using fossil fuels, the outlined problems will be largely mitigated.
Though you might underestimate the amount of power large economies use. The industries eat a fuck ton, magnitudes above what "muh households" take and what "muh solar panels on roof" can provide EVER.
>>17000 >No, they don't.
Fine. Run-of-the-river plants are largely irrelevant and will stay irrelevant. Could be useful in a go-off-a-grid-to-live-in-some-ancap/ancom-paradise scenario though.
The reliable way to use hydro is a dam and a reservoir. A lot of so-called "run-of-the-river plants" use a reservoir anyway.
Anyway if you love hydro that much, you should know all the shortcomings better. Tidal plants are even less desirable because of low availability of shores with big tides.
>>16991 >Hydrogen cars
Using hydrogen as a medium for energy is somehow even stupider idea then lithium batteries.
So imagine youd have a tesla battery worth of energy stored in a large hydrogen tank. What happens if you ever damage the tank, even slightly, by say a moderate crash? You get a leak, it mixes with oxygen and goes boom, killing everybody because that is a shit fucking ton of energy being released at once. Also tell me where the fuck would you get the hydrogen? Electrolysis is a horribly retarded idea as that is a very energy inefficient process. There is no hydrogen on the planet just waiting to be mined, you have to get from somewhere. Over all, its an impractical and dangerous idea that will never see any use.
Btw if you add the weight of the tank, hydrogen actually has a comparable energy density to a lithium battery, (you cant actually stuff that much of it into a small space, and these things are fucking heavy so that they can withstand all the pressure) making it completely worthless. Not that a battery powered car is any better considering the source of most of our energy.
>>16999 >Nobody said that.
Yes you did. Here:
>"as long as the amount of power produced from burning non-renewable shit (gas, oil, coal) is where it is now"
>>17003 >The future lies in mass transit
In that we all agree, I think. Maglevs are the way to go, IMO. Specially if you create vaccum tunnels in ocean. Seems science fiction, but it's actually not just possible, but feasible in our life time.
I don't like most of what Elon does/says, but his project Hyperloop is interesting to promote research in this area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
>>17004 >Yes you did. Here:
You are completely retarded. I said "as long as".
Also if humanity stops doing that, the entire debate becomes null because fossil-fueled cars will become the large standing out environmental concern with a rather obvious solution (low distances, if still present, could theoretically be mitigated by infrastructure), so you are double retarded. Basically STFU if all your "solutions" are unrealistic garbage plz.
>>17004 >vaccum tunnels
>kilometers long tunnel that instantly murders everyone inside the moment there is even the slightest damage to the structure
>lets build under a fucking ocean!
>>17003 >Electrolysis is a horribly retarded idea as that is a very energy inefficient process.
With current nuclear technology and uranium reserves we have enough energy to power humanity for billions of years so "inefficiency" of the fuel itself is a non-argument. The only thing that matters for a car is you can fill it with hydrogen in a few minutes instead of waiting 50 hours for a battery to charge.
>You get a leak, it mixes with oxygen and goes boom, killing everybody because that is a shit fucking ton of energy being released at once.
What better way to train people to drive carefully?
>>17009 You clearly dont understand what 'an accident' means. Even if you are the most careful driver ever, shit still happens. People fall asleep or get seizures, you can meet an old person, you can get rekt by a fucking boulder from the sky, a tree can fall on you, etc...
Also people are fucking retarded and you cant just remove that from the equation.
>muh nuclear
Tell me that when we can meet the demand solely by nuclear power plants. We cant, so efficiency matters. I doubt anyone of us will still be around when that happens, with their bad rep and so on. Hydrogen fusion is where the game is at, but again, nobody here will live to see a commercial use of that
>>17009 >The only thing that matters for a car is you can fill it with hydrogen in a few minutes instead of waiting 50 hours for a battery to charge.
With batteries you can have recharged replacements ready at the "recharging" station so that's kinda non-argument too.
>What better way to train people to drive carefully?
That's a sad way to look at it because careful drivers will suffer because of reckless drivers and now you ensure 100% lethality of such impacts.
I'm not entirely sure about this though. Maybe something can be done to keep the hydrogen safe.
>>17005 >a rather obvious solution
Yeah, so obvious that no one could solve that in the last 50 years.
>all your "solutions" are unrealistic
They are not, you're just ill-informed about them. There's already companies doing everything I've posted here.
>>17006 This is not true at all. Go read how maglevs work. In fact, they are more secure than normal trains (they basically cannot derail).
>>17009 >waiting 50 hours for a battery to charge.
You're probably using a figure of speech here, but current electric cars take only few hours to charge.
Also, most people don't need to travel long distances. There was a study about that, don't know if I've already posted here.
>>17012 >Yeah, so obvious that no one could solve that in the last 50 years.
What are you talking about?
I was talking about the supposed cease of the use of fossil fuels. IF that happens, that would almost 100% mean there is a cheaper source of energy which in turn means fossil fueled cars would become increasingly irrelevant.
If that doesn't happen though, you're full of shit.
>There's already companies doing everything I've posted here.
Since we don't see the wide adoption of electric cars/whatever green shit, one can conclude it is some inefficient gimmicky garbage as of yet and it rides off green hype (not the worst way to go) or even governmental subsidies. Fascinating stuff.
>In fact, they are more secure than normal trains (they basically cannot derail).
That argument probably was about how dangerous it is IF it breaks. Buidling secure high-speed tunnels is difficult. There is a possibility a small earthquake fucks it up a little and it goes kaboom on the next run.
>Also, most people don't need to travel long distances.
Maybe those people don't need a car at all lol. I cannot imagine the benefits for the environment if all retards who don't actually need a car stop using it. Gas all weimericans btw (the joke is they gas themselves wacka wacka).
The reason for it not being adopted widely is because:
- Batteries were inefficient until ~10 years ago (normal cars still use lead-acid, btw).
- Combustion engines is already wide spread. Companies require time to develop machinery for serial production and money to reorganize the factories
>how dangerous it is IF it breaks
Yes, but there is redundancies (tunnels within tunnels).
>Buidling secure high-speed tunnels is difficult.
For sure. I agree.
>earthquake
Oceanic petroleum pumps suffer the same. This is a "solved" problem in this area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenchless_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cured-in-place_pipe >it goes kaboom
There's no combustion engine and no comburent (oxygen). No way in hell it will explode.
>Maybe those people don't need a car at all lol.
Most don't, I agree. That's why some anon suggested bikes and I agreed on >>12092.
>>17014 >It's not. I've explained from here bellow:
You didn't disprove shit.
Batteries still have lower energy density than a fuel tank.
Batteries are still expensive as fuck.
In case of Li-ion, the mainstream one, it degrades with every recharge.
>Oceanic petroleum pumps suffer the same
Maybe they don't have objects flying through them at 700 kph, ever thought about that?
Though I don't care much about those. If they get implemented, it would be cool, I guess. It won't happen in my cuntry lol.
>No way in hell it will explode.
OK, it goes CRACK *inexplicable screeching, cracking and splashing*
>Most don't, I agree.
Well, the point obviously was that electric cars absolutely must be competitive in "range without refueling" to conventional cars to get adopted if we are to look at them seriously.
>>17015 >You didn't disprove shit.
Ok, I'll write again:
- Much higher efficiency than combustion engines (97%, compared to 37%).
- Lower complexity.
- Lower weight (and, therefore, lower energy consumption).
- Lower maintainance.
- Possible lower cost (except for permanent magnets, everything else is cheap).
- Instant torque (sometimes important to safety).
- Ability to have fine control over torque (meaningful for electronic stability control)
- Weight gets distributed appropriately, instead of a big mass in the front of the car. This has implications for safety and better car handling.
There you have it.
Also, I'm assuming these motors would be applied the same way we do today, but I don't think this should be the case for electric. Since it's so light, it's possible to put them inside the wheels and the benefits increases even more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor#Uses_in_current_and_future_vehicles
>Batteries still have lower energy density than a fuel tank.
True. But as I've explained in other posts in this thread, there's already development of better batteries going on. Still, LiPo already works well, it's just not scalable to global market.
>it degrades with every recharge
Takes many years. Don't think it's relevant for cars. Sure relevant for power grid uses, but not so much in cars.
>Maybe they don't have objects flying through them
Actually they do. Not at that speed, sure.
But, yes, I see your point. This would be a massive engineering project. Not easy at all.
>electric cars absolutely must be competitive in "range without refueling"
Unfortunatelly yes, because people are idiot.
>>17016 > - Much higher efficiency than combustion engines (97%, compared to 37%).
A proof this person is actually medically retarded. Either that or he didnt bother reading anything in this thread at all
Arguments for ICE vehicles:
>It's good.
>It's tried and tested.
>It's the most efficient.
Arguments for electric vehicles:
<i-it will get better in the future i swear, m-m-muh new technology is being researched!
<y-yeah maybe the pollution overall is worse but if you say so you're making a LOJICKUL FALASSEY.
>>17017 Please, explain what point you think is wrong so I can argument.
>17018
>>It's the most efficient.
For sure not.
>it will get better in the future
It's already good. My point is that batteries will increase energy density as more research is being done.
>pollution overall is worse
It's not. Asukafag, you know very well your argument was about power grid, instead of cars. For power grid usages, there is limitations to batteries and I've agreed with that already in >>12067
>>17020 Ok ill try to explain it one more time.
Energy is a resource. Some things contain energy and some even let you get it out and use it for something else. If you have a chunk of coal for example, there is some finite amount of energy you can get out if you know how. The category of things that are as of now the most practical to get energy out of are fossil fuels. It doesnt matter much right now if we talk about nat gas, coal, gasoline, etc... dead dinosaurs, thats what the world runs on.
There is a law of thermodynamics that says that you cant create nor destroy energy, only change its form. Sadly once it turns to heat, there usually isnt much else you can do with it.
Do you know how did the energy find itself in the battery so that your super efficient engine can use it? Its burned dead dinosaurs. (at least 80% of it and it will stay that way for a long time) But now, instead of directly using the power you get by burning a dead dinosaur like a regular engine does, it gets burned in a plant, and then transferred to your battery via a series of very inefficient processes, each time part of it turning to heat (that part is no longer useful). Remember the law that ive mentioned earlier. It wont get any better than directly burning it into motion because the amount of energy in a given dead dinosaur is finite. The least efficient process of course is the charging process but then we have various stepping downs along the way and so on.
So stating that muh 97% is a peak stupidity because these things are actually significantly less efficient in terms of the amount of burned dead dinosaurs.
Also sorry but 97% sounds like bullshit to me anyways
>>17016 Look idiot, even if you put advantages of electric engines over IC on a display, unless your electric cars run off the grid lol, those cars are still garbage. Learn to live with it.
Also
>Lower weight (and, therefore, lower energy consumption).
Internet suggests that "Dry (no fluids) engine weight, without accessories, for MOST (but not all) engines can range anywhere between 130 to 350kg", so it's not that much of a difference considering the weight of a car frame AND YOUR STUPID BATTERY LOL.
>Possible lower cost (except for permanent magnets, everything else is cheap).
You're full of shite. Obviously Tesla cars aren't cheap and the battery cost could buy you a second-hand or even a new ICE car lol.
Also apparently the cheapest electric car is around $30k so you still lose.
>there's already development of better batteries going on.
It's being going on for decades and basically Al-air battery was a better argument. It's not rechargeable though.
>Still, LiPo already works well
Except that it doesn't.
>Takes many years.
They die in 5 to 10 years depending on use, temperature and whatnot, unless something really radical was invented.
>Don't think it's relevant for cars.
People like you should not make arguments for "green" stuff btw.
>not so much in cars.
Literally fucking braindamaged. You're gonna recharge it every damn day.
>Unfortunatelly yes, because people are idiot.
Some people might buy an EV if it's considerably cheaper than ICV.
>>17037 You're the one running of wishful thinking and relying on a progress fairy (not real) here, so STFU about inteLLectual honesty here.
>It's already good.
It isn't.
>My point is that batteries will increase energy density as more research is being done.
Come back in decades/centuries if and when they become competitive to fossil fuels.
Anyway I would love them to become even more energy dense than some shitty fuels as it would immensely useful in other areas other than retarded cars.
>>17011 >With batteries you can have recharged replacements ready at the "recharging" station
Why don't we do that now?
>That's a sad way to look at it because careful drivers will suffer because of reckless drivers and now you ensure 100% lethality of such impacts.
Missed sarcasm aside, have any such incidents been recorded?
>>17010 >Tell me that when we can meet the demand solely by nuclear power plants.
Getting over the public resistance and cost of building more fission reactors seems more achievable than betting on fusion technology that doesn't exist.
>>17042 >Why don't we do that now?
Tesla battery packs weigh about 500kg, so even if they were accessible and easy to disconnect/reconnect etc. the process of swapping them out wouldn't be a 60 second job like filling up petrol or hydrogen.
Batteries are expensive too (>$5000) and they decay so no two batteries are the same. You need a way of evaluating the condition and value of the two batteries you are swapping. And the relationship is not going to be linear either e.g. a 50% depleted battery is worth much less than half price of a full battery. So if your battery is sufficiently worn and the "recharging" station only has new batteries then you would be looking at a multi-thousand dollar bill to get driving again.
There's also the gamble of frequently swapping in second hand batteries (and associated electronics) with unknown histories and potential faults.
I don't know if this is the real reasons, it would be interesting to hear from a Teslafag.
>>17038 >unless your electric cars run off the grid lol, those cars are still garbage.
It's not. Higher efficiency equals less energy usage (even the "bad" ones, such as coal burning). Also, those are two different problems. Vehicle engineering is a different area from power grid solutions.
Again, nirvana fallacy.
>Obviously Tesla cars aren't cheap
You guys are looking to Tesla as a role model, and it's not. Tesla proposed a very "high-end" car. This means high performance and high comfort. These two require much more weight and, obviously, costs.
Electric engines is not just Tesla. Go read about history.
>They die in 5 to 10 years depending on use
Bullshit. Not LiPo.
>yada yada yada
Yeah.
>>17060 >The batteries alone weigh far more than any (automobile)
Again, you're using Tesla as a model for electric motors, and it's not.
Typically cars don't need that much battery. They do in Tesla because it has better performance than racing cars (a marketing move from Tesla, to flex on the competitors).
>the lack of other components make up the difference but it doesn't.
Yes, it does. And there is a lot of difference in final weight. The complexity is reduced to almost nothing and, thus, manufacturing is easier.
Just some components unnecessary in electric powered cars: steering column, intermediate shafts, pumps, hoses, belts, coolers, vacuum servos, master cylinders, mechanical transmission (including gearboxes), differentials, drive shafts, axles, etc.
Consider this to be the suckless approach to car engineering.
ps: please read the thread. A lot of your points have already been discussed. Let's not make this an "ad infinitum", keep it straight.
Now we take 40% as the average operational efficiency for good coal power plants. Other fossil fueled stuff is not that far from the mark.
The loss in the power grid is 5%, taken from here: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 The battery charging/discharging losses estimates vary kinda vastly, from 3% to 30%, taken from here:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/battery-charging-and-discharging-losses Let's say 15% and it will include all heat losses withing wiring of an EV. It's pretty generous considering Li-ion batteries lose charge over time too.
Also there is no way that electric torque doesn't get lost in the transmission somewhere, so let's give it some generous 95%.
Finally, there is our 97% of electric engines, just for the record.
This gives us overall 30% (0.4 * 0.95 * 0.85 * 0.97 * 0.95) for your "97%" efficient electric engines.
It might look like a victory to you, but considering the fact that it's not the absolute best for ICEs and pretty rough estimates overall (especially in the power plant area, a lot of power plants are shite), and most importantly, considering that we didn't go green yet, this doesn't look good. Also battery degradation doesn't come into account pretty much at all.
>Vehicle engineering is a different area from power grid solutions.
The grid was mentioned because it is a very efficient way to transfer the energy. Grid solutions are so superior to battery ones that it's been working since what, the beginning of the 20th century now? Just lol.
There were some ways of highly efficient wireless energy transportation but I didn't look into them closely.
>These two require much more weight and, obviously, costs.
Without some solid numbers it is dubious. Especially regarding "weight" part.
>Bullshit. Not LiPo.
Excuse me???
http://learningrc.com/lipo-battery/ <So if your battery is 1300 mAh out of the box, it might drop to 75% of that (about 1000 mAh) after 200 charge/discharge cycles. A LiPo may last 300 to 500 cycles, depending on how it is cared for.
This is very alarming. 10 years of any use will absolutely devastate this battery. You just have to realize Li-ion batteries are utter shit and will be dumped immediately if something better appears.
Also that article talks about more drawbacks of such batteries in detail. It's from 2017 too, so it's not like we're talking some boomer shit.
>Typically cars don't need that much battery.
Typically you need to shut the fuck up. If a car doesn't go at least 500km on one "full charge", it's a toy car.
>Yes, it does.
Are you blind? EVs and ICVs of the same class weigh about the same, and a small ICV could weigh like 500kg total, so don't make fallacious arguments (just a heads up).
>Consider this to be the suckless approach to car engineering.
Yeah, we just need an actually good battery, which we don't have, that's the argument. Literally nobody here is interested in how cool EVs could be, no superior car - no money, fuck off. Car enthusiasts have built some crazy good EVs already, not production quality but it still shows potential.
>>17062 >You're using Tesla as a model for electric motors, and it's not.
Try to post an actual counter example then.
>Typically cars don't need that much battery. They do in Tesla because it has better performance than racing cars
Protip, actual racing cars don't weigh 2 tons. If massive weight is the only way electric cars can compete on performance then what happened to MUH EFFICIENCY?
>Yes, it does.
Except no it doesn't because I showed you evidence >>17060. Maybe show some counter evidence or shut up?
>ps: please read the thread. A lot of your points have already been discussed.
Quote post numbers then.
sage because your post is empty of content and not worth bumping the thread.
>>17062 >you're using Tesla as a model for electric motors, and it's not.
>Typically cars don't need that much battery.
They are still heavier. Nissan Leaf is a non-fast non-"luxury" EV and it's still heavier/smaller/slower than ICE equivalents.
>this doesn't look good
You didn't prove shit with your "math". As I've said already, we are talking about cars, not power grid. The power grid is another problem in itself.
>Grid solutions are so superior to battery
What do you mean? Alternating current? I mostly agree with this. But, again, the grid is different from cars.
Also, power plants need to store energy sometimes. Hydroelectrics uses PSH, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
>wireless energy transportation but I didn't look into them closely.
Don't bother looking. It will never be as efficient.
>Excuse me???
Your link is wrong. It says 300-500 cycles. Here is a recent study:
>"More than 3000 repetitions of the life cycle test profile were performece, without registering a significant reduction in performance in terms of capacity, energy, and efficiency" [...] "The expected lifespan was about 6750 cycles".
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/9/1/13/pdf
>will be dumped immediately if something better appears.
Absolutely agree. I'm not advocating for LiPo. I'm saying LiPo already works. Better battery technology will be developed and lithium will no longer be necessary. Flow batteries are an example of such technology.
>at least 500km on one "full charge", it's a toy car.
Well, that's a opinion. Urban mobility requires much less than that. Get a train if you need to travel far.
100 km is more than what is necessary for most people. This would reduce 384kg from the Tesla Model 3, for example.
>don't make fallacious arguments
What was the fallacy? I can't see it.
>good battery, which we don't have
LiPo works. Not great, but works.
>out-of-nowhere rant
Why is that? U mad?
>>17066 >>17067 I'll answer these two replys later. Tired now.
>>17077 >Don't think you're right here.
<most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.
<Toyota has now developed a new gasoline engine which it claims has a maximum thermal efficiency of 38 percent--greater than any other mass-produced combustion engine.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent Also while some new hi-end engines are rare, the diesel engines are a usual thing.
>Also, I don't even know if those numbers measure for other losses
Because you are retarded and shouldn't even be talking about this. See, one measures efficiency of the engine by burning fuel which emits a specific amount of heat per a mass burned and that engine in turn does the work (physical term) and we can measure the work being done.
The other thing about IC engines and how they work which you don't even mention is that they don't always operate at maximum efficiency. Electric engines don't either though.
>As I've said already, we are talking about cars, not power grid.
We're talking about how energy efficent EVs are compared to ICVs. You cannot do that without going all the way to a power plant because ICVs burn the fuel directly and EVs burn the source of energy at the power plant. Remember - 3/4 of world power is generated by burning fossil fuels. The talk I'm making is going to be legit until it drops at least to 30% (probably the safe margin number when a transition to full EV for transportation doesn't seem stupid at least).
>What do you mean?
Trams.
>Also, power plants need to store energy sometimes.
They usually cannot do it, and it's a big efficiency problem. You cannot stop a thermal power plant, it has to keep going.
>Here is a recent study:
It's funny because it is for an electric bus case as far as I can tell.
So, they perform "shallow cycles". It's not a secret that Li-ion batteries hold better when they're not discharged (when they are stored charged).
Sorry, even I can see problems with this study. It's not real field testing. It is some tricks to make shitty Li-ion go longer. I hate you for linking me that garbage.
>I'm not advocating for LiPo.
You do.
>I'm saying LiPo already works
For toy cars, maybe.
>Better battery technology will be developed and lithium will no longer be necessary.
Better technology might not be developed in a considerable future or even ever due to plethora of reasons.
>100 km is more than what is necessary for most people.
Take a bus lol. Also do you know about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 tl;dr 20 (!!!) years ago your dream was real and guess what? It was a shit expensive car for valley girls and soyboys. The same deal with contemporary EVs. Just fuck off and die or invent an actual battery for your shit, idc.
>What was the fallacy? I can't see it
"The EVs are lighter" meme.
>LiPo works. Not great, but works.
My dick worked your momma's pussay. The result isn't great, as it clearly is not capable of coherent thinking, but it works :DDDD
>Why is that? U mad?
The only thing I'm mad about is your general ineptitude, incompetence, stupidity and stubbornness. At this point I'm just interested what other piles of drivel can come out of your mouth trying to protect shit cars EVs are.
>>17080 >They usually cannot do it, and it's a big efficiency problem. You cannot stop a thermal power plant, it has to keep going.
You can disconnect the steam turbines and vent the heat into the air/sea if you want. We're not really going to run out of fissable uranium very long before the sun explodes. That basically makes nuclear a renewable energy source so "muh efficiency" is moot.
Efficiency is only a problem if you decide nuclear is evil and we need to get all our energy from windmills or some shit.
>>17080 At this point you're just baiting. Repeating the same mistakes you previously did. Thought we could have a adult conversation here.
>hi-end engines are rare
You disproved your own point. You were talking about average efficiency and now you come with a high-end motor?
>Electric engines don't either though.
Has much less losses from friction.
>You cannot do that without going all the way to a power plant
Ever heard of Strawman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>they perform "shallow cycles"
You didn't read the study at all. They tested fast-charging in a bus. How long does it takes for you to cycle a battery 6000+ times? More than 5 years.
You know you are wrong on this and is trying to be protective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)
>It's not real field testing.
It actually is. Read the introduction, the author mentions exactly that.
>It was a shit expensive car
There was no industry incentives at the time. When you make small quantities of some product it will cost much more than mass producing it. That's how China is so big, btw.
>I'm mad
Oh, so you are.
>>17086 >You disproved your own point. You were talking about average efficiency and now you come with a high-end motor?
I think his point was that diesels are more efficient and common than big petrol engines. And engine technology is advancing which is making petrol more efficient anyway.
I agree with that. Another point to look at is compare recent high end German cars to their previous models. Basically all high end Audis went from 4L to 3L engines but kept the same performance. Or the BMW M3 which went from 4.4L V8 (2007) to a 3.0L l6 (2014).
>blah blah bad faith and logical fellatios
You really should try harder to understand people's posts if you want to play the moral high ground.
>>17086 >At this point you're just baiting.
I'm pretty sure you're baiting lol, because you just ignore all my points. The talk so far:
>evs are good
<no their shit
>good!
<not good enough
>you have the nirvana fallacy!!! (i don't - nirvana fallacy is that as if no solution at all is good enough)
<you have the ev braindamage (you do - you accept them as "good")
>prove that evs are bad
<*proceeds to prove*
>*proceeds to evade*
ok
>You disproved your own point.
I didn't. Diesel engines are probably about 30%. Anyway the main point is that EVs are not nearly as efficient as you paint them.
>Has much less losses from friction.
Exactly that kind of "argument" is some null argument and what the fuck are you even talking about retard? What friction? We have numbers for ICE efficiency - those have friction included, I've explained why. Drivetrain overall efficiency also was calculated in the link. What the fuck do you repeat those mantras for? To make yourself feel better? Fuck off.
>Ever heard of Strawman?
I have explained exactly why it isn't a strawman you doofus. It has to do with the fact that our power sources are 75% burning shit of the dinosaurs. That means (pretty much) the same thermal engines limitations (40% due to what? due to that obviously) apply to your beautifel electric cars. If you are that shortsighted or choose to be that shortsighted, I can do it too: hybrid cars are 97% efficient and I don't hear anything you might say about the ICE inside them lol.
>They tested fast-charging in a bus.
"Fast charging" does not reflect the way those batteries are going to be exploited. Anyway it's inconvenient to stop every 50km to recharge, it's not realistic for cars and basically you are fucking stupid for even linking that. Go find something else.
>How long does it takes for you to cycle a battery 6000+ times? More than 5 years.
The point is the real battery won't live that long. Li-ion batteries have also other issues, like that they discharge with overheating.
>You know you are wrong
I actually don't know.
I could learn something from our conversation but so far I am not convinced that LiPo batteries are not garbage, sorry. You still miss the point of them having embarrasing energy density anyway.
>There was no industry incentives at the time.
Well, are there more industry incentives now or what the fuck? The cheapest EV still costs like $20k for an inferior vehicle. That's what being a shit gimmicky car means.
>When you make small quantities of some product it will cost much more than mass producing it.
When nobody wants to buy your shit because it's garbage, there is no reason to mass produce it. Again - invent the battery, then we'll talk. The EVs you would be content with right now (with 100km reach) were invented 20 years ago. After those 20 years of progress (lol), you still feed me the same garbage whining about how urban cars don't have to go anywhere. Guess what moron, urban cars don't even have to be purchased. Get a bus.
Why are engine shits (shits as in them things, not they are shit or that they shit) being discussed in a thread about Superparus's?
This thread literally makes no sense.
Sorry for the late reply.
>>17066 >Try to post an actual counter example then.
Mitsubishi i-MiEV is a good example, if you want one (even though the concept model from 2007 was much better than the current production model).
>If massive weight is the only way
I've never said this is the "only way". That's your words.
Also, you're wrong. Most road-legal sports cars weights about 1500kg. Some examples are Mclaren 720s and Porche 911.
>Maybe show some counter evidence or shut up?
I said I was going to answer later before. So this answer also goes to >>17067 post.
The argument about reduced weight in electric cars is based on the premise that you can improve energy density of the batteries. So, if you get a normal ICE car, it weights about 1500kg (Volkswagen Golf Mk7, for example). Electric vehicles today has very close curb weight (Nissan Leaf has 1580kg, for example). You also have to acknowledge the weight of the full gasoline tank, since the weight for electric cars is measured with the energy source on it (batteries).
So there's currently not much difference in the weight between ICE and EV. But, with electric cars you can reduce this weight as batteries energy density increases. With ICE-based cars you can't do that, because the technology has plateaue'd.
You're also ignoring all other arguments about weight. It's not just the possibility of drastically reducing weight (and thus increasing efficiency), but also *how* this weight gets distributed. This makes a big difference for safety and car handling.
>Quote post numbers then.
See for start >>127067 , >>12075 and >>12076
>>17081 >Electric is the future and you know it.
Indeed.
>>17088 >diesels are more efficient and common
More efficient, yes, but not more common. "Diesel-powered cars accounted for about 3 percent of total auto sales in the United States":
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/bts_fact_sheets/oct_2015/entire >advancing which is making petrol more efficient anyway
You made the exact same point I did, in which you guys tried to ridicularize me. Except electric has the potential to improve, while ICE reached the physics limits.
So I keep my point that the other comment disproved his own argument.
>try harder to understand people's posts
I understand them, I just don't agree. That's how a discussion develops, btw.
>>17089 >you just ignore all my points
I didn't ignore any of them. If I did, please point where these are.
>>prove that evs are bad
Where exactly did you "prove" that?
>EVs are not nearly as efficient as you paint them.
The EV engine is >90% efficient. The peak for theoretical efficiency of diesel engines is about 56% maximum and gasoline is 36%. So what's your point?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html
>you are fucking stupid for even linking that.
You didn't even read the paper.
>does not reflect the way those batteries are going to be exploited.
The batteries will take much longer than we you've said to actually die. You have said 300 cycles. The paper describes at least 3000 cycles without losing any storage capacity. Even if you think their methodology is wrong (it's not), it still invalidates your arguments and show you're wrong.
>they discharge with overheating.
They do not discharge, but they do lose capacity when they are at extreme temperatures. Unless you live in a desert or in antarctica, you'll be fine. The losses are also within 20% margin, even for the most extreme temperatures.
>You still miss the point of them having embarrasing energy density anyway.
They do. I've acknowledged that in previous posts.
>there more industry incentives now [?]
Yes, much more.
>The cheapest EV still costs like $20k for an inferior vehicle.
The industry is slowly moving. The difference is normally $10k between a ICE and EV car now. I expect it to drop much more in the next years.
>The EVs you would be content with right now (with 100km reach) were invented 20 years ago.
Yeah, using acid batteries. LiPo is still not good enough (I agree), but was a big evolution since 20 years ago.
>you still feed me
I'm not a car engineer. I'm giving my opinion about EVs because I truly think it's better in most, if not all, variables. So no, I'm not "feeding" you anything. You can waste your money on whatever you like.
>Guess what moron, urban cars don't even have to be purchased.
Good point. Use a bike when you can and travel with trains. In-between those ranges, though, most people need cars. So the question is, how can we make these cars more efficient?
People will use cars anyway and that affects everybody because of pollution and noises.
>>17117 Most of the Tesla incidents with fire have happened because of collisions. Also, it's not like ICE cars with a tank full of gasoline is safe against that anyway. For informations about these Tesla incidents, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents#Tesla_Model_S_and_X >>17600 I've heard that before, the chess player pigeon.
>>17849 > You're also ignoring all other arguments about weight.
The main reason for ignoring them is that your superior EV cars are not real, at least not yet.
>Diesel-powered cars accounted for about 3 percent of total auto sales in the United States":
>which is considerably lower than 50 percent in Europe
lol
>Except electric has the potential to improve
Electric engine doesn't have the "potential" to improve and whatever there is is very good already. EVs literally only need a battery to completely BTFO every other vehicle. But they don't and they really, really suck.
>I didn't ignore any of them. If I did, please point where these are.
I won't because at this point you're not saying anything new.
>So what's your point?
I have said it multiple times. If you cannot find it, your reading comprehension is one of a kindergarten kid.
>All the piston, pumps, bearings, etc increase friction.
And you also don't know how to measure engine efficiency.
>EV is bad because of power-grid
This is not what I said. You are welcome to take another week to read that [really short] post to find what I said.
>You didn't even read the paper.
I could say more. I could doubt the credibility of the whole thing because of the EV manufacturer financing or something but I don't care enough to find more research on the matter.
Anyway if that was true, that doesn't explain the 300-500 cycles that were stated in the other place.
>Even if you think their methodology is wrong
It is right. For a bus. Bus could do more shallow cycles. Bus could be a tram even.
>I'm giving my opinion about EVs because I truly think it's better in most, if not all, variables.
The potential of EVs is evident. The real progress is lacking. Hybrid cars are far better that the garbage EVs are right now.
>>17852 >lol
And then you go on to ignore all the rest:
>"Only 1.5 percent of all light duty vehicles (including passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and all but the largest pickup trucks and vans) in Model Year 2014 were diesel-powered."
The European market for diesel is much bigger than US, but apparently Europe is banning them in cities:
https://www.dw.com/en/move-is-on-to-ban-diesel-cars-from-cities/a-42747043 >is very good already
Exactly.
>only need a battery to completely BTFO every other vehicle
Exactly again. That's what I'm saying since the fucking beginning.
>I won't because at this point you're not saying anything new.
Chess pigeon route them?
>And you also don't know how to measure engine efficiency.
The values are theoretical thermodynamic efficiency. Not real efficiency, because reality has friction. It's you that didn't understand my initial argument.
>This is not what I said.
You have. More than two times, actually. Here's one from >>17089:
>"It has to do with the fact that our power sources are 75% burning shit of the dinosaurs."
>that doesn't explain the 300-500 cycles that were stated in the other place.
They used old batteries. Newer LiPo has better efficiency.
>The potential of EVs is evident.
Exactly.
>The real progress is lacking.
There's real progress. Since 2008 lithium batteries decreased the price by half, while increasing density by 60%. But the "breakthrough" we're all waiting is complicated, because of mass production:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs/
Eventually it will happen, if electric cars get more adoption, because manufaturing will become less of and issue. And all big players have entered the game. The recent Mustang and Porche are examples, but also the obvious ones such as Nissan, Renault, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai are currently producing electric cars and pushing the industry.
So, yeah, if you want to finish this discussion here that's fine. It was a good one though, even if I disagree with your point of view. 'Godspeed'.
>>17849 >Mitsubishi i-MiEV is a good example
It weighs 1080kg and has 63hp
The VW Up weighs 930kg and has 59-114hp depending on engine.
Same size car but with an ICE engine is lighter, faster and can go more than 60 miles without refueling.
EV loses again.
>I've never said this is the "only way". That's your words.
You can't come up with a counter example though. The only high performance EVs I can see weigh over 2 tons and as you say, high performance ICE vehicles are typically closer to 1 ton.
>The argument about reduced weight in electric cars is based on the premise that you can improve energy density of the batteries
If we're living in unrealized-tech-fantasy-land then fuck EVs we should just put sea water into our cold fusion reactors to manufacture synthetic kerosene to power our flying space cars.
>>17854 >Chess pigeon route them?
I don't even know what that means.
>The values are theoretical thermodynamic efficiency.
Theoretical efficiency is one with Carnot cycle or whatever.
Those numbers with 25%, 30%, 38% are real as they were achieved with real engines. The friction is therefore included because real engines have friction.
>"It has to do with the fact that our power sources are 75% burning shit of the dinosaurs."
This shit here means that even if we achieve 100% efficiency of a power transfer (which we don't have) we wouldn't be solving an "ICE being less efficient" problem by "replacing it with an EE". Likewise, trams and such (not having battery problems) are not exactly clean, because you just burn that shit in the power plant instead of an engine inside a vehicle. This is an energy efficiency problem and an ecology problem and this cannot be ignored to the point of that we should question whether EVs are worth it at all. The fact that you don't notice that or choose to ignore that is driving me insane.
>Newer LiPo has better efficiency.
I dunno man. This here shit states the opposite.
https://3dinsider.com/lipo-lifespan/ Also, those "shallow cycles" mean you get much less value out of one cycle, meaning that discharging to say 85% five times gives us the same energy value as discharging to 25% one time. This sheer number doesn't help your case. Fortunately, people who made this paper are much more honest than you. They just do research while you shill this in a way that is not exactly applicable.
I suppose there is something to say in exploiting those batteries "past lifespan as stated by the manufacturer" but as with any dead Li-ion cells, this is going to be some miserable experience. Buses could afford losing maybe 75% of battery capacity. Cars cannot.
>Since 2008 lithium batteries decreased the price by half, while increasing density by 60%.
This is miserable. Case dismissed.
>https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs/ >the "breakthrough" we're all waiting is complicated, because of mass production:
You truly don't have any reading comprehension.
According to the article, the Envia's failure was not because of "mass production" but because they randomly found something nobody could reproduce. Which in theory means it could be found again, in some decades or centuries. From what I know, the battery chemistry is a huge gamble. It's sad.
>And all big players have entered the game.
It doesn't fucking matter who entered the game. Literally every autonomous device manufacturer wants a battery. They have been in the game for decades. This is much more diverse than shitty gimmicky cars. People have been bashing their heads against it for decades now. No luck. Not to discourage you but I wouldn't bet that it happens soon.
>>17856 >The only high performance EVs I can see weigh over 2 tons
It's worth pointing out that Formula-E cars are obviously much lighter than that (~900kg).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_SRT05e
>>17856 >>17857 Hey, I'll answer you guys later, I have some normiefag shit to do.
In the meantime:
>The fact that you don't notice that or choose to ignore that is driving me insane.
Watch the videos I've linked on >>17849
Subaru, formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries, is the successor to the Nakajima Aircraft Company, which manufactured one of the legendary Japanese planes (the Hayabusa) during World War 2, and they still produce vehicles and aerospace components for the Japanese military.
Subaru vehicles are produced using superior Japanese engineering. 4 wheel drive ensures that they can be driven in adverse conditions, not just in soyboy cities.
Subaru-Robin lawnmower engines are superior to Bricks&Scrapiron trash (unfortunately they are no longer produced, which means get your fucking hands on one before they all disappear)
Subaru is the most based car brand you can find today. Even Brenton Tarrant drove a Subaru. Why aren't you driving a Subaru, nanon?
posting here because kike admin locked /o/