A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:
$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
If you don't want to be a complete moron and assume crazy nonsense
then assume the price of fuel will be $5/ gallon before anyone even
has time to spread sheet the matter.
Then the system pays for the power plant in 14 months.
Before anyone even has time to set up a demo project the price of fuel
will be $10/gallon and electrification will pay for the power plants
in 7 months.
But spread sheeting isn't necessary to compare costs because we know
the cost of doing nothing is infinite.
Inaction ain't an option.
You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long?
What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.
It might work in a small community. Zermatt in
Switzerland banned internal combustion engine
vehicles (except for some special vehicles like
fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce
air pollution (important in this tourist town)
and because of the very narrow streets. Almost
all vehicle trffic is electric, running off
batteries. It would be much greener to have
no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.
I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.
If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.
I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, which is
understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals,
but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation.
Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and
brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by
standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC
Think about it.
. =EF=BF=BDIt would
There's a minor issue about sprung weight but in general, all the
significant waste of energy has been eliminated.
Tweaking 3% here and 2% there won't save the day when oil is going up
100% a year.
Sooner or later transportation will power off the grid, either with
some kind of energy storage or directly.
Retooling an auto line costs billions.
That's why it is often easier to prototype a new ship engine than a
vehicle engine. Ship engines are all custom made anyway.
In ten years you'll be able to go to a junk yard and get a perfectly
good traction motor or 10 kW generator for $100.
Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit
model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors
that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software.
Not up on the concept of metaphor? By 'anyone', I mean that people
who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic
specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards
for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled
Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the
last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem
of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh.
I know that people who know things aren't afraid to have concrete
technical discussions, and don't resort to personal insults. If you
or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why
don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying.
YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus, but that have to have real
numbers, not something you pull out of bret's ass. I know you can't do
this, so you'll continue with more ignorant hand waving, like that
inbred little idiot, cahil.
'Design' of what?
I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?
I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle. I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a
Mini with wheelmotors, and to have a viable control system, but the
point is that there is no magic in the technology; all the components
are there already. Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-
Sigh. Do you always start arguments without any clues?
really? They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine. You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.
How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
You've heard, but have no details? Big deal. I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one.
If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?
What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles, and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by
wire has absolutely no connection to reality.
Aren't you late for your 'Tesla is god' fan club meeting?
Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about. All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient
background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what
fly-by-wire means either.
What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity. An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit. You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
Sigh. All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive. You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is, or the problems
it causes. Your group also decries transmissions, yet they are used in
machine tools with big electric motors because the electric motors have
a different power curve than Internal combustion engines. This are
large three phase motors, run off variable frequency drives, just like
you need for an electric powered vehicle.
'Fly By Wire' replaced mechanical linkages in aircraft with
electronics and servo motors.
Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics.
Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. If you insist on
endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you.
You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been
around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD.
Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the
Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably
don't understand those either. I've answered that poster; if you
disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you
actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard.
I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you
are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4
small motors, that may weigh only 50-75 lbs each. The motor will not
be a proprietary part of the vehicle, but as with my example of
graphics cards in computers, manufacturers can compete to supply
different quality and functionality. You can swap them out yourself
if you decide to upgrade.
And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power
curves? Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has
traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors.
What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I
Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the
driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo-
steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother. If you had
reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though.
Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes.
bret shits on his floor, too. Big deal. He hasn't got a clue about
the real reasons there are so few electric powered cars, and the price
of oil isn't it.
And you know nothing of the real world, just like your lover, bret.
Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis. The more
unsprung weight, the more stress on the vehicle suspension, which
affects the handling and stability in a turn, or on a rough road. That
is another advantage of a conventional drive train.
Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, and on the existing
mounts. How do you upgrade, with those limitations? How many
horsepower do you think you'll get from a motor that size and weight?
How long do you think they will last, inside a hot tire & rim? You
idiots have no clues about the design requirements for a production
vehicle that will pass te required safety tests in the US. As far as
swapping them out yourself? Have fun. You will be doing it quite
Sigh. Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran
Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from
the ceilings. Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at
each machine. A wire brush company in Cleveland, Ohio still has them,
but stopped using them long ago. The old machines were modified to a
motor per machine cofigurations, and all new machines were built that
way, from the ground, up. The owner posts on rec.crafts.metalworking,
but don't start any crap there. They will ream you a new asshole as
they tell you why your ideas are useless, and they aren't polite with
It would play hell with your tires if you did. So you want to
eliminate the steering mechanism, as well. I hope you get to drive that
abomination some day, on a bad road. Like the two lane between
Fairbanks and Delta Junction, Alaska. You would never suggest it
again. In fact, you would likely drive off the road, and down the
mountainside where many have died while driving much safer vehicles.
Also, I would never drive any vehicle without real brakes. Your idea
is suicide when you have a motor or controller failure, which would be
quite common with millions of poorly designed crap vehicles (That you
and bret are insisting are the best design) on the road. You spit out a
load of ignorant crap, and have no clue about the engineering required
to produce a safe and efficient vehicle that will survive wrecks, severe
weather, and last long enough for a decent ROI.
Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have.
Only if you find idiots amuzing. BTW, 'Fly by Night' is a theif.
t can be done by
ard that there
Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when
you go out, right?
Yup, you're a real technology guy.
Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor
is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along,
since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis.
Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something? How would they be
Yes I'm familiar with that. But then they've also been run by
windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it
have to do with transmissions and power curves?
Well yes, but I don't think that makes me more or less qualified to
evaluate auto designs. I've also spent a bunch of hours using bobcats
and tracked excavators, and while it is fun to spin them around on the
flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try
that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench.
Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my
reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible
response I will deal with it.
Your ignorance is depressing. Have you ever designed anything
mechanical in your sorry life?
Yes, i am. I built Telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry.
You, on the other hand, couldn't buy a clue if they were but a penny.
If it isn't inside the wheel, additional load is applied to the motor
bearings. Of course if you knew anything about Physics, you wouldn't
make so many ignorant statements.
Sigh. Did you fail third grade science class? You still can't grasp
what 'unsprung' means. Heaven forbid you actually crack a book, and try
to learn something.
Have you ever heard of intetia? Do you have any idea why you want to
keep most of the vehicle's mass moving in one plane? I guess the sring
inside your nearly empty head has snapped, at last.
I gess that you're too stupid to live. If you weren't, you would
know the answers.
So, you're a dangerous fool, too. That is no surprise.
Incohernt? That's a laugh. You know as little about physics as your
butt buddy, bret.
Does this mean your some kind of cross dresser or drag queen? I know
you aren't a dairy in Florida.